In the
posting leading to this one, it was reported that a charge has been made against
the use of political systems model as a theoretical guide for political science
research. The charge is that the use of
the model tended to make its corresponding view of government and politics as
having a mechanical quality. This
posting will further explain what is meant by that determination.
The main concern is that political science is not a natural
science such as physics, chemistry, and biology, but a human science. Despite this, the move toward the systems
model made political studies a study that saw its subject as a machine with
automated responses to different stimuli under specific conditions. This is another way of saying that the model
is deterministic in the way it describes and explains political behavior.
In the previous posting, David Easton is quoted on this issue,
indicating his recognition of the charge and how his treatment of systems
modeling introduced an organic element that, in turn, describes political
systems as self-adjusting entities. By
such an alteration of pure behaviorist theorizing, the model overcomes the
inclination of being mechanical, or so Easton indicates.
But the question remains: is systems theory, with the organism
element in place, human enough? That is
a debate still waged in some circles.
But what is not debatable is that behavioral-leaning political
scientists were (are) sensitive to the charge of being mechanical. This has the implication that their work is
not sufficiently sensitive to human qualities.
The critics say such theoretical shifting does little to capture
how rich a reaction to situational conditions can be. While it recognizes such factors as emotions,
it lacks insight into what and how emotions and other more qualitative
variables affect the phenomenon under study.
Is the notion that by merely adding an “O” (for an organic element) to
the S-R (stimulus-response behaviorist model), the model would be able to
recognize and account for human concerns?
Would it be able to detect how the system can react to its environmental
conditions? The critics believe that it
cannot.
This criticism runs along a fine line of distinction. For example, one can measure how often
reactive statements are made to a certain stimulus, but can it account fully for
the tone in which the statements are made or the power enjoyed by the sender of
such statements due to his/her reputation or some other quality? Perhaps to a point, but not totally and, in
the opinion of critics, not adequately.
Helpful to this concern might be a view of how systems analysis is
applied to other areas of human endeavor.
One area would be business operations.
Much rethinking in business strategizing has directed attention to making
business models more sensitive to “human” needs, but these newer focuses are
haunted by established biases which tend to be more behaviorist in their orientation
(see for example, Jim Collin’s work, Good
to Great,[1] for a description of how
these debates are carried out).
But there is a record on how the more mechanistic view of government
has affected public policy. Probably the
most telling and visible example is how systems view led to policemen cruising
their beats in squad cars. This replaced
officers walking the neighborhood and, consequently, not getting to know the
citizens whom they are there to protect to be more “efficient.”
When this policy bias is instituted among all the various
governmental operations, the result is conflicting perceptions of “we” versus
“them” and too little of “us” among the public servants who are there to serve
the public. A mechanistic view of
governance is, of course, not limited to policing but describes too much of how
government bureaucracies face their responsibilities in general.
Of course, this view is not only found in government offices such
as the DMV. It can also be seen in the
tone and descriptions of government and politics in the nation’s civics courses. Unfortunately, it can even be reflected, for
the most part, in the policies issued by school district offices, state
education departments, and the federal government’s Department of Education.
This blog has argued that the systems approach, as it has been applied
to secondary study, is relatively lacking in an organic sense, much less a
humanistic sense in its treatment of governmental operations and the activities
of those who try to influence public policy.
Whether those who are concerned with this debate see developments in
systems sufficient or not is of little interest here. If behaviorism is purely, partly, or not at
all deterministic, is a concern for political scientists and only indirectly of
importance to civics educators. Here, the
more important concern is how mechanistic a view of government and politics has
seeped into the nation’s civics curriculum and its corresponding instruction.
[1] Jim Collins, Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap … and Others
Don't, (New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers, Inc. 2001).
[1] Jim Collins, Good to Great: Why Some Companies Make the Leap … and Others
Don't, (New York, NY: HarperCollins Publishers, Inc. 2001).
No comments:
Post a Comment