The "Credo of Relevance" in post-behavioralism reflects a significant shift in political science from a focus on abstract, value-neutral inquiry to an emphasis on relevance, action, and moral responsibility. Post-behavioralism emerged as a reaction against the behavioralist approach, which prioritized empirical precision, scientific detachment, and the development of techniques over substantive issues. The post-behavioralists, led by figures like David Easton, argued that political science must be relevant to the pressing needs of society and should engage actively with the real-world problems it studies.
The first principle of the Credo of Relevance is the idea that "substance must precede technique." This means that political inquiry should prioritize significant, real-world issues over the development of precise but potentially irrelevant methodologies. Post-behavioralists criticized behavioralism for being overly concerned with methodological rigor at the expense of addressing substantive social and political problems. They argued that it is better to be somewhat vague in addressing important issues than to be meticulously precise about topics that do not matter to the broader society.
Central to post-behavioralism is the idea that political science should be relevant and actionable. The post-behavioralists believed that political science must respond to the needs and crises of society, rather than remaining an abstract and detached discipline. They contended that political scientists have a moral obligation to engage with the world, not merely to understand it but to act on that understanding to effect positive change. This is encapsulated in the idea that "to know is to bear the responsibility for acting," meaning that knowledge in political science carries with it the duty to engage in societal transformation.
Post-behavioralism also emphasized the historical role of intellectuals in safeguarding and promoting human values. According to the Credo of Relevance, political scientists are not just passive observers but active participants in shaping society. The concept of "action science" reflects this commitment to an engaged and proactive form of scholarship. Action science is characterized by its focus on addressing contemporary conflicts and challenges within society, using political science not just to analyze but to influence and reshape the social and political landscape.
This approach marks a departure from the more contemplative, value-neutral science of the 19th century, which operated under the assumption of a shared moral consensus. In contrast, action science recognizes that contemporary societies are often characterized by deep divisions and conflicts over values and ideals. Post-behavioralists argued that these conflicts should not be ignored but rather should inform and direct the research agenda of political science.
Finally, the post-behavioral revolution is future-oriented, seeking to propel political science in new and more relevant directions. It is not about rejecting all past methodologies or returning to some idealized past but rather about advancing the discipline to meet the challenges of the present and future. By advocating for a more engaged, responsible, and relevant form of political inquiry, post-behavioralism aimed to make political science a more impactful and socially responsive discipline.
In summary, the Credo of Relevance in post-behavioralism advocates for an "action science" that prioritizes substance over technique, relevance over abstraction, and moral responsibility over value-neutrality. This approach seeks to align political science with the real-world needs and crises of society, emphasizing the role of the political scientist not just as a researcher but as an active participant in shaping and improving the world.
What about critical theory?
Critical theory offers another significant perspective in political science and social theory that aligns in some ways with the post-behavioralist emphasis on action and relevance, but with a distinct focus and methodology. Originating from the Frankfurt School, critical theory is concerned with critiquing and transforming society by uncovering and challenging the power structures and ideologies that perpetuate inequality, oppression, and domination.
Critical theory goes beyond the traditional aims of understanding or explaining society; it seeks to challenge and change social conditions. It is inherently normative, driven by a commitment to emancipatory social change. The central goal is not just to analyze social phenomena, but to critique the societal structures that sustain systems of power, and to envision and work toward a more just society.
Critical theorists argue that traditional and behavioral social sciences often reinforce the status quo by focusing on objectivity, neutrality, and empirical observation, without questioning the underlying power relations and ideologies that shape society. This critique is similar to the post-behavioralist rejection of value-neutrality in political science, but critical theory is more explicitly concerned with exposing how these seemingly objective approaches can serve to mask or legitimize oppression.
For instance, Jürgen Habermas, a leading figure in critical theory, criticized the positivist orientation of much of social science, arguing that it fails to consider the social and historical contexts in which knowledge is produced and the ways in which this knowledge can be used to maintain social control.
Critical theory emphasizes the concept of praxis, which is the combination of theory and practice aimed at social transformation. Like post-behavioralism's call for "action science," critical theory insists that social scientists have a responsibility to engage in the process of emancipation. However, critical theory places a stronger emphasis on the role of ideology and power in shaping social consciousness and believes that true social change requires not only practical action but also a deep transformation of societal structures and collective consciousness.
In contemporary contexts, critical theory remains highly relevant, particularly in its analysis of capitalism, globalization, and neoliberalism. It provides tools for understanding how economic and political systems reproduce inequality and for imagining alternative forms of social organization. Critical theory also engages with issues of race, gender, and identity, analyzing how these intersecting forms of oppression are maintained and resisted.
While both post-behavioralism and critical theory emphasize the importance of relevance and action in social science, critical theory is more explicitly concerned with issues of power, ideology, and emancipation. Post-behavioralism reacts against the perceived irrelevance and abstraction of behavioralism, advocating for a political science that directly addresses societal needs and crises. Critical theory, on the other hand, provides a more radical critique, arguing that social science must not only address relevant issues but also actively work to dismantle the structures of domination that underpin those issues.
In summary, critical theory aligns with post-behavioralism in its call for a socially engaged and relevant social science, but it goes further in its emphasis on power, ideology, and the transformative potential of social critique. Critical theory challenges scholars to not only understand and explain social phenomena but also to critique and transform the societal structures that perpetuate inequality and injustice.