POLITICAL THEORY MEANING AND APPROACHES:

In the study of Social Sciences, the approaches are extremely important because they
help us in identifying the problems for our study and deciding on the appropriate data to
be used. an approach suggests its own method while the vice versa is not true. For
instance, behavioural approach is linked to scientific method and normative approach
has association with philosophical method.
For complete Notes
Buy from Instamojo at ₹99 Only

NORMATIVE APPROACH:
The normative conception in political theory is known by different names. Some people
prefer to call it philosophical theory, while others refer to it as ethical theory. The
normative conception is based on the belief that the world and its events can be
interpreted in terms of logic, purpose and ends with the help of the theorist’s intuition,
reasoning, insights and experiences. In other words, it is a project of philosophical
speculation about values. The questions, which are asked by the normativists, would
be: what should be the end of political institutions? What should inform the relationship
between the individual and other social organisations? What arrangements in society
can become model or ideal and what rules and principles should govern it? One may
say that their concerns are moral and the purpose is to build an ideal type. Hence, it is
these theorists who have always conceived ‘utopia’ in the realm of political ideas
through their powerful imagination. Normative political theory leans heavily towards
political philosophy, because it derives its knowledge of the good life from it and also
uses it as a framework in its endeavour to create absolute norms. In fact, their tools of
theorisation are borrowed from political philosophy and therefore, they always seek to
establish inter-relationships among concepts and look for coherence in the phenomena
as well as in their theories, which are typical examples of a philosophical outlook. Leo
Strauss has strongly advocated the case for normative theory and has argued that
political things by nature are subject to approval or disapproval and it is difficult to judge
them in any other terms, except as good or bad and justice or injustice. But the problem
with the normativists is that while professing values which they cherish, they portray
them as universal and absolute. They do not realise that their urge to create absolute
standards for goodness is not without pitfalls. Ethical values are relative to time and
space with a heavy subjective content in them, which precludes the possibility of any
creation of absolute standard. We will do well to remember 17 What is Political Theory:
Two Approaches – Normative and Empirical that even a political theorist is a subjective
instrument in the assessment of the world and these insights are conditioned by many
factors, which may be ideological in nature. The exponents of empirical theory criticise
normativism for: a) Relativity of values b) Cultural basis of ethics and norms c)
Ideological content in the enterprise and d) Abstract and utopian nature of the project
But in the distant past those who championed normative theory always tried to connect
their principles with the understanding of the reality of their times.
Normative approach poses questions based on ‘norms’ or ‘standards’ in the study of
social sciences with an aim to appraise values. Unlike ​the empirical approach that is
concerned about ‘what happened and why’ the normative approach emphasises ‘what
should have happened’​.
Occasionally, the normative approach may be based on empirical postulations to elicit
how or what a particular situation should be or what the state of affairs in a country
should have been. For instance, if the issue of war is the major theme of inquiry, the
normative approach may seek help from the empirical assumptions to explain the
causes of war or the prospects of peace along with the basic normative question
whether war as a means of resolving international disputes is justified or not.
The normative approach highlights its inclination towards a specific arrangement of
things or an order that emanates from a​ commitment to a moral duty or universal
necessity.
There are certain other assumptions, which are essentially normative but can also be
proved valid empirically. Consider a statement like, ‘corruption ought to end in order to
make the functioning of the government transparent and pro-people.’ This kind of
statement, despite being a normative assumption, satisfies the empirical testing as well
because on the basis of verifiable data about the working of governments across the
world it can be proved that a political system having minimum corruption has a
government that is adequately transparent and committed to the welfare of the people.
The most common criticism against the normative approach is that​ it is subjective
whereas the empirical approach is objective.
EMPIRICAL APPROACH
normative political theory is debunked as a mere statement of opinion and preferences.
The drive for value – free theory started in order to make the field of political theory
scientific and objective and hence, a more reliable guide for action. This new orientation
came to be known as Positivism. Under the spell of positivism, political theorists set out
to attain scientific knowledge about political phenomena based on the principle which
could be empirically verified and proved
a) Encouragement to quantitative technique in analysis
b) Demolition of the normative framework and promotion of empirical research which
can be susceptible to statistical tests
c) Non – acceptance and rejection of the history of ideas
d) Focus on micro–study as it was more amenable to empirical treatment Introducing
Political Theory
e) Glorification of specialisation
f) Procurement of data from the behaviour of the individual and g) Urge for value – free
research
Buy from Instamojo @₹99 only

INSTITUTIONAL APPROACH
A thorough investigation of political institutions in order to study the discipline of political
science is called the institutional approach.
an institutional approach in the study of political science implies ​a detailed study of the
government, its structures, and the body of rules​ within which it is required to operate
and also a thorough examination of its various organs.
Besides, the study of political parties, their structures, ideologies and functioning that
have linkages with political processes forms a significant segment of institutional
approach.
The institutional approach includes the study of all forms of governments. Additionally
the institutional approach also emphasises on the inquiry of levels of government which
means whether the levels of governance pertain to federal, state or local institutions.
The approach also prescribes the analysis of the powers and functioning of the organs
of government such as legislature, executive and judiciary.

shortcomings of this approach​ i) It is exclusively focused on political institutions. As a

result, the individual, the primary actor in the political process has been totally
discounted in the institutional approach. It led to a situation that the​ study of voting
behaviour and political preferences of an individual was ignored
ii) in the area of international politics the adherents of institutional approach restrict their
studies only to the investigation of international political institutions such as the United
Nations and its allied agencies and ​completely ignore the subject-matter of international
politics such as​ foreign policy, diplomacy, international law ​and so on;
iii) since it is concerned with the study of only established political institutions, it totally
ignores the consideration of other ​phenomena like violence, political movements and
agitations, wars, revolution and the scourge of our times, terrorism,​ which certainly
influence politics;
iv) finally, it also overlooks the position and ​influence of informal groups​ that have an
effect on the politics of almost all states
BEHAVIOURAL APPROACH
contemporary definition of behavioural approach as provided by Geoffrey K Roberts in
A Dictionary of Political Analysis, published in 1971: “Political behaviour, as an area of
study within political science, is concerned with those aspects of human behaviour that
take place within a state or other political community, for political purposes or with
political motivation. Its focus is the individual person- as voter, leader, revolutionary,
party member, opinion leader etc. rather than the group or the political system, but it
necessarily takes account of the influences of the group on the individual’s behaviour,
the constraints of the system on the individual’s opportunities for action, and the effects
of the political culture on his attitude and political habits.”

CRITICISM TO BEHAVIOURALISM : Behaviouralism has been criticized by both

conservative and radical political scientists for its so-called attempt to ​make the
discipline value-free.​ For the conservative the behavioural approach is a serious threat
to the possibility of political philosophy. According to Christian Bay, behaviouralism was
nothing but a pseudo-political science because it did not represent ‘genuine’ political
research. His major point of criticism was that behavioural approach attached too much
importance to empiricism and overlooked normative and ethical examination of political
science. The radical critics point out that it is not possible to study political science by
separating facts from values.

MARXIST APPROACH:
Marxist approach to politics is that the​ political process is considered to be incapable
of resolving the prevalent class conflict ​because the politics is itself used by the
dominant class to suppress the deprived class. In Marxist analysis, so long as classes
exist in society, the state and political process will continue to be used as tools of the
dominant class for oppressing the dependent class commonly known as workers.

Criticism to Marxist approach​ have not only been set forth by the supporters of free
market economy or the agents of established religions but also by the political left,
democratic socialists and social democrats. The main thrust of the criticism is that​ the
institutions of society and state cannot be fully comprehended merely on the bases of
class conflict, capitalists’ domination and the proletarian revolution​. Many liberal
democrats and even anarchists completely reject the idea of a transitory period of
proletariat dictatorship. The economists, especially those who are wedded to free
market economy and neoliberalism criticise Marxian approach for discarding the
institution of private property and recommending state control of major means of
production. In their opinion​ such an approach is not only inadequate to explain political,
social and economic institutions but it is also impracticable and against human nature.

POST MARXIST APPROACH

Thus, post-Marxist approach to social theory came to be recognised around 1960. It
became an important tool of analysis of political theory because of the failure of the
Soviet model to replicate itself beyond the USSR.
the writings of two thinkers, Louis Althusser and Michel Focault, majorly shaped the
post-Marxist theory, the other philosophers and intellectuals too added to the economic,
historical, feminist, literary and cultural dimensions of the theory. These thinkers include
Judith Butler, John Frow, Richard Wolf, Ernesto Laclau, Tony Bennett et al. The
post-Marxist theory, instead of underscoring the primacy of class struggle and the
humanist concerns about the exploited and oppressed sections of society,​ brings into
focus the sexual, class and ethnic division​ that exist in almost all societies. In this sense
post-Marxism is a critique of Marxism and also presents an alternative theory.
Firstly, post-Marxism claims that socialism is a catastrophe as a theory of economics
and society. The subsequent theories that have either borrowed from socialism or made
adaptations to explain society are equally phony.

Secondly, the post-Marxist thinkers contend that Marxist stress on social classes is
reductionist to say the least, for the classes are bound to break up. The real criteria for
the political division of society are embedded in varied identities such as race, (in case
of India, caste), gender, ethnicity, sexual preference etc.
Thirdly, the institution of state is inimical to democracy and freedom. It has also failed
miserably to give out the benefit of the welfare state. The post-Marxists want that state
should be replaced by civil society that can ensure democracy with much more sincerity
and also bring about social transformation for better.
Fourthly, the idea of central planning devised by the socialist state also comes under
scrutiny by the post-Marxists. They argue that it is basically a product of a powerful
bureaucracy, which creates roadblocks for the efficient exchange of goods between
producers. They also affirm that markets (with limited regulations if not completely free)
can augment more consumption and can also guarantee professional distribution.
The fifth assertion of post-Marxism is that the socialists’ struggle for capturing political
power is actually corrupting the political systems as a result of which authoritarian
regimes keep emerging. These regimes suppress democracy, freedom and civil society.

Sixthly, revolutions in the contemporary scenario are either a very difficult possibility or
even if brought about, they lead to disgusting consequences. More often than not, social
transformation by means of revolution leads to the emergence of authoritarian rule.

Seventh, classes no longer exist. In the contemporary situation, the post-Marxists

emphasise, there are ‘fragmented locales’ where specific groups having distinct
identities and residing in specific localities are engaged in the process of self-help and
sustain by means of cooperation and outside support.

The eighth claim of the post-Marxists is that class struggle does not lead to concrete
results. It can only create social upheavals, destruction and defeat.

Criticism to post marxism: The critics of post-Marxists, point out that though they
pretend not to have a political agenda and their arguments constitute an independent
theory, the fact is that they directly or indirectly strengthen the neoliberals and injure the
interests of the working class
The critics also allege that the post-Marxist organisations are nurtured and financed by
the world funding agencies and local governments with specific agenda to promote
neo-liberalism.

FEMINIST APPROACH TO POLITICAL THEORY​:

we may say that feminism makes attempts to bring into light an approach to the study
of social sciences that ​helps establish, promote and define social concepts from the
point of view of gender egalitarianism rather than the male perspective that has been
the case till recently.

A feminist approach to political theory emphasises issues such as gender politics,

power relations, sexist characteristics of political ideas and structures, women’s rights,
discrimination based on gender, stereotyping of gender roles, sexual objectification,
oppression of the weaker sex and patriarchy.
A ​liberal feminist​ theory is about equality of man and woman in the realms of politics
and law that must be​ achieved by legal and structural reforms.
a​ socialist feminist​ theory establishes linkages between oppression of women and
exploitation of workers
A​ radical feminis​t approach to political theory advocates​ complete demolition of
male-controlled capitalist hierarchy that is the root cause of discrimination against
women ​and reconstructing a society based on absolute gender equality.
A ​Marxist-feminist​ approach puts forward the notion tha​t elimination of class
oppression will lead to elimination of gender oppression.

It has made gender politics as the central issue in discernment of oppression.

rejects the anthropological theories of division of labour because they have been written
from male point of view because they directly strengthen women’s subordination in
economic and political spheres.
feminist approach to political theory is its reluctance to accept heterosexuality as an
absolute fact. It presupposes that the worth of a woman lies in getting married to a man
and serving his sexual, emotional and domestic need.