Evolution of Political Theory

Ancient Greek Philosophers perceived politics as a subdivision of philosophy driven by ideals and ethics. Socrates, a prominent philosopher, believed in the interconnectedness of politics and ethics, asserting that they are inseparable.
These philosophers aimed for a fulfilled life enriched with knowledge, which influenced their belief in the value and virtue of the state. Socrates and Plato played foundational roles in establishing the basis of political science, while ancient Greeks also cultivated critical thinking and dialectical methods.
Aristotle, Plato’s student, introduced practical considerations into political thought, earning him the title of the “father of Political Science.” Aristotle aimed to elevate political science to a comprehensive discipline, integrating it with other fields of knowledge. Both Plato and Aristotle viewed the state as a source of virtue and a natural institution designed to uphold equality and justice.
Despite similarities, Plato and Aristotle diverged in their concepts of the state and rulers. The emphasis on the state and community over individuals led to a devaluation of individuality and human dignity. This devaluation is evident in Aristotle’s theory of slavery, which reflects a disregard for the individual’s worth.
During medieval times, political science existed as a sub-discipline under the religious authority of the church and the state. This period is often viewed as a dark era, characterized by the overshadowing influence of religion and the subordination of state authority to the church. The concept of divine rights theory of kingship emerged during this time, granting rulers unchecked power to govern.
The Renaissance, Reformation, and Enlightenment movements brought about a significant shift in perspective. These movements emphasized the central importance of human life and profoundly impacted Western political thought, leading to transformative changes.
Towards the end of the medieval period, Machiavelli introduced a realist approach to political science. His work, “The Prince,” advocated for a separation between politics, ethics, and religion, promoting a pragmatic view of politics.
Incorporating principles from science, thinkers like Thomas Hobbes and Descartes approached political questions with a scientific mindset, aiming to understand them systematically.
The emergence of utilitarianism marked a transformative moment in Western political thought. This philosophy cantered on pursuing human pleasure as the foundation for political decisions.
Overall, the medieval era witnessed the subordination of political thought to religious and state authorities. The subsequent Renaissance, Reformation, and Enlightenment movements brought attention to human significance.
The introduction of Machiavelli’s realism, the integration of scientific principles by thinkers like Hobbes and Descartes, and the rise of utilitarianism all played pivotal roles in reshaping Western political thought, moving it away from religious dominance and embracing a more pragmatic and human-centred approach.
Thinkers like John Locke and Rousseau contributed to the development of modern liberal democratic political thought by introducing concepts like popular sovereignty and emphasizing human cooperation.
This laid the groundwork for valuing principles such as liberty, equality, and justice, which were crucial in inspiring movements like the American and French revolutions.
The pursuit of markets and colonies during the same era led to a rise in imperialism, both on a global scale and within Western nations. This period also witnessed a widening gap between the rich and the poor.
In response to growing inequality, socialism emerged as a countermeasure, advocating for a more equitable redistribution of resources. Prominent figures like Charles Fourier, Saint Simon, and Robert Owen championed the cause of fair resource distribution.
The Industrial Revolution introduced new production methods, such as the factory system, which often resulted in the exploitation of workers due to capitalism’s profit-driven nature.
Karl Marx critically examined the dominance of the bourgeoisie in the economic hierarchy and developed a class-based interpretation of politics. Marx’s dialectical materialism presented an alternative perspective to Hegel’s idealism, highlighting the concept of false consciousness within ideology and emphasizing the necessity of revolutionary change for achieving absolute equality and justice.
The transformation in political theory is evident when comparing classical and modern approaches. Classical thinkers prioritized knowledge and sought societal order, stability, and harmony.
In contrast, modern thinkers brought political inquiry closer to scientific methods, focusing on objectivity and exploring actual realities rather than hypothetical assumptions.
The endeavor to establish a science of politics is a distinctively modern pursuit involving interdisciplinary methodologies and relying on empirical facts for theorization.
Both major contemporary ideological streams, liberalism and Marxism, claim to provide scientific frameworks for understanding the global political landscape.
In conclusion, the journey of political theory has undergone significant shifts in focus, scope, methodology, and objectives. The ideas of thinkers like Locke, Rousseau, and Marx have shaped the foundations of modern political thought, ranging from democratic principles to critiques of inequality and capitalism.

Approaches in Political Science

What is an approach?

In general parlance, approach means various ways or methods that can be applied to study, understand, and examine particular phenomena or subjects.
In Political Science, the approach is considered a defining criterion for selecting problems, reliable data, and appropriate procedures for utilizing them to arrive at a conclusion.
In Social Sciences, the term approach is sometimes interchanged with the term method. However, a method is a procedure for obtaining and utilizing data, while an approach focuses on their selection.
Thus, an approach may belong to a particular method, but a method may not always be attached to a particular approach. For example, a behavioural approach is also a scientific method, and a normative approach is a philosophical method.

Traditional Approaches

Normative Approach/Philosophical Approaches

The philosophical approach, originating as a sub-discipline of philosophy, is the oldest perspective within political science.
Classical scholars primarily dealt with normative or philosophical issues like justice, equality, and individual rights and liberties.
Socrates and Plato made significant contributions to philosophical thought, particularly in politics

Socrates

Socrates, regarded as the father of philosophy, introduced the “theory of knowledge” which emphasized the understanding of abstract ideas as true knowledge.
Socrates advocated logical reasoning and dialectics as the means to attain this superior knowledge.
He argued that knowledge about the ever-changing physical world is impermanent, while knowledge from the enduring world of ideas is lasting.

Criticsm

In the post-World War II era, behaviouralism rose in prominence, critiquing the philosophical approach. Behaviouralists prioritized the study of empirical facts over normative concerns, aiming to make political science a “pure science.”
Lord Bryce emphasized the critical importance of empirical evidence, stating unequivocally, “We need facts, facts, and facts.”
Critics argued that philosophical theories lacked verifiability and were divorced from reality.

Philosophical theories faced criticism for being labelled as ‘armchair theories.’ Detractors argued that they lack verifiability, rendering them an unreliable source of knowledge. Additionally, these theories were accused of inherent bias and detachment from reality.
Despite criticism, the philosophical approach remains a valuable perspective within political science, often complementing other approaches for a comprehensive understanding of political phenomena
Contemporary scholars like John Rawls, Leo Strauss, Isaiah Berlin, and Dante Germino defend the philosophical approach within political science, considering it valuable and well-suited for the discipline.
Politics is a highly intricate field, and the selection of an approach should be contingent upon the specific research objectives. Relying solely on a single approach is seldom adequate, as the multifaceted nature of political phenomena necessitates combining different approaches to gain a comprehensive understanding.

Historical Approach

This approach is also one of the oldest in the study of politics. It is often viewed as the simplest and grounded in common-sense principles, forming the basis for understanding politics and constructing theories.
History and politics are closely intertwined. Even in traditional international politics, the study has historically been cantered on “diplomatic history.” The relationship between the two disciplines is explained by the scholars as –

‘If history is a root, politics is a shoot’.

‘History is past politics, politics is present history’.

Machiavelli:

Machiavelli strongly advocated the use of history as a means to comprehend politics. He believed that, for a ruler (the prince), history was a more practical and informative guide than philosophy.

In modern times, scholars such as Laski and Sabine have favoured the historical approach.

Laski:

Laski asserted that every intellectual thinker is a product of their era.

He emphasized that no political idea can be truly understood without considering the historical context in which it arises.

Sabine:

According to Sabine, political ideas emerge during critical historical phases.

He characterized the historical approach as one grounded in common sense, aligning with the need for a robust approach to political understanding.

Sabine identified three key requirements for this approach: being factual, understanding causality, and providing evaluations.

Challenges
The historical approach, while popular, faces several significant challenges:

Vastness of History: History is an extensive field, making it a challenging task to locate and extract relevant data for specific political inquiries. The sheer volume of historical information can be overwhelming.

Relevance of Historical Concepts: Not all historical concepts align with contemporary political ideas. Concepts like the philosopher king or communism, while important in political science, might not have historical counterparts.

Politicization of History: History as a discipline can be highly politicized. Edward Said’s work, “Orientalism,” illustrates how historical writing has often been a political project, influenced by the biases and interests of historians.

Selective Use of History: Political scholars may not always use history in a rigorous and scientific manner. Like Machiavelli, they might selectively choose historical examples that align with their political agendas, potentially leading to biased interpretations.

Historicism and Ideology: Critics, such as Karl Popper, have pointed out the dangers of historicism, where political scholars interpret history in ideological terms. For instance, when Marx explains history as a product of class struggle, it serves a clear political purpose.

Dependency on History: John Plamanetz argues against over-reliance on history to understand political ideas. He suggests that political ideas should be comprehended through logical analysis rather than being excessively tied to historical narratives.

Empirical approach

Aspect Empirical Approach Normative/Philosophical Approach

1. Approach Nature Study of facts Study of Ideas

2. Method Observation Method: Logic

3. Purpose Descriptive (They describe what reality is) Prescriptive or Normative (They tell what should be)

4. Criteria True and false The criteria is right and wrong

5. Orientation Status quoist Change oriented

Empirical Approach vs. Scientific Approach:
The Empirical Approach primarily involves observation but does not inherently become scientific on its own. It typically lacks the rigor of the scientific method, including verification, measurement, and a commitment to being free from bias.

Machiavelli:

Machiavelli proposed an empirical approach alongside the historical approach. He cautioned rulers (princes) against dwelling in the realm of abstract ideas and instead recommended a focus on observing and understanding things as they are. In essence, he advocated for a practical, real-world approach.

If Plato emphasized philosophy (what ought to be), Machiavelli stressed the importance of observation (what is).

Aristotle:

Aristotle serves as a bridge between Plato and Machiavelli.

His theory of forms highlights the interdependence between ideas and matter, emphasizing the coexistence of the world of being (ideal forms) and the world of becoming (material reality).

John Locke:

John Locke favoured empiricism over Socrates’ theory of knowledge. He rejected the notion that knowledge is inherently imprinted on the human soul.

Instead, Locke proposed that the human mind is like a “tabula rasa” or a clean slate, and knowledge is acquired through experience.

According to Locke, observation and experience play a central role in shaping human knowledge.

Institutional – legal

The Institutional Approach in political science can trace its origins back to the works of the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle. Aristotle examined and classified the constitutions of various Greek city-states, which laid some of the early foundations for understanding political institutions.

This approach is closely associated with the Legal Approach, as it often involves the study of formal political institutions, their structures, functions, and legal aspects.

Traditionally, political science has centred on the study of the state and government. Governments, in turn, consist of various institutions and organs, such as the legislature (parliament), executive (president or administration), and judiciary (courts).

The Institutional Approach strongly emphasizes understanding these governmental structures and their roles in the political process.

Additionally, it extends its scope to encompass political parties and other formal political organizations integral to the political landscape.

In the Institutional Approach, an institution is defined as a hierarchical system of officers and agents, each with specific functions and powers. These institutions are characterized as persistent systems of activities and expectations, representing stable patterns of group behaviour.

The methodology employed in this approach is often descriptive and institutional. It involves studying the processes and functions of particular institutions within a political system.

The goal is to provide valuable insights into the organization of these institutions, discuss potential reforms, and offer general conclusions about their performance.

Several notable political thinkers and scholars have adopted and contributed to the Institutional Approach.

Polybius, who studied the Roman Republic’s mixed constitution;

Finer, known for his work on comparative government;

James Bryce, a renowned political scientist and historian;

J. Laski, who delved into the nature of political authority;

Maurice Duverger, a prominent scholar of political parties;

G.A. Almond, who made significant contributions to the study of comparative politics

Criticsm

Critics of the Institutional Approach argue several limitations.

They contend that it is primarily descriptive, lacking the ability to construct wide-reaching theories.

Some argue that it may not be applicable to developing countries or situations with distinct political dynamics.

Another criticism is its perceived overemphasis on formal institutions while neglecting the influence of individuals, informal groups, and informal political activities that can significantly impact these institutions.

It is criticized for its limited utility in the study of international politics, as it primarily focuses on organizations like the United Nations and its affiliates.

Contemporary approaches

The emergence of contemporary political science can be traced back to the 19th century, a period marked by the rapid growth of the natural sciences. This era witnessed a growing enthusiasm for the creation of new social sciences, including political science.

A significant milestone in the development of political science as a distinct discipline occurred in the United States. The American Political Science Association played a pivotal role in this process. The association’s efforts led to the establishment of political science as an autonomous discipline, separating it from fields such as history, philosophy, economics, and law.

Instead, political science was brought closer to disciplines like sociology, anthropology, and others within the social sciences. This shift in focus and the formalization of political science as an independent field allowed for the systematic study and analysis of political phenomena, institutions, and processes, contributing to the growth and evolution of the discipline into what we recognize today.

Behaviouralism

The behavioural approach in political science represents a profound shift in the discipline’s epistemology and even its ontology. This approach brings about a comprehensive transformation, affecting not only the methods employed but also the scope and nature of the discipline itself. Due to the profound changes it ushers in, behaviouralism is often referred to as a “revolution” in political science, although some scholars may also describe it as a “movement.”

Contemporary approaches in political science find their roots in the works of Graham Wallas (“Human Nature in Politics”) and Arthur Bentley (“The Process of Government”).

These approaches prioritize the study of political processes over a sole focus on political institutions.

Traditional theories often depicted humans as rational beings, but modern psychology revealed the complexity of human nature.

Wallas emphasized the importance of exploring facts and evidence to understand human nature and its expression in human behaviours.

The political process, according to Wallas, can be comprehended by analysing how people actually behave in political situations, moving away from mere speculation about how they should behave.

This empirical approach marked a departure from traditional political thought, shaping contemporary approaches in political science.

The contributions of scholars like Robert Dahl, Phillip Converse, and David Easton brought about a shift in the field. Instead of primarily focusing on political institutions or the interpretation of legal texts, they redirected attention toward the study of political behaviour.

This transformation led political scientists to delve into the understanding of political processes such as political socialization, political ideologies, political culture, political participation, leadership, and even political violence.

Achieving comprehension in these areas necessitated interdisciplinary research, underlining the evolving nature of political science

Emergence of Behaviouralism

The emergence of behaviouralism in political science can be understood within the context of several historical circumstances:

Post-World War II Academic Conferences: Academic conferences that took place in the aftermath of World War II were held under the auspices of the United Nations. These conferences invited scholars from various disciplines to provide insights and ideas for post-war reconstruction and development. Interestingly, political scholars were notably absent from these gatherings, reflecting the perception that their field had little relevant contributions to offer. At this point, political science had become a somewhat stagnant discipline.

Focus on Historical Scholarship: Political scholars at the time were primarily engaged in the study of historical ideas and concepts rather than addressing contemporary issues. Historically-oriented scholars like Sabine and Dunning were deeply involved in writing the history of Western philosophy, spanning from Plato to Marx. This historical focus led to a disconnect from pressing real-world concerns.

Lack of Scientific Methods: In contrast to disciplines like sociology, which had long incorporated scientific methods and positivism into their research approaches, political science lagged behind in adopting rigorous scientific methods. The field had not yet embraced empirical research techniques or a positivist mindset.

Theoretical and Armchair Nature: Many political theories of the time were characterized as “armchair theories,” developed in a theoretical and often abstract manner with limited practical relevance. These theories lacked empirical grounding and practical applicability, further underscoring the need for a shift toward more scientific and behavior-oriented approaches in political science.

Charles E. Merriam:

He is the founder of the Chicago School, offered critical insights in his book “New Aspects of Politics.”

He chastised Political Science for its perceived lack of scientific rigor. One of his key criticisms was directed towards historians, whom he accused of neglecting the significant roles played by psychological, sociological, and economic factors in shaping human affairs.

G.E.G. Catlin:

Catlin, in his work “Science and Method of Politics” (1927), advocated for the pursuit of a value-free approach to political science.

He regarded power as the essence of politics and stressed that its analysis should remain impartial, devoid of favouritism toward any particular value system

John Locke:

John Locke favoured empiricism over Socrates’ theory of knowledge. He rejected the notion that knowledge is inherently imprinted on the human soul.

Instead, Locke proposed that the human mind is like a “tabula rasa” or a clean slate, and knowledge is acquired through experience.

Regularities: This tenet emphasizes the importance of identifying discoverable patterns and uniformities in political behaviour.

Verification: Behaviouralism advocates for empirical testing as a means of substantiating theories and hypotheses

Technique: It focuses on the methods used to collect and interpret data, highlighting the significance of sound research techniques.

Quantification: Behaviouralism promotes the measurement of data and its subsequent analysis as a crucial aspect of scientific inquiry.

Values: This tenet underscores the need to separate values from facts. It emphasizes that objective scientific inquiry should remain value-neutral.

Systemization: Behaviouralism seeks to establish a systematic connection between theory and research, enhancing the scientific rigor of political analysis.

Pure Science: It underscores the importance of understanding and explaining political behaviour for the purpose of finding practical solutions to real-world problems.

Integration: Behaviouralism encourages an interdisciplinary approach to political science, recognizing that insights from various fields can enrich the study of political behaviour

These guidelines have been considered conducive to conducting political inquiries that generate reliable theories and scientific explanations. Behaviouralism has applied these principles to analyse various aspects of political behaviour, including mass political participation, voting behaviour, elite decision-making, and the activities of non-state actors, to provide systematic explanations.
Notably, behaviouralism has concentrated on micro-level situations, favouring specific inquiries over broad generalizations. It places an emphasis on formulating research questions that can be effectively addressed using available research methods, contributing to the empirical foundation of political science.

Achievements of Behaviouralists
Behaviouralists in political science achieved several notable accomplishments:
Halting the Decline of Political Science: At a time when political science was experiencing a decline and a lack of relevance, behaviouralists played a pivotal role in revitalizing the discipline. Their emphasis on empirical research and the study of political behaviour injected new life into the field.
Advancements in Electoral Behaviour Analysis: Behaviouralists made significant contributions to the analysis of electoral behaviour. Their research in this area has been highly beneficial for political parties, aiding them in the formulation of effective strategies and policies. By understanding how individuals make political choices, parties can tailor their campaigns more effectively.
Bridging the Gap Between Theory and Practice: Behavioural research helped bridge the gap between political theory and real-world political practice. For instance, scholars from different perspectives, such as elitists and pluralists, conducted empirical investigations to understand the functioning of democracy in Western countries and the realities of socialism in communist nations. This empirical approach allowed for a more accurate assessment of political systems.
Insight into Developing Areas: Behavioural research proved especially valuable in the study of political systems in developing regions. In these areas, there often exists a disparity between the formal constitution and actual political practices. Traditional approaches like legal institutional analysis proved insufficient to grasp the complexities of these contexts. Therefore, behaviouralists turned to field studies and comparative politics, shedding light on the intricate dynamics of politics in developing countries.

Post-behaviouralism
Post-behaviouralism emerged as a reaction to certain aspects of behaviouralism that had led to dissatisfaction within the field of political science. The evolution of political science can be understood through two stages of decline:
First Decline (Pre-World War II): Prior to the Second World War, the responsibility for the decline of political science was primarily attributed to traditionalists, particularly historicists. This decline was addressed and countered by the emergence of behaviouralism, which introduced empirical and scientific approaches to the field.
Second Decline (1950s and 60s): The second decline in political science occurred during a period of significant activism in the United States, marked by civil rights movements, women’s movements, environmental activism, and peace movements. Policymakers sought guidance from political scholars to address these societal crises, but it was discovered that behaviouralists, who were largely focused on making political science a pure science, were ill-equipped to provide relevant solutions. This resulted in a compromise regarding both the scope and relevance of the subject.
During this period, behaviouralists placed excessive emphasis on scientific techniques. However, political science has limitations in terms of the applicability of scientific methods.
David Easton, a prominent figure in behaviouralism, acknowledged this when he stated that political scholars, engrossed in perfecting their techniques, had neglected the fundamental purpose for which these techniques were intended.
It became evident that while behaviouralists had made significant contributions, particularly in the realm of election studies, such studies alone were insufficient.
Political scholars could not disregard normative issues such as justice, rights, and liberties. Scholars like Alfred Cobban criticized positivists and empiricists, while Dante Germino attributed the decline of the discipline to “ideological reductionists.”
These criticisms underscored the need for a more comprehensive and balanced approach in the field of political science that incorporated both empirical research and normative considerations.

David Easton

Easton delivered a lecture to the American Political Science Association titled ‘Credo of Relevance.’ This lecture laid the foundation for post-behaviouralism. In this lecture, Easton called for a shift in the way political science research is conducted.

Easton introduced the concept of ‘Creative theory,’ which had two central parameters: Action and Relevance. Creative theory, as Easton envisioned it, required political scientists to prioritize research that was not only academically rigorous but also had practical applications in the real world. This meant that research should be action-oriented and relevant to address the pressing issues of society.

Easton acknowledged that political science was experiencing a decline in its relevance and impact, and he attributed part of this decline to the dominance of behaviouralism. Behaviouralism, with its focus on empirical methods and the study of individual behaviour, had led to a detachment from real-world issues and a lack of practical application in policy-making.

Easton emphasized that while research techniques and methodologies were important, they should always be in service of a greater purpose. In other words, the purpose behind conducting research should take precedence over the techniques used. This shift in perspective aimed to bridge the gap between academic research and practical societal needs.

Post-behaviouralism was not conceived as a rejection of behaviouralism but rather as an evolution of it. It sought to build upon the foundations of behaviouralism while addressing its limitations. This could be likened to a synthesis of ideas, where traditionalism represented the thesis, behaviouralism the antithesis, and post-behaviouralism the synthesis of the two.

Post-behaviouralism retained many of the assumptions, methodologies, and approaches of behaviouralism. This continuity ensured that the advancements made in the behaviouralist era were not discarded but rather integrated into the evolving framework of political science.

A significant departure from behaviouralism was the willingness within post-behaviouralism to compromise on research techniques if it meant achieving greater relevance. This flexibility in methodology allowed political scientists to adapt their research to better address real-world issues and concerns.

Another key departure from behaviouralism was the recognition of the importance of values in research and decision-making. Post-behaviouralism departed from the value-neutral stance of behaviouralism, acknowledging that values played a crucial role in shaping research agendas and influencing policy choices.

David Easton’s seven features of post-behaviouralism:

Technique and Purpose: Post-behaviouralism recognizes the importance of research techniques but places a higher emphasis on the purpose for which these techniques are employed. It values relevance over precision, understanding that research must address real-world issues.

Inclusion of Values: Unlike behaviouralism, which favoured value-neutrality, post-behaviouralism encourages the incorporation of values into the study of political science. It recognizes that values play a crucial role in shaping political behaviour and outcomes.

Problem Solving: Post-behaviouralism emphasizes that political theories should possess the capacity to address and resolve societal crises effectively. It calls for practical solutions to real-world challenges.

Promotion of Positive Values: Post-behaviouralism advocates for the promotion of values that contribute to the advancement and flourishing of human civilization. It recognizes the importance of values in guiding political behaviour and decision-making.

Applied Science: Post-behaviouralism views political science as an applied science rather than a pure science. It underscores the practical implications and applications of political research.

Responsibility of Social Scientists: Post-behaviouralism places a significant responsibility on social scientists, including political scientists. It acknowledges that they have a crucial role in addressing complex societal issues and providing insights and solutions.

Promotion of Political Science: Post-behaviouralism calls for the active promotion of political science by universities and research foundations. It underscores the discipline’s utility in understanding and addressing the challenges of contemporary society.

Post-modernism
Postmodernism is a movement that initially emerged as a response to certain aspects of modernity. It had its beginnings in the realms of Art, Literature, and Philosophy before making its way into the field of political philosophy. The roots of postmodernism can be traced to a growing discontent with various facets of modern life. The dissatisfaction with modernity stemmed from several factors:

War and Conflict: Modernity was associated with an era marked by significant wars and conflicts among nations. The devastation caused by these conflicts raised questions about the direction in which modernity was leading society.

Environmental Exploitation: Modernity brought about significant advancements in technology and industry, but it also led to the widespread exploitation of the environment. Concerns about environmental degradation and its consequences became prominent.

Homogenization: Modernity was often criticized for promoting cultural and social homogenization. This raised concerns about the loss of diversity and the uniqueness of different cultures and societies.

As dissatisfaction with these aspects of modernity grew, postmodernism evolved from a mere critique into a comprehensive philosophy and school of thought. It offered alternative perspectives and critiques of the modern way of life, particularly in the realms of culture, society, and politics.

Theme

The term “postmodernism” was coined by Jean-François Lyotard in his book “The Postmodern Condition.”

In this work, Lyotard defines postmodernism as “incredulity towards metanarratives.” Essentially, this concept signifies a scepticism or disbelief in grand, overarching theories or metanarratives that attempt to explain the entirety of human history or society.

Postmodernism questions the validity and authority of these all-encompassing narratives and instead encourages a more fragmented, diverse, and localized perspective on knowledge and reality.

It challenges the idea that there is a single, universally applicable truth or explanation for everything.

Postmodernism is indeed characterized by its opposition to hierarchy, centralization, majoritarianism, and homogenization. It emphasizes a more democratic and decentralized approach, valuing diversity and multiple perspectives

Medieval Age:

Characteristics: Age of Religion with a strong belief in the authority of religion.

Worldview: The belief that God organized the world based on essential principles, understood by religious authorities like Church fathers.

Knowledge Authority: Religious authorities held the authority to interpret and explain the world’s order.

Modern Age:

Characteristics: Age of Science with a belief in the authority of science.

Worldview: The belief that the universe operates on fundamental principles that can be observed, verified, and understood by scientists.

Knowledge Authority: Scientists and experts in various fields held the authority to provide explanations and knowledge.

Postmodern Age:

Rejection of the authority of any single system of knowledge and scepticism toward absolute truths. Rejection of hierarchy.

Postmodernists argue that there are no essential or fundamental principles governing the universe. They see the universe as dynamic and in a state of chaos, which means every knowledge is provisional and nothing is permanent or eternal.

Postmodernists believe in multiple truths rather than a single truth. Truth is considered majoritarian, meaning what is accepted as truth is determined by the majority. Knowledge is seen as reflecting power dynamics, where those in power shape what is considered truth.

Aspect
Modernism
Postmodernism
Belief in Objectivity
They believe in the need for objectivity and that objective knowledge is possible.
Objectivity is neither possible nor desirable.
View on Universe Structure
Believes that there is a structure in the universe.
Suggests that there are no structures, rather it’s chaotic (post-structuralism).
Hierarchy in Knowledge
Believes in a hierarchy of science.
Rejects hierarchy in knowledge.
Approach to Authority
Centralization, Authority, and Control.
Localization, Freedom, and Anarchy.
Source of Knowledge
Observation is a source of knowledge.
Experience is a source of knowledge, and experiences may vary.
Attitude Toward Diversity
Believes in homogenization.
Recognizes diversity.
Approach to Foundationalism
Foundationalist
Anti-foundationalism.
Universal vs. Particular
Universalist.
Particularistic.
View on Meta-Narratives
Believes in meta-narratives.
Suggests listening to multiple narratives.

Karl Marx:

Marx’s differentiation between the base and superstructure, along with his concept of false consciousness, laid the groundwork for questioning dominant ideologies.

Antonio Gramsci:

Gramsci’s notion of hegemony highlighted the limits of common sense and how ruling ideas often serve the interests of the ruling class. This idea emphasizes the connection between knowledge and power.

Louis Althusser:

Althusser introduced the concept of interpellation, which is similar to hegemony. Interpellation involves the diffusion of cultural values of the dominant class through various institutions like family, church, and school. It creates an environment where individuals conform to the values and expectations of the dominant class with minimal resistance.

Thomas Kuhn:

His concept of paradigms, as outlined in his book “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,” indeed has significant implications for the understanding of knowledge. Kuhn’s central idea is that scientific knowledge is not a linear and continuously accumulating process. Instead, it progresses through a series of paradigm shifts, where one dominant conceptual framework or paradigm is replaced by another.

Paradigms represent the accepted set of theories, practices, and standards within a scientific community at a given time. These paradigms guide scientific research and problem-solving.

Stages in the Evolution of Paradigms:

Pre-Paradigmatic Stage: In this stage, a prevailing paradigm is robust and capable of explaining most phenomena and questions within a scientific field. It provides a shared framework for the scientific community and is considered the norm.

Crisis Stage: The crisis occurs when the existing paradigm encounters anomalies or fails to explain new observations or questions. This crisis leads to a sense of uncertainty and the recognition that the current paradigm may be insufficient.

Paradigm Shift: The crisis prompts a search for a new paradigm or conceptual framework that can better explain the unresolved issues. Once a new paradigm gains acceptance among a majority of the scientific community, it leads to a paradigm shift.

Kuhn’s concept of paradigm shifts underscores the provisional nature of scientific knowledge. Even well-established scientific theories and paradigms are subject to change when faced with new evidence or questions.

Karl Marx:

He introduced the concept of falsifiability in the philosophy of science. Falsifiability refers to the quality of a s scientific hypothesis or theory that allows it to be tested and, in principle, proven false through empirical evidence or experimentation.

Popper emphasized that while verification (finding supporting evidence) is valuable, it isn’t the primary criterion for determining a theory’s scientific nature. Instead, he stressed that a theory’s true scientific merit lies in its potential for falsification. In other words, a theory must be formulated in a way that makes it possible to be contradicted or refuted by empirical data.

Thomas Kuhn:

He is often regarded as the precursor of postmodern thought, introduced several pivotal ideas that challenged conventional beliefs:

Death of God: Nietzsche famously declared that “God is dead,” signifying the end of an ultimate, transcendent truth. This concept implies that there is no single, absolute truth that governs everything. Nietzsche believed that traditional scholars and philosophers had misled humanity by asserting the existence of such truths. He particularly criticized Plato for not only proclaiming the existence of truth but also asserting that it could be comprehended through the reasoning of a philosopher king. In essence, Nietzsche saw this as a form of totalitarianism.

Critique of Enlightenment: Nietzsche was critical of the Enlightenment tradition, which emphasized the objectivity and hierarchical nature of science. He challenged the idea that objective truth could be attained through rationality alone, arguing that this perspective was overly simplistic.

Will to Power: Nietzsche introduced the concept of the “will to power,” suggesting that a desire for power and control is fundamental in human actions. This will to power supersedes even the will to life, illustrating the pervasive influence of power in all aspects of existence. Nietzsche proposed that theories and ideas were constructed as tools to exercise power over others.

Übermensch (Superman or Overman): Nietzsche introduced the idea of the Übermensch, often translated as the “superman” or “overman.” The Übermensch represents an individual who possesses exceptional power, particularly the power to challenge conventional morality. This concept implies that the majority of people are confined by conventional moral values and social norms, while the Übermensch lives by their own values and choices, free from such constraints.

Nietzsche’s ideas have had a profound influence on postmodernism, as they call into question the notion of absolute truth, highlight the role of power in shaping knowledge and beliefs, and challenge established moral and social norms.

Key Scholars of Postmodernism

Jean-François Lyotard

He emphasized the importance of considering multiple narratives and small narratives instead of relying solely on grand metanarratives.

Lyotard argued that instead of adhering to a single overarching narrative or metanarrative, we should pay attention to the diversity of stories or narratives that emerge from different individuals or groups.

In essence, he questioned the idea of a single, universal truth and encouraged a more pluralistic approach to understanding the world.

Lyotard’s view of truth is closely tied to the concept of narrative. He regarded truth as a narrative, essentially a story that is told to explain a particular phenomenon or aspect of reality.

Importantly, he acknowledged that different people may experience the same phenomenon differently, leading to the development of distinct conceptions or narratives about it.

We can take the example of political activities on the Indian subcontinent between 1857 and 1947. Various groups and individuals, such as the Indian National Congress (INC), had their own narratives or stories about this period.

The INC’s narrative, in particular, became a dominant metanarrative, shaping the prevailing historical understanding.

However, as Lyotard emphasized that there are multiple narratives, it is important to consider narratives beyond the INC’s perspective. These include narratives from Dalits, colonial powers, Muhammad Jinnah’s perspective, communists, and others.

Each of these narratives provides a different interpretation of the events and their significance, reflecting the diverse experiences and viewpoints of various actors involved.

Jacques Derrida

He is known for introducing the technique of deconstruction as a method of interpreting texts and even the world itself. Deconstruction, as conceived by Jacques Derrida, is a method of interpretation that challenges traditional approaches to understanding texts and, by extension, the world. It seeks to uncover the complexities and ambiguities within language and thought, emphasizing that meanings are not fixed and stable but are subject to continual reinterpretation.

One key idea put forth by Derrida is the notion that the world itself can be seen as a kind of “text” open to interpretation. In other words, just as we analyze written or spoken texts to uncover hidden meanings or nuances, we can also engage in a process of interpreting the world and its phenomena.

At the heart of deconstruction is the recognition that every act of understanding is inherently flawed or incomplete. Derrida’s assertion is rooted in the limitations of human language and communication. He argues that language is inherently insufficient to fully express our thoughts and intentions, and there is often a gap between what we intend to convey and what others understand.

Derrida’s central insight is that every act of understanding contains an element of misunderstanding. This paradox arises because language, as a medium of communication, is inherently imprecise and open to multiple interpretations. It follows that no single interpretation or understanding can be considered definitive or absolute.

In light of the understanding-misunderstanding paradox, Derrida proposes a process of deconstruction and reconstruction. Deconstruction involves critically examining a text or concept to reveal its hidden assumptions, contradictions, and alternative meanings. It challenges the fixed or traditional interpretations of a text. After deconstruction, there is the possibility of reconstruction, where new meanings and interpretations emerge.

Derrida suggests that this process is not a one-time event but an ongoing, never-ending endeavour. It implies that our understanding of texts, ideas, and the world is continually evolving, as new interpretations and perspectives emerge over time.

Michel Foucault

Michel Foucault’s concept of discourses offers a profound insight into the construction of knowledge, the exercise of power, and the shaping of societal norms.

Foucault defines discourses as intricate systems of thought encompassing a multitude of elements, including ideas, attitudes, actions, beliefs, practices, and language.

Charles E. Merriam:

He is the founder of the Chicago School, offered critical insights in his book “New Aspects of Politics.”

He chastised Political Science for its perceived lack of scientific rigor. One of his key criticisms was directed towards historians, whom he accused of neglecting the significant roles played by psychological, sociological, and economic factors in shaping human affairs.

G.E.G. Catlin:

Catlin, in his work “Science and Method of Politics” (1927), advocated for the pursuit of a value-free approach to political science.

He regarded power as the essence of politics and stressed that its analysis should remain impartial, devoid of favouritism toward any particular value system.

David Easton:

In his article titled “Decline of Modern Political Theory,” David Easton identifies a significant issue in the discipline of political science, which he attributes to a preoccupation with the past and a failure to engage in the systematic development of political behaviour theory.

David Easton further contributed to the intellectual foundation of behaviouralism in his 1967 paper titled “The Current Meaning of Behaviouralism in Political Science.” In this paper, he delineated eight major tenets of behaviouralism:

He regarded power as the essence of politics and stressed that its analysis should remain impartial, devoid of favouritism toward any particular value system.

Regularities: This tenet emphasizes the importance of identifying discoverable patterns and uniformities in political behaviour.

Verification: Behaviouralism advocates for empirical testing as a means of substantiating theories and hypotheses

Technique: It focuses on the methods used to collect and interpret data, highlighting the significance of sound research techniques.

Quantification: Behaviouralism promotes the measurement of data and its subsequent analysis as a crucial aspect of scientific inquiry.

Values: This tenet underscores the need to separate values from facts. It emphasizes that objective scientific inquiry should remain value-neutral

Systemization: Behaviouralism seeks to establish a systematic connection between theory and research, enhancing the scientific rigor of political analysis.

Pure Science: It underscores the importance of understanding and explaining political behaviour for the purpose of finding practical solutions to real-world problems.

Integration: Behaviouralism encourages an interdisciplinary approach to political science, recognizing that insights from various fields can enrich the study of political behaviour.

These guidelines have been considered conducive to conducting political inquiries that generate reliable theories and scientific explanations. Behaviouralism has applied these principles to analyse various aspects of political behaviour, including mass political participation, voting behaviour, elite decision-making, and the activities of non-state actors, to provide systematic explanations.
Notably, behaviouralism has concentrated on micro-level situations, favouring specific inquiries over broad generalizations. It places an emphasis on formulating research questions that can be effectively addressed using available research methods, contributing to the empirical foundation of political science.

Achievements of Behaviouralists
Behaviouralists in political science achieved several notable accomplishments:
Halting the Decline of Political Science: At a time when political science was experiencing a decline and a lack of relevance, behaviouralists played a pivotal role in revitalizing the discipline. Their emphasis on empirical research and the study of political behaviour injected new life into the field.
Advancements in Electoral Behaviour Analysis: Behaviouralists made significant contributions to the analysis of electoral behaviour. Their research in this area has been highly beneficial for political parties, aiding them in the formulation of effective strategies and policies. By understanding how individuals make political choices, parties can tailor their campaigns more effectively.
Bridging the Gap Between Theory and Practice: Behavioural research helped bridge the gap between political theory and real-world political practice. For instance, scholars from different perspectives, such as elitists and pluralists, conducted empirical investigations to understand the functioning of democracy in Western countries and the realities of socialism in communist nations. This empirical approach allowed for a more accurate assessment of political systems.
Insight into Developing Areas: Behavioural research proved especially valuable in the study of political systems in developing regions. In these areas, there often exists a disparity between the formal constitution and actual political practices. Traditional approaches like legal institutional analysis proved insufficient to grasp the complexities of these contexts. Therefore, behaviouralists turned to field studies and comparative politics, shedding light on the intricate dynamics of politics in developing countries.

Post-behaviouralism
Post-behaviouralism emerged as a reaction to certain aspects of behaviouralism that had led to dissatisfaction within the field of political science. The evolution of political science can be understood through two stages of decline:
First Decline (Pre-World War II): Prior to the Second World War, the responsibility for the decline of political science was primarily attributed to traditionalists, particularly historicists. This decline was addressed and countered by the emergence of behaviouralism, which introduced empirical and scientific approaches to the field.
Second Decline (1950s and 60s): The second decline in political science occurred during a period of significant activism in the United States, marked by civil rights movements, women’s movements, environmental activism, and peace movements. Policymakers sought guidance from political scholars to address these societal crises, but it was discovered that behaviouralists, who were largely focused on making political science a pure science, were ill-equipped to provide relevant solutions. This resulted in a compromise regarding both the scope and relevance of the subject.
During this period, behaviouralists placed excessive emphasis on scientific techniques. However, political science has limitations in terms of the applicability of scientific methods.
David Easton, a prominent figure in behaviouralism, acknowledged this when he stated that political scholars, engrossed in perfecting their techniques, had neglected the fundamental purpose for which these techniques were intended.
It became evident that while behaviouralists had made significant contributions, particularly in the realm of election studies, such studies alone were insufficient.
Political scholars could not disregard normative issues such as justice, rights, and liberties. Scholars like Alfred Cobban criticized positivists and empiricists, while Dante Germino attributed the decline of the discipline to “ideological reductionists.”
These criticisms underscored the need for a more comprehensive and balanced approach in the field of political science that incorporated both empirical research and normative considerations.

David Easton
Easton delivered a lecture to the American Political Science Association titled ‘Credo of Relevance.’ This lecture laid the foundation for post-behaviouralism. In this lecture, Easton called for a shift in the way political science research is conducted.
Easton introduced the concept of ‘Creative theory,’ which had two central parameters: Action and Relevance. Creative theory, as Easton envisioned it, required political scientists to prioritize research that was not only academically rigorous but also had practical applications in the real world. This meant that research should be action-oriented and relevant to address the pressing issues of society.
Easton acknowledged that political science was experiencing a decline in its relevance and impact, and he attributed part of this decline to the dominance of behaviouralism. Behaviouralism, with its focus on empirical methods and the study of individual behaviour, had led to a detachment from real-world issues and a lack of practical application in policy-making.
Easton emphasized that while research techniques and methodologies were important, they should always be in service of a greater purpose. In other words, the purpose behind conducting research should take precedence over the techniques used. This shift in perspective aimed to bridge the gap between academic research and practical societal needs.
Post-behaviouralism was not conceived as a rejection of behaviouralism but rather as an evolution of it. It sought to build upon the foundations of behaviouralism while addressing its limitations. This could be likened to a synthesis of ideas, where traditionalism represented the thesis, behaviouralism the antithesis, and post-behaviouralism the synthesis of the two.
Post-behaviouralism retained many of the assumptions, methodologies, and approaches of behaviouralism. This continuity ensured that the advancements made in the behaviouralist era were not discarded but rather integrated into the evolving framework of political science.
A significant departure from behaviouralism was the willingness within post-behaviouralism to compromise on research techniques if it meant achieving greater relevance. This flexibility in methodology allowed political scientists to adapt their research to better address real-world issues and concerns.
Another key departure from behaviouralism was the recognition of the importance of values in research and decision-making. Post-behaviouralism departed from the value-neutral stance of behaviouralism, acknowledging that values played a crucial role in shaping research agendas and influencing policy choices.
David Easton’s seven features of post-behaviouralism:
Technique and Purpose: Post-behaviouralism recognizes the importance of research techniques but places a higher emphasis on the purpose for which these techniques are employed. It values relevance over precision, understanding that research must address real-world issues.
Inclusion of Values: Unlike behaviouralism, which favoured value-neutrality, post-behaviouralism encourages the incorporation of values into the study of political science. It recognizes that values play a crucial role in shaping political behaviour and outcomes.
Problem Solving: Post-behaviouralism emphasizes that political theories should possess the capacity to address and resolve societal crises effectively. It calls for practical solutions to real-world challenges.
Promotion of Positive Values: Post-behaviouralism advocates for the promotion of values that contribute to the advancement and flourishing of human civilization. It recognizes the importance of values in guiding political behaviour and decision-making.
Applied Science: Post-behaviouralism views political science as an applied science rather than a pure science. It underscores the practical implications and applications of political research.
Responsibility of Social Scientists: Post-behaviouralism places a significant responsibility on social scientists, including political scientists. It acknowledges that they have a crucial role in addressing complex societal issues and providing insights and solutions.
Promotion of Political Science: Post-behaviouralism calls for the active promotion of political science by universities and research foundations. It underscores the discipline’s utility in understanding and addressing the challenges of contemporary society.

Post-modernism
Postmodernism is a movement that initially emerged as a response to certain aspects of modernity. It had its beginnings in the realms of Art, Literature, and Philosophy before making its way into the field of political philosophy. The roots of postmodernism can be traced to a growing discontent with various facets of modern life.
The dissatisfaction with modernity stemmed from several factors:
War and Conflict: Modernity was associated with an era marked by significant wars and conflicts among nations. The devastation caused by these conflicts raised questions about the direction in which modernity was leading society.
Environmental Exploitation: Modernity brought about significant advancements in technology and industry, but it also led to the widespread exploitation of the environment. Concerns about environmental degradation and its consequences became prominent.
Homogenization: Modernity was often criticized for promoting cultural and social homogenization. This raised concerns about the loss of diversity and the uniqueness of different cultures and societies.
As dissatisfaction with these aspects of modernity grew, postmodernism evolved from a mere critique into a comprehensive philosophy and school of thought. It offered alternative perspectives and critiques of the modern way of life, particularly in the realms of culture, society, and politics.
Theme
The term “postmodernism” was coined by Jean-François Lyotard in his book “The Postmodern Condition.”
In this work, Lyotard defines postmodernism as “incredulity towards metanarratives.” Essentially, this concept signifies a scepticism or disbelief in grand, overarching theories or metanarratives that attempt to explain the entirety of human history or society.
Postmodernism questions the validity and authority of these all-encompassing narratives and instead encourages a more fragmented, diverse, and localized perspective on knowledge and reality.
It challenges the idea that there is a single, universally applicable truth or explanation for everything.
Postmodernism is indeed characterized by its opposition to hierarchy, centralization, majoritarianism, and homogenization. It emphasizes a more democratic and decentralized approach, valuing diversity and multiple perspectives
Medieval Age:
Characteristics: Age of Religion with a strong belief in the authority of religion.
Worldview: The belief that God organized the world based on essential principles, understood by religious authorities like Church fathers.
Knowledge Authority: Religious authorities held the authority to interpret and explain the world’s order.
Modern Age:
Characteristics: Age of Science with a belief in the authority of science.
Worldview: The belief that the universe operates on fundamental principles that can be observed, verified, and understood by scientists.
Knowledge Authority: Scientists and experts in various fields held the authority to provide explanations and knowledge.
Postmodern Age:
Rejection of the authority of any single system of knowledge and scepticism toward absolute truths. Rejection of hierarchy.
Postmodernists argue that there are no essential or fundamental principles governing the universe. They see the universe as dynamic and in a state of chaos, which means every knowledge is provisional and nothing is permanent or eternal.
Postmodernists believe in multiple truths rather than a single truth. Truth is considered majoritarian, meaning what is accepted as truth is determined by the majority. Knowledge is seen as reflecting power dynamics, where those in power shape what is considered truth.

Scholars that contributed to the evolution of Postmodernism:

Karl Marx:

Marx’s differentiation between the base and superstructure, along with his concept of false consciousness, laid the groundwork for questioning dominant ideologies.

Antonio Gramsci:

Gramsci’s notion of hegemony highlighted the limits of common sense and how ruling ideas often serve the interests of the ruling class. This idea emphasizes the connection between knowledge and power.

Louis Althusser:

Althusser introduced the concept of interpellation, which is similar to hegemony. Interpellation involves the diffusion of cultural values of the dominant class through various institutions like family, church, and school. It creates an environment where individuals conform to the values and expectations of the dominant class with minimal resistance.

Thomas Kuhn:

His concept of paradigms, as outlined in his book “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,” indeed has significant implications for the understanding of knowledge. Kuhn’s central idea is that scientific knowledge is not a linear and continuously accumulating process. Instead, it progresses through a series of paradigm shifts, where one dominant conceptual framework or paradigm is replaced by another.

Paradigms represent the accepted set of theories, practices, and standards within a scientific community at a given time. These paradigms guide scientific research and problem-solving

Stages in the Evolution of Paradigms:

Pre-Paradigmatic Stage: In this stage, a prevailing paradigm is robust and capable of explaining most phenomena and questions within a scientific field. It provides a shared framework for the scientific community and is considered the norm.

Crisis Stage: The crisis occurs when the existing paradigm encounters anomalies or fails to explain new observations or questions. This crisis leads to a sense of uncertainty and the recognition that the current paradigm may be insufficient.

Paradigm Shift: The crisis prompts a search for a new paradigm or conceptual framework that can better explain the unresolved issues. Once a new paradigm gains acceptance among a majority of the scientific community, it leads to a paradigm shift.

Kuhn’s concept of paradigm shifts underscores the provisional nature of scientific knowledge. Even well-established scientific theories and paradigms are subject to change when faced with new evidence or questions.

Karl Popper
·          He introduced the concept of falsifiability in the philosophy of science. Falsifiability refers to the quality of a s scientific hypothesis or theory that allows it to be tested and, in principle, proven false through empirical evidence or experimentation.
·          Popper emphasized that while verification (finding supporting evidence) is valuable, it isn’t the primary criterion for determining a theory’s scientific nature. Instead, he stressed that a theory’s true scientific merit lies in its potential for falsification. In other words, a theory must be formulated in a way that makes it possible to be contradicted or refuted by empirical data.
Nietzsche
He is often regarded as the precursor of postmodern thought, introduced several pivotal ideas that challenged conventional beliefs:

1.   Death of God: Nietzsche famously declared that “God is dead,” signifying the end of an ultimate, transcendent truth. This concept implies that there is no single, absolute truth that governs everything. Nietzsche believed that traditional scholars and philosophers had misled humanity by asserting the existence of such truths. He particularly criticized Plato for not only proclaiming the existence of truth but also asserting that it could be comprehended through the reasoning of a philosopher king. In essence, Nietzsche saw this as a form of totalitarianism.
2.   Critique of Enlightenment: Nietzsche was critical of the Enlightenment tradition, which emphasized the objectivity and hierarchical nature of science. He challenged the idea that objective truth could be attained through rationality alone, arguing that this perspective was overly simplistic.
3.   Will to Power: Nietzsche introduced the concept of the “will to power,” suggesting that a desire for power and control is fundamental in human actions. This will to power supersedes even the will to life, illustrating the pervasive influence of power in all aspects of existence. Nietzsche proposed that theories and ideas were constructed as tools to exercise power over others.
4.   Übermensch (Superman or Overman): Nietzsche introduced the idea of the Übermensch, often translated as the “superman” or “overman.” The Übermensch represents an individual who possesses exceptional power, particularly the power to challenge conventional morality. This concept implies that the majority of people are confined by conventional moral values and social norms, while the Übermensch lives by their own values and choices, free from such constraints.
Nietzsche’s ideas have had a profound influence on postmodernism, as they call into question the notion of absolute truth, highlight the role of power in shaping knowledge and beliefs, and challenge established moral and social norms.

Key Scholars of Postmodernism
Jean-François Lyotard
He emphasized the importance of considering multiple narratives and small narratives instead of relying solely on grand metanarratives.
Lyotard argued that instead of adhering to a single overarching narrative or metanarrative, we should pay attention to the diversity of stories or narratives that emerge from different individuals or groups.
In essence, he questioned the idea of a single, universal truth and encouraged a more pluralistic approach to understanding the world.
Lyotard’s view of truth is closely tied to the concept of narrative. He regarded truth as a narrative, essentially a story that is told to explain a particular phenomenon or aspect of reality.
Importantly, he acknowledged that different people may experience the same phenomenon differently, leading to the development of distinct conceptions or narratives about it.
We can take the example of political activities on the Indian subcontinent between 1857 and 1947. Various groups and individuals, such as the Indian National Congress (INC), had their own narratives or stories about this period.
The INC’s narrative, in particular, became a dominant metanarrative, shaping the prevailing historical understanding.
However, as Lyotard emphasized that there are multiple narratives, it is important to consider narratives beyond the INC’s perspective. These include narratives from Dalits, colonial powers, Muhammad Jinnah’s perspective, communists, and others.
Each of these narratives provides a different interpretation of the events and their significance, reflecting the diverse experiences and viewpoints of various actors involved.
Jacques Derrida
He is known for introducing the technique of deconstruction as a method of interpreting texts and even the world itself. Deconstruction, as conceived by Jacques Derrida, is a method of interpretation that challenges traditional approaches to understanding texts and, by extension, the world. It seeks to uncover the complexities and ambiguities within language and thought, emphasizing that meanings are not fixed and stable but are subject to continual reinterpretation.
One key idea put forth by Derrida is the notion that the world itself can be seen as a kind of “text” open to interpretation. In other words, just as we analyze written or spoken texts to uncover hidden meanings or nuances, we can also engage in a process of interpreting the world and its phenomena.
At the heart of deconstruction is the recognition that every act of understanding is inherently flawed or incomplete. Derrida’s assertion is rooted in the limitations of human language and communication. He argues that language is inherently insufficient to fully express our thoughts and intentions, and there is often a gap between what we intend to convey and what others understand.
Derrida’s central insight is that every act of understanding contains an element of misunderstanding. This paradox arises because language, as a medium of communication, is inherently imprecise and open to multiple interpretations. It follows that no single interpretation or understanding can be considered definitive or absolute.
In light of the understanding-misunderstanding paradox, Derrida proposes a process of deconstruction and reconstruction. Deconstruction involves critically examining a text or concept to reveal its hidden assumptions, contradictions, and alternative meanings. It challenges the fixed or traditional interpretations of a text. After deconstruction, there is the possibility of reconstruction, where new meanings and interpretations emerge.
Derrida suggests that this process is not a one-time event but an ongoing, never-ending endeavour. It implies that our understanding of texts, ideas, and the world is continually evolving, as new interpretations and perspectives emerge over time.

Michel Foucault
Michel Foucault’s concept of discourses offers a profound insight into the construction of knowledge, the exercise of power, and the shaping of societal norms.
Foucault defines discourses as intricate systems of thought encompassing a multitude of elements, including ideas, attitudes, actions, beliefs, practices, and language. These elements work in tandem to systematically construct not only the understanding of individuals but also the very world in which they exist.
A central tenet of Foucault’s thought is that truth is not an absolute or external entity but is instead an outcome of the prevailing discourses within a particular society or era. He perceives truth as a “thing” that exists within the world itself, constructed and influenced by the dominant discourses of a given context.
Foucault introduces the concept of “regimes of truth,” which refers to the prevailing discourses or accepted truths within a specific context. These regimes of truth are not universally applicable; rather, they are shaped by the unique interplay of social, cultural, and historical factors in each context.
In alignment with Nietzsche’s ideas, Foucault posits that knowledge and power are inextricably linked. He argues that knowledge is inherently tied to systems of power and is never impartial. Instead, it is intertwined with the dynamics of power structures within a given context.
Foucault emphasizes that discourses are not confined to abstract concepts but also permeate the institutions and practices within society. These discourses shape the way institutions operate and how individuals are perceived and treated within them. For example, legal, educational, and medical institutions often embody and reinforce specific discourses.
Individuals themselves become vessels for the prevailing discourses in their society. These discourses influence not only how individuals perceive themselves and others but also how they behave. Foucault’s work underscores that individuals are both shaped by and contributors to the discourses that surround them.
Foucault extends his analysis to various facets of society, including sexuality, criminality, and abnormality. He illustrates how discourses are constructed around these topics, influencing societal norms, laws, and practices. For instance, the discourse of criminality shapes how societies define and respond to criminal behaviour.
Foucault’s perspective challenges the notion of objective truth. Instead, he emphasizes that truth is not universal but is moulded by power dynamics and societal norms. The discourse or truth that gains majority acceptance becomes dominant and is indicative of power structures within that context. In this sense, truth becomes a manifestation of power.

Existentialism
Jean-Paul Sartre’s
His philosophy of existentialism is centred on the idea of freedom and liberation. It goes beyond traditional liberalism and delves into the fundamental nature of human existence.
Sartre famously asserts that “existence is prior to essence.” In this context, “existence” refers to the state of being, the fact that we exist as conscious beings with our own subjective experiences. We are subjects, aware of our own existence. On the other hand, “essence” refers to the fixed identity or nature that is typically ascribed to individuals by society or external factors. In this state, we are treated as objects with predetermined characteristics.
Sartre argues that for true freedom to be possible, existence must take precedence over essence. This means that individuals should be defined by their own choices and actions, rather than being constrained by predefined roles or identities imposed by external forces. True freedom, in Sartre’s view, comes from embracing the responsibility of creating one’s own essence through choices and actions.
Sartre is critical of religion, particularly its role in promoting essentialism. Religious doctrines often dictate that the essence of individuals is determined by a higher power, such as God. This, according to Sartre, reduces humanity to the status of passive objects controlled by divine authority. It implies that individuals are like robots, and God holds the remote control, determining their actions and destiny.
Sartre introduces the concepts of “bad faith” and “good faith” to distinguish between different ways of approaching one’s existence. “Bad faith” refers to the act of surrendering one’s freedom and responsibility to external authorities, such as religious dogma or societal norms. Believing in God, according to Sartre, is an example of “bad faith” because it involves accepting an external essence and moral code.
In contrast, “good faith” involves believing in oneself and taking full responsibility for one’s choices and actions. It means embracing the freedom to define one’s essence through personal decisions. Sartre encourages individuals to have faith in their own capacity to shape their lives and to resist external forces that limit their freedom.

Previous Years Questions
Write on the Systems Approach [2022/10m/150w/1a]
Examine the importance of behavioural approach in political theory. What led to its decline? [2021/15m/200w/2b]
Discuss the significance of a normative approach to Political theory. [2020/15m/200w/4b]
Comment on resurgence of political theory. [2019/10m/150w/1a]
Comment on the decline of Political Theory. [2018/10m/150w/1b]
Comment on the post behavioural approach. [2016/10m/150w/1b]
Comment: ‘…Political theory is not an escape mechanism but an arduous calling’. (John Plamanetz). [2014/10m/150w/1a]