Exeter



Mikolaj Wozniak

What are the strengths and weaknesses of a positivist/empiricist

approach to political analysis?

To him who looks upon the world rationally, the world in turn presents a rational aspect. The relation is mutual.

—George W. F. Hegel[i]

Political scientists, or politologists as they are also known, had centuries to develop and improve their workshop of thought. The mainstay tool of their enquiry was the political analysis. That approach to reasoning allowed them to understand the phenomena they experienced to a high degree. From the very beginning, several ways of approaching analysis were created. This work is dedicated to the path based on biological sciences – positivism. Every form of approach has its very unique advantages and flaws – so has the one previously mentioned. Hence, a question arises: What are the strengths and weaknesses of a positivist /empiricist approach to political analysis?

To give an answer to that question, a definition of several concepts must be given. First of all, empiricism or positivism is not to be mistaken for behaviourism. In fact, they all are interlinked.

According to Martyn Hammersley[ii], the term 'empiricism' “refers to a distinctive approach which claims that all knowledge comes from the senses, a sharp contrast to the rationalist argument that there is innate knowledge”. From an epistemological perspective, it is therefore a way of thinking that concentrates on impulses created by the five senses. That way of approach to political research also has distinctive requirements. An empirical theory is one whose hypotheses can be tested in order to prove certain phenomena.

As Norman Blaikie[iii] defined it, positivism is “a philosophy of science that rejects metaphysical speculation in favor of systematic observation using the human senses”. In other words, it is one of political trends, that uses empiricism as its tool of understanding phenomena, turning down all those things that cannot be measured by human senses – the metaphysical.

Both empiricism and positivism are but a part of a great construct that is the political sciences. To define the relations between them, the example of “family and society”[iv] can be used. Individual human beings form families, and the sum of families is called a society. In a similar manner, political sciences consists of several branches with rationalism, institutionalism and constructivism among them. The approach that uses positivism as its scientific philosophy is called behaviourism. Positivism itself uses empirical approach in the way of reasoning. In scientific terms the relations between those three concepts are a connection between ontology, epistemology, and methodology.

Therefore, the presentation of strengths and weaknesses of “positivist/empiricist” approach should be made with the inclusion of behaviouralism.

Behaviouralism, in reference to David Marsh[v], is a “movement asserting that analytic statements made about the physical or social world can be explained empirically”. As a branch of political science, it extensively uses positivism and empiricism in inquiries.

To understand advantages and flaws of such approach, historical background must be presented. Despite empiricism being known since antiquity, (one of the users was the philosopher Aristotle) it obtained more scientific meaning in the age of Enlightenment. Positivism itself is thought to be initiated in half of the XIXth century by Auguste Comte with his Cours de philosophie positive - The Course of Positive Philosophy. Over the time, the approach has evolved into logical positivism – a trend linking empiricism and rationalism. It is important to emphasize that those were the very beginnings of political science as it is known today – early concepts therefore slightly differed from their contemporary equivalents.

Since the birth of positivism, the basics of its way of perceiving the world were already established and concrete. The trend itself rose as an opposition to the previous epoch, more precisely, the age of Romanticism.

Romanticism concentrated on experiencing the world using intuition, feelings rather than rationalism and the five senses. According to Krzyzanowski's Sinusoid of epoch alternation[vi], (in a huge generalization) the ages continuously fluctuate between the “scientific” and “intuitive” approach. Romanticism referred to the Middle Ages, whereas Positivism was a return to Enlightenment, Renaissance and the Antiquity.

Logical positivism as a philosophical trend was developed in 1920s by Moritz Schlick and Rudolf Carnap. It was then turned into a form of more resemblance to science rather than to philosophy. Several principles have been created. Positivism as a scientific part of political science assumed the usage of biological approach – first positivists therefore perceived scientific knowledge as certain and precise. As it was stated during a lecture on positivism by Professor Colin Wight[vii] of Exeter University, “It exists only if it can be measured”. That sentence can be supported by the usage of mathematical background. Hence, logical allegation “if X, then Y” is so commonly used. What is more, quantitative methodology is preferably used over the qualitative, resulting in wider, but more shallow vistas of understanding.

Since the definition and history of described phenomena is known, a significant question comes to mind. As any other political science aspects, behaviouralism, along with its constituents – positivism and empiricism – has both strengths and drawbacks.

As of strengths of positivist/empiricist approach, they certainly are based around two words – “scientific precision”. The basis of this method is a theory – the quality of it being crucial in building theses. It is a subject based on mathematics, with application of biological way of treating human beings. The first of advantages is therefore the 'compact' way of reasoning, with no place for philosophical metaphysics. Hence, it is as precise as possible, because every question asked ultimately has its answer, based on logic.

Relying on the “scientific” subjects, the discussed approach has another important advantage. That is, as in case of biology or chemistry – the outcome of observations made to support a thesis can be replicated. That method can be used in order to reduce number of falsifications made my political researchers during their inquiries. With the “XY theory” mentioned above as an example, if “X” cannot be replicated, then “Y” becomes dubious, and as a result, irrelevant.

To positivists, “the world exists independently of our knowledge of it”[viii]. Because of that, positivists, following Aristotle's theory – accept the world as it is. In opposition to Plato and his “cave of relativity”, Aristotle believed the world human beings live in is real. That is how philosophy found its application in positivist inquiry – scientific research can only be proved by empirical evidence. Metaphysical arguments, so common in Plato's way of reasoning, are not treated as proofs. What is more – positivists rely mainly of senses as a form of evidence, fully trusting their vision, their sense of touch and hearing.

Another important strength of positivist approach is its objectivity. In order for a thesis to be valid, it must not be subjective, as this leads to falsification of scientific outcome. This is why the statements produced must be universally valid, no matter the time or place. Hence, a perfect positivist statement must be devoid of anything “humane” - personal beliefs, common sense or values – its sole role is to generate distilled essence of knowledge.

The main mission of positivist research is to generate wisdom and predictions.

Therefore, another advantage of that approach is the ability to create a theoretical insight into future. The better the theory, the more accurate the prediction – hence, a wise positivist researcher is capable of making a specific “political forecast”. That is the case of an American politologist, George Friedman and his book: “The Next Hundred Years: A Forecast for the 21st Century”[ix]. His assumptions are all based on logical predictions, in which global politics are compared to a multi player game of chess executed by experienced players. Paradoxically – the better the player is, the more predictable moves he will make. It occurs, because only few actions are rational enough to be used by accomplished “chessmasters” - a metaphor of leaders of the the countries.

Another flaw of the rationalist/empiricist approach is that “a rationalist is similar to a spectator, who, awed by the beauty of a painting, tries to discover, how it was created. He approaches the painting and begins to remove layer after layer of paint, until he ultimately gets to the canvas themselves”[x] Therefore, positivists only simplify the world to their needs, so that is suits the mathematical formula. Application of biological form of research into political science might be considered incomplete in a way. It is because, unlike animals that are the subject of research for biologists, human beings gain on complexity, due to formation of society and the depth of their psyche.

Statistically, 46% of surveyed people think that empirical data can be falsified. What is more, the survey above had not taken place, hence it is only a pure mystification. That example is given to show the relativity of truth and ease of falsifying the data (just what 46% of imaginary surveyed people thought). Changing the truth is a matter of confirming one's hypothesis, which is important in the development of scientific prestige of given politologist.

According to Rudolf Carnap[xi], German philosopher and one of creators of logical positivism, “only statements of mathematics and empirical science have sense – all other statements are without sense.” That approach might be considered a strength, but is it? With psychological factor and philosophy ignored, life loses its colours and is put into a test-tube. Inter-human relations lose their depth and are reduced to a set of empirical observations. In contrary, interpretivism concentrates on quality rather than quality, which allows it to see a different, non-mathematical aspect of political inquiry.

It may seem dubious, but one of weaknesses of positivist/empiricist approach to political analysis might be the question if any gods exist. It is a very unstable topic, as every individual has other views on it, yet positivist way of thinking may lead to lack of belief in one. Such conclusion might be drawn from the assumption that the subject of inquiry is irrelevant if no scientific research can be done on it. As a result, faith, that has no scientific proofs because being based on pure belief, is irrational and considered only a theory without any possibility of taking empirical tests.

As Paul Furlong and David Marsh[xii] see it, “any knowledge we derive from the five senses is mediated by the concepts we use to analyze it, so there is now way of classifying, or even describing, experience without interpreting it”. Such situation may lead to corruption of data experienced with senses, as analysis is based on own subjective interpretation of an individual. For example – two people sit in the dining room, as scrambled eggs are being prepared. One thinks it is high time to have a meal, and the other, who dislikes eggs, decides to opt out of breakfast. It might seem non-scientific, yet it perfectly shows the relativity of reception of external impulses depending on perspective. The same situation applies to political scientists – both are conducting a research on different subjects – both will interpret that same phenomenon in their own manner that best suits them.

There is however one more point above authors make. They assume that “theory and experiment are not simply separable”[xiii] It is the theory that influences the observation of facts and ways of interpreting them. Thus, misinterpreted facts might have a bad influence on theory itself. The key point made is that “if facts are inconsistent with the theory, we might decide that the facts are wrong rather than the theory is wrong”. Here, a paradox emerges – the world can be experienced only empirically with the ability to repeat the observation. With facts themselves being false, the method seems to have flaws at the very roots of it.

To conclude, the strengths and weaknesses of a positivist/empiricist approach to political analysis are quite balanced. As in any other epistemological branch, both positive and negative aspects are distinctive and subject-oriented. Main advantage of empiricist approach is that it draws from mathematical background and uses the scientific methods of reasoning to approach the political phenomena in a clearly logical manner. The main drawback of that way of thinking is that it uses biological way of inquiry to analyze human beings, which are more complex than animals, due to their psyche and the construct that is the society itself.

Personally, I think empirical approach is only one of the ways of experiencing the reality, and it cannot be determined, which one is the best, as all are different. It is up to individual preferences of every political scientist which of the paths he will undertake in his journey to wisdom.

-----------------------

[i] References:

i Georg W. F. Hegel, (Author), J. Sibree (Translator) Lectures on the Philosophy of History (Digireads, 2010) pg. 17

[ii] . Hammersley, Martyn. "Empiricism." Encyclopedia of Social Science Research Methods. (SAGE Publications. 8 Nov. 2010)

[iii] Blaikie, Norman. "Positivism." Encyclopedia of Social Science Research Methods. 2003. (SAGE Publications. 7 Nov. 2010)

[iv]

[v] David Marsh, Gerry Stoker Theory and Methods in Political Science (Palgrave Macmillan 2010), pg. 24

[vi] M. Głowinski, A. Okopien-Slawinska, J. Slawinski, Zarys teorii literatury (Warszawa: Wydawnictwa Szkolne i Pedagogiczne,1986), pg. 26 -27

[vii] Colin Wight, Lecture 2: Positivism and Empiricism and the Art of Science (Exeter, 2010), slide 24 (paraphrased)

[viii] David Marsh, Gerry Stoker Theory and Methods in Political Science (Palgrave Macmillan 2010), pg. 193

[ix] George Friedman - The Next 100 Years: A Forecast for the 21st Century (Doubleday, 2009) ,chapter: An Introduction to the American Age.

[x] (translated)

[xi] Rudolf Carnap, Philosophy and Logical Syntax (1935), chap. The Rejection of Metaphysics, subchap. Logical Analysis

[xii] David Marsh, Gerry Stoker Theory and Methods in Political Science (Palgrave Macmillan 2010), pg. 195

[xiii] David Marsh, Gerry Stoker Theory and Methods in Political Science (Palgrave Macmillan 2010), pg. 195

The length of the essay is 2129 words.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download