Nature and Significance of Political Theory

NATURE OF POLITICAL THEORY

WHAT IS POLITICAL?

When an organization is designed to regulate the whole community, it takes the character
of polity. Polity, therefore, denotes an organization where rules are made and decisions are
taken for the whole community, and authority is exercised over each member of the
community. The term “political refers to something that is ‘public', as distinguished from
private or something applicable to a limited number of persons. Sheldon S. Wolin, in his
Politics and Vision (1960) has beautifully summed up the characteristics of the ‘political as
follows:

Of all the authoritative institutions in society, the political arrangement has been singled out
as uniquely concerned with what is 'common’ to the whole community. Certain functions,
such as national defense, internal order, the dispensing of justice, and economic regulation,
have been declared the primary responsibility of political institutions, largely on the grounds
that the interests and ends served by these functions were beneficial to all of the members
of the community. Thus polity or the state enjoys a unique position among social institutions.
It is so important that Aristotle (an ancient Greek philosopher) described man by nature a
'political animal'. Living in a state was so natural for a person that he who lived outside the
state or who did not need a state was either a beast or an angel!

The terms ‘polity', 'politics' and 'political' are derived from the Greek word ‘polis'
which denoted ancient Greek city-state. The Greek city-states were relatively small
communities which were separated from each other by geographical barriers, like forests,
mountains and seas. Each city-state had evolved a compact social life and culture where
all institutions and activities were knit together. These institutions and activities which were
aimed at securing ‘good life' for the community were regarded to be the part of 'politics?.
However, in the present-day society the scope of politics is not regarded to be so
comprehensive. Today we draw a distinction between public and private spheres of human
life, and confine the usage of the term “politics' to the institutions and activities falling in
the public sphere. Thus the decisions of cabinet and parliament, election campaigns and
other activities of political parties, people's movements seeking change in law and public
policy, etc. belong to politics but the object of our faith and worship, the content of our
education, art and culture, etc. do not properly belong to the sphere of politics until some
regulation thereof is required to maintain
public order and safety!
SCOPE OF POLITICAL THEORY

After identifying the nature and scope of the political, we are now ready to understand the
nature of political theory. The term “theory' stands for a systematic knowledge. Thus
“political theory' denotes a systematic knowledge of political phenomena. What type of
knowledge do we require about the political phenomena in the realm of political theory?

Broadly speaking, political theory is concerned with three types of statements:

(1) Empirical statement, which is based on observation, through sense-experience alone;
(2) Logical statement, which is based on reasoning (e.g. 'two plus two is four”); and
(3) Evaluative statement, which is based on value-judgment (e.g ‘men are born free and
equal').

Political science relies only on empirical and logical statements. It is argued that correct
observation and correct reasoning by different persons would lead to the similar
conclusion; hence empirical and logical statements are capable of verification. On the other
hand, it is alleged that evaluative statements are based on individual or group preferences
which differ from individual to individual or group to group; there is no reliable method of
determining what is right or wrong, good or bad; one cannot scientifically discover the
purpose of the universe or human life. Exponents of ‘Logical positivism’ argue that
evaluative statements have no empirical content or logical structure; they are expressions
of subjective reflection or emotional preference. Likewise, champions of scientific method
for the study of politics insist on a ‘value-free’ or ‘value-neutral’ approach.

In any case, political theory cannot be confined to the so-called scientific knowledge. It is
equally concerned with determining values which come withinthe scope of philosophy. We
cannot accept the view that values are based on individual or group preferences. On the
contrary, values do have a sound logical structure unless we mistake them for biased
statements. Upholders of different values can be invited to have a dialogue, to have an
opportunity to understand each other's point of view, to convince each other and probably
to agree on certain universal principles to judge the validity of values. Determination of
values is the basis of a sound public policy or decision. If we abdicate this responsibility, it
may fall in irresponsible hands, with disastrous consequences. Hence political theory must
comprehend both political science and political philosophy.
 Logical positivism

A school of thought founded by German sociologist Max Weber (1864-1920) and the members
of Vienna Circle (Moritz Schlick, Ludwig Wittgenstein, A.J. Ayer, etc.) in the early decades of
the twentieth century. It holds that reliable and valid knowledge in any field of inquiry can be
obtained only by empirical method (i.e., observation based on sense-experience). The
questions concerning values are beyond the scope of scientific knowledge; hence it is not
possible to obtain reliable knowledge about them.

Dwelling on the nature of political theory, George Catlin (Political Quarterly, March 1957)
significantly observed: “the theory (of politics) itself is divided into political science and
political philosophy." Pleading for combining the study of political science with sociology,
Catlin asserted: “it is the supreme virtue of the fusion of sociology and political science that
it could enable us to be sharp-eyed for the phenomena of control in its many forms, over all
the processes of the whole social field.” (ibid.)

Then defining the scope of political philosophy, Catlin explained: "Our concern here. . . is
with the kingdom of ends or final values. . . So soon as a man begins to ask, “What is for the
national good?' or 'What is the good society?', he is asking questions in philosophy.” (ibid.) In
short, Catlin proceeds to identify the nature of political theory by pointing to its two
important components: political science and political philosophy. As he has suggested,
political science deals with the facts of political life (i.e., what is the real situation and which
laws govern our actual behavior) while political philosophy is concerned with values (i.e.,
what is good for us).

Andrew Hacker (Political Theory: Philosophy, Ideology, Science; 1961) also dwells on these
two major components of political theory but he introduces some new factors to elaborate
the issue. Hacker writes: “Every political scientist plays a double role. He is part scientist
and part philosopher. . . no theorist can Make a lasting contribution to human knowledge
unless he works in the realms of both science and philosophy. The scientific parts of a
theory can only achieve coherence and significance if the writer has a preconceived idea or
the goals of political life.” Commenting on the role of political science Hacker observes: “The
theorist whose pursuit is political science is interested in describing and explaining
the realities of political behavior. He attempts to draw up generalized propositions
about the actual relations between states and citizens and about the role of power
in society." (ibid.) About the role of political philosophy he comments: “The theorist whose
interest is in writing political philosophy, on the other hand, is concerned with prescribing
the goals which citizens, states and societies ought to pursue. His aim is to generalize about
right conduct in the political life and about the legitimate uses of power.” (ibid.) Adequate
knowledge of political science is essential for sound political philosophy. As Hacker points
out, “the philosophical parts of a theory must be informed by a profound understanding of
the facts of political life. The best political philosophers have always been well aware of the
existing realities: they have given intense and systematic study to the needs and
capabilities of man and society." (ibid.)

NATURE OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

In consonance with the requirements of scientific method political science proceeds by the
following steps: (a) Observation, which relies on sense-experience alone and rules out
supernatural or metaphysical causation (because it is beyond our sense-experience); (b)
Generalization which is based on observation of regularities leading to establishing the
relation and correlation between different factors or variables. This may either be obtained
by the inductive method (proceeding from *particular to general, i.e. arriving at a general
rule after observing similarities in particular cases), or by the deductive method (proceeding
from “general to particular”, i.e. postulating a general rule and then confirming it by
observation of particular cases). Generalization must be expressed in the form of a general
rule, preferably in quantitative terms, which should be capable of verification by
experimentation; (c) Explanation which consists in giving reasons for the general rule, for
without such reasoning any observation of correlation might be a mere coincidence;
explanation alone will make particular events, situations or tendencies meaningful; and
finally; (d) Prediction and Prescription known facts and general rules, their possible
outcome could be known and measures for achieving such objectives as higher efficiency,
stability, satisfaction, etc., could be suggested.
Behavior of human beings in a political situation rather than describing salient behavioral
approach to the study of politics insists on studying the actual features of political
institutions and their legal position. In the behavioral approach formal political institutions
are dissolved into ‘Systems’ and ‘Processes’ so as to focus attention on the actual behavior
of political actors, which alone is capable of scientific study. However, post-behavioral
approach insists on making the achievements of political science subservient to human
values and ends. Hence it heralds revival of concern with ‘values’ without compromising
scientific method for the study of ‘facts’.In short, post – behaviouralism calls for application
of political science for overcoming the prevailing cries in various spheres of human life.

NATURE OF POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

It is sometimes alleged that political science deals with the 'real' while political philosophy
deals with the 'ideal'. According to this viewpoint, political science inquires into what men
and women actually do in a political situation while political philosophy tries to determine
what they ought to do in keeping with the ultimate good or purpose of human life. But this
view does not define the scope of political philosophy adequately. Political philosophy may
properly be recognized by its 'critical’ function. As D.D. Raphael (Problems of Political
Philosophy; 1976) significantly observed: “It is true that some of the classical political
philosophers have set out ideal forms of society, but... this has not been their central
concern. Even in Plato, the purpose of depicting an ideal society is to criticize existing
society and to promote understanding of general social concepts such as justice.” According
to Raphael, the fundamental purpose of traditional philosophy has been the critical
evaluation of beliefs: “Philosophy differs from science in that science seeks explanation
while philosophy seeks justification”. (ibid.) The term “justification' implies the attempt to
give rational grounds either for accepting or rejecting the beliefs which we normally take
for granted without thinking of any grounds thereof.

Another closely related function of political philosophy is the clarification of concepts. As

Raphael has pointed out, many of these concepts, such as the concept of society, authority,
social class, justice, liberty and democracy, are not only highly general but also vague.
Clarification of such concepts involves three related purposes: analysis, synthesis and
improvement of concepts. Analysis of a concept involves specifying its elements, often by
way of definition, such as defining sovereignty as supreme legal authority. Synthesis of
concepts implies showing the logical relationships between two concepts, such as showing
that the concept of a right involves that of an obligation. Improvement of a concept implies
recommending a definition or use that will assist clarity or coherence, such as
recommending that the concept of sovereignty should be applied only to the legal authority
of a state, and not to its coercive power.

CONCLUSION

It may be conceded that political philosophy deals with the needs, objectives and goals of
human life which cannot be scientifically ascertained. always be discussed by the right
thinking people, argued on the basis of available data and reasoning, and some acceptable
point may be reached at the current level of our social consciousness. Most of the
arguments can be picked up for further scrutiny from the long tradition of political thought,
new arguments can be introduced there to and conclusions drawn from the expanding
horizons of our knowledge. Hence, the search for values and a critical review of our position
is an ongoing process which justify the continuing pursuit of political philosophy, In fact
political philosophy itself arose from a critical reflection of political activity which existed
long before the advent of political philosophy. It exemplified the Socratic function of
'speaking truth to power’.

Hacker particularly cautions us to distinguish political theory from ‘ideology'. A theory—

whether it takes the character of science or philosophy-must be dispassionate and
disinterested. When a theorist has no personal interest in any political arrangement, “his
vision of reality and his image of the good life will not be clouded, nor will his theory be
special pleading... The intention of ideology is to justify a particular system of power in
society. The ideologue is an interested party: his interest may be to defend things as they
are or to criticize the status quo in the hope that a new distribution of power will come into
being.” (Political Theory: Philosophy, Ideology, Science). When theory is clouded by ideology,
it is bound to be distorted. Political philosophy aims at a disinterested search for the
principles of the good state and the good society. When clouded by ideology, it is reduced to
a rationalization for current or future political and social arrangements. For instance,
upholders of capitalism regard private property as most conducive to justice and social
progress while upholders of socialism regard social ownership of means of production as
the most suitable method of achieving these ends. Similarly, upholders of nationalism place
national pride and national interest above any other goal while supporters of
internationalism tend to disregard national boundaries to determine the index of human
progress. In a nutshell, all ideologies are biased towards partisan ends. Any such bias
obstructs our search for truth. Political science demands a disinterested search for
knowledge of political and social reality. When clouded by ideology, it is reduced to partial
or selective depiction, resulting in a distorted description or explanation of political and
social reality. Scholarly detachment is, therefore, the keynote of political theory in real
sense of the term.

Ideology
A set of ideas and arguments used to defend an. existing or a proposed distribution of power in society.
These ideas are accepted to be true by their upholders without inquiring into their validity. The ruling class
may propagate its ideology to strengthen its own position while its opponents may use their ideology to
mobilize the people to replace the existing order by a new one to achieve some great objectives.

II SIGNIFICANCE OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

Political science and political philosophy play complementary roles in the realm of political theory.
Significance of political theory may, therefore, be sought in both of these areas.

CONTROL OF SOCIAL LIFE

Scientific analysis of political life enables us to understand and solve the problems of our social life.
Just as the knowledge of geology helps us in understanding the causes of earthquake and gives us
insights for preventing the havoc caused by it, so political science enables us to understand the
causes of conflict and violence in society and gives us insights for preventing their outburst. Just as
the knowledge of physics enables us to generate electricity from our thermal and water resources,
so the knowledge of political science enables us to secure development of society from our human
resources. Just as the knowledge of medical science enables us to control and cure various
diseases of human body, so political science guides us to find remedies of political instability and
various types of social crises.

SOCIAL CRITICISM AND RECONSTRUCTION

Political philosophy is primarily concerned with right and wrong, good and evil in social life. When
we find something wrong in our society and polity, we look for logical grounds for criticizing it and
speculate about the creation of a good society. A galaxy of political philosophers, like Plato, Aristotle,
St. Augustine, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Hegel, Marx, Mill and Macpherson have pointed
to the prevailing ills in society and they have given their own schemes of social reconstruction. We
cannot accept any of these proposals as the final truth. But they give us ample insights into the
possible ills of social life and their remedies. We can draw our own scheme of social reconstruction
on the basis of these insights. For example, Plato brilliantly exposed the modus operandi of selfish
and cunning politicians in a democracy. Machiavelli vividly described the character of selfish and
greedy people. Marx analysed the sources of conflict between the owners and non-owners of
property, and Macpherson pointed to the intricacies of power structure in contemporary society
which obstructs the way to creative freedom of individual. We can draw valuable insights from their
thought for finding remedies to the existing ills in the present-day society.

CLARIFICATION OF CONCEPTS

Political philosophy helps us a lot in the clarification of concepts used in the analysis of social and
political life. In fact the clarification of concepts in each area of study—whether science or
philosophy—is essential for the development of knowledge. This task is particularly difficult in the
field of political theory. As Sheldon S. Wolin has pointed out; “there is the widespread tendency to
utilize the same words and notions in describing non-political phenomena that we do in talking about
political matters. In contrast to the restricted technical usages of mathematics and the natural
sciences, phrases like 'the authority of the father, “the authority of the church', or the authority of
Parliament' are evidence of the parallel usages prevailing in social and political discussions.”
(Politics and Vision;1960)

So when we use the terms of common parlance in political discourse, it is very important to
determine their technical meaning. Moreover, the terms like authority, social class, liberty, equality,
justice, democracy, etc. may be applied by different schools of thought to indicate different ideas.
Political philosophy tries to determine their precise meaning which should be acceptable to the
upholders of different ideologies. Agreement on the meaning of the terms of political discourse does
not necessarily mean that they come to accept each other's viewpoint. But it certainly paves the way
for their dialogue. For example, if a liberal and a socialist accept the same meaning of “freedom' or
'equality', they are likely to appreciate each other's viewpoint.

As long as precise meanings of the terms of political discourse are not determined, some people
may apply them so cleverly as to conceal a weak point of their argument. Some selfish leaders and
demagogues may use these terms to mislead people by creating an emotional appeal and evading
reason, and autocrats may apply them to legitimize their oppressive regimes, as Mussolini (1883–
1945) did in Italy.

Again, a precise and widely accepted definition of a term enables each thinker to build his argument
on sound footing. As every innovative mechanic need not invent a wheel to assemble a new machine,
so every new thinker need not devise new terminology to present his point of view.

ENCOURAGEMENT TO MUTUAL RESPECT AND TOLERATION

The tradition of political theory encourages a dignified debate between upholders of different points
of view. Most political philosophers from ancient times till the present-day have been dwelling on
some common problems and giving us new insights. As Andrew Hacker has significantly observed:
“Political theory is a never-ending conversation among theorists. And while the greatest of the
debates are never resolved, the criticisms which the writers make of each other are always most
vivid and illuminating. ... Politics is, after all, the most democratic of sciences. The final judgements
concerning political reality and the good life are the responsibility of all who undertake the study of
theory.” (Political Theory: Philosophy, Ideology, Science)

When we follow the tradition of political philosophers, it inspires us to understand an Each other’s
viewpoint. It gives us an opportunity to identify the strengths and weaknesses of our thought, to
convince others and be convinced by others when truth is discovered. In short, political theory
generates mutual respect and toleration among us and prompts us to resolve our differences
peacefully.

CONCLUSION

Broadly speaking, political theory consists of political science and political

philosophy. These two branches of political theory taken together perform three
functions which are recognized as the functions of political theory: (a) Description;
(b) Criticism; and (c) Reconstruction. Political science mainly relies on empirical
method, that is the knowledge based on our practical experience which is supposed
to be most reliable, Hence it specializes in `description’. Political philosophy being
concerned with value-judgment specializes in ‘criticism' and ‘reconstruction’.

Advocates of positivism, neo-positivism (logical positivism) and behaviouralism

wish to confine political theory to the sphere of political science. They argue that
evaluative statements are based on individual or group preferences which differ
from individual to individual, and group to group. There is no reliable method of
determining what is right or wrong, good or bad; one cannot scientifically discover
the purpose of the universe or human life. Hence the questions of value-judgment
should be dropped from the purview of political theory altogether.

However, since the advent of post-behaviouralism (1969) and consequent upon the revival of political
philosophy in the 1970s and 1980s there has been a renewed emphasis on values in the realm of
political theory. It is now argued that value-judgment serves as an essential guide to social policy.
Indifference to value- judgment will leave society in the dark. The emerging concerns with
environmentalism, feminism human rights and social justice for the subaltern groups, etc. call for
exploring the new horizons of value-judgment. If political theory tends to relinquish this important
function, it may be grabbed by some less competent agency. As David Held (Political Theory Today;
1991; Editor's Introduction) has pointed out: “Taken as a whole, the tasks of political theory are
unquestionably demanding. In the absence of their systematic pursuit there is always the danger
that politics will be left to the ignorant and self-interested, or to those simply with a 'will to power’.”

Thus, all the functions of political theory have now become very important and urgent in the present-
day world where most of our problems are assuming global dimensions and they are being
recognized as the problems of humanity as such.

III. DEBATE ON THE DECLINE OF POLITICAL THEORY

Political theory implies an intellectual effort to attain a systematic knowledge about the goals and
methods of politics. In this sense it has a long tradition spreading over two-and-a-half milleniums.
However, in mid twentieth century the exponents of new political science began to question the
continued relevance of the traditional political theory.
David Easton, an American political scientist, in his Political System: An Inquiry into the State of
Political Science (1953) asserted that the traditional political theory was based on mere speculation.
It was devoid of acute observation of the political reality. In order to lay scientific foundations of the
study of politics, it was necessary to rescue it from the study of classics and the history of political
ideas. Easton argued that the traditional political theory was the product of the turmoil that
characterized the past ages. It particularly flourished in Greece in pre-Plato days, Italy in the
fifteenth century, England in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries or France in the eighteenth
century which were the days of widespread social and political upheaval. It had no relevance in
contemporary society.

Easton also pointed out that there has been no outstanding political philosopher after Marx (1818–
83) and J.S. Mill (1806–73). Why live parasitically on a century- old ideas? Easton argued that while
economists and sociologists had produced a systematic study of human behavior in their respective
spheres of investigation, political scientists had lagged behind. They failed to acquire suitable
research tools to account for the rise of fascism or communism and their continuance! Again, during
the Second World War (1939–45) economists, sociologists and psychologists had played an active
role in the decision-making process, but political scientists were ignored.

Easton, therefore, appealed for building up a behavioral political science, closer to other social
sciences, to take its due place in the decision-making process. He suggested that while traditional
political theory was primarily concerned with evolving suitable values for society, modern political
science need not make efforts in this direction. He believed that values represent individual or group
preferences relative to the social conditions in which these are developed. Contemporary society
would evolve its own value system from its own experience and insight. Political scientists should
only focus on building causal theory to explain political behavior.

Causal Theory

The theory that explains the relation between cause and effect. In other words, it inquiries into the
cause of what happens; and anticipates what will happen if certain cause is present.

However, Easton changed his view after one-and-a-half decades. In his presidential address to the
American Political Science Association in 1969 he launched his ‘post-behavioral’ revolution. In fact,
Easton was trying to convert political science from a ‘pure science’ to ‘applied science’. He insisted
that scientific investigation should enable the contemporary society to tide over the prevailing crisis.
This also involved a renewed concern with values which were sought to be excluded in the earlier
behavioral approach.
The debate on the decline of political theory which appeared in 1950s was also joined by some
other prominent writers. Thus, Alfred Cobban in his paper on ‘The Decline of Political Theory’
published in Political Science Quarterly (1953) argued that political theory had lost its significance
in capitalist as well as communist systems. Capitalist systems were inspired by the idea of
‘libertarian democracy' whereas there was no political theorist of democracy. It was also
characterized by an overwhelming role of bureaucracy and the creation of a huge military machine.
Political theory had practically to play no role in sustaining this system. On the other hand,
communist systems were characterized by a new form of party organization and the rule of a small
oligarchy. Political theory had taken a back seat under these systems.
Cobban pointed out that Hegel and Marx were interested in a small part of the universe. Hegel was
primarily concerned with ‘territorial state and Marx with ‘Proletariat class'. They wanted to discover
what was predestined within their respective frames of reference. Contemporary politics was
operating on such a large scale that it could not be analyzed in the light of any partial or narrow
theory. Besides, logical positivists who sought to concentrate on facts to the exclusion of values was
also responsible for the decline of political theory. However, Cobban came to the conclusion that all
was not yet lost. Political science has to answer questions which the methodology of social sciences
may not be able to answer. It must evolve criteria of judgment which will revive the relevance
of political science.

Then Seymour Martin Lip set in his Political Man: The Social Bases of Politics (1960) argued that the
values of the contemporary society had already been decided. In the United States the age-old
search for 'good society' had come to an end because they had already achieved it. The prevailing
form of democracy in that country was “the closest approximation to the good society itself in
operation.” Thus Lipset, too, questioned the continued relevance of political theory in those days.

Indeed, the exponents of behavioral approach sought to strengthen scientific basis of the study of
politics and to delink it from political philosophy. But the champions of political philosophy never
approved their stand. Leo Strauss in his famous paper "What is Political Philosophy?” published in
Journal of Politics (1957) and in ‘An Epilogue’ to Essays on the Scientific Study of Politics (edited
by Herbert J. Storing, 1962) argued that the new science of politics was in fact a symptom of the
alleged decline of political theory. By adopting positivist approach, it had ignored the challenge of
normative issues. Empirical theory of politics asserts equal importance of all social values. It denies
that certain things are intrinsically high while others are intrinsically high while others are
intrinsically low. Thus, it obliterates the distinction between men and brutes as if it destroys the
identify of clean water by mixing it with dirty water.

Positivism

The view that relies on scientific method as the only source of true knowledge. It rejects
superstition, religion and metaphysics as pre-scientific forms of thought. It holds that all
knowledge is ultimately based on sense-experience. Hence empirical method must be adopted
for any genuine inquiry in the field of social sciences as well as physical sciences.

Commenting on this debate Dante Germino in his Beyond Ideology: The Revival of Political Theory
(1967) argued that in most of the nineteenth century and early twentieth century there were two
major causes of the decline of political theory: (a) the rise of positivism which led to the craze for
science; and (b) the prevalence of political ideologies culminating in Marxism. But now it was again
in ascendancy, particularly in the political thought of Michael Oakeshott, Hannah Arendt, Bertrand
de Jouvenal, Leo Strauss and Eric Voegelin. This list was expanded by Germino in a subsequent
paper (1975) so as to include John Rawls, C.B.Macpherson, Christian Bay, Robert Nozick, Herbert
Marcuse, Jurgen Habermas, Alasdaire MacIntyre and Michael Walzer. The works of these writers
had revived the grand tradition of political philosophy. Germino suggested that in order to
understand the new role of political theory it was imperative to identify it with political philosophy.
Political philosophy is a critical study of the principles of right order in human social existence,
involving inquiry into right and wrong. It is neither reductionist behavioral science where everything
is reduced to sense-experience, nor opinionated ideology which accepts some principles to be true
without inquiring into their validity. It comprehends both the knowledge of facts and the insight with
which that knowledge is comprehended.

According to Germino, political philosophy deals with perennial problems confronting man in his
social existence. Detachment is not ethical neutrality. A political philosopher cannot remain
indifferent to the political struggle of his times as a behavioralist would claim. In short, behavioral
political science concentrates on facts and remains neutral to values. Political philosophy cannot
grow along with positivism which abstains from a critical examination of any social situation.
The gulf between traditionalist and behavioralist components of political theory is so wide that they
cannot be ‘reunited'. Any theory separated from the perennial concerns of political philosophy will
prove to be irrelevant. Germino laments that the behavioral political theory has often implicitly or
uncritically endorsed the policies and practices of the established order instead of performing the
Socratic function of 'speaking truth to power. He warns that full recovery of critical political theory
cannot be achieved within the positivist universe of discourse.

Herbert Marcuse (1898–1979) has significantly pointed to the risk involved in the demand for
scientific study of society and politics. He has argued that when the language of social science
attempts to conform to the language of natural science, it tends to lend support to the status quo. In
this context scientific terminology is sought to be defined in terms of such operations and behavior
that are capable of observation and measurement. This leaves no scope for a critical vision in the
scientific language. For instance, when people's participation is sought to be estimated on the basis
of the numbers of voters who turn up at elections, we do not question whether the prevailing
electoral system conforms to the spirit of democracy! When we adopt this method of study, social
science no longer remains an instrument of social inquiry; it becomes an instrument of social
control.

In any case, since 1970s the dispute between political science and political philosophy has largely
subsided. While David Easton had shown a renewed concern with values in his post-behavioral
approach, the exponents of political philosophy did not hesitate in testing their assumptions by
empirical method. Karl Popper (1902–94), an eminent exponent of scientific method, proceeded to
draw conclusions regarding social values. John Rawls (1921–2002) adopted empirical method for
arriving at his principles of justice. Then C.B. Macpherson (1911–87) attacked the empirical theory of
democracy propounded by Joseph Schumpeter (1883–1950) and Robert Dahl (1915–) and advanced
his own radical theory of democracy. Herbert Marcuse and Jurgen Habermas (1929–) have shown a
strong. Empirical insight in their critical analysis of the contemporary capitalism. It is now held that
political science, like other social and natural sciences, enables us to strengthen our means but we
will have to resort to political philosophy to determine our ends. Means and ends are interdependent,
hence political science and political philosophy play complementary roles in our social life.