Normative theory
Normative theory= thinking about how the world ought to be; it seeks to provide norms, based
on appeals to ultimate conceptions that are beyond question. In modern history, Locke was the
first to apply scientific reasoning to human communities and the individual. For Locke, as we are
all possessed of natural autonomy, there is a basic moral equality between us. Locke theorized
a starting “state of nature”, and this situation provides the criterion for justice: a just arrangement
is one that we would agree to if we were given the option in a condition where no arrangement
exists. Thus we get to a State which 1, operates through settled and known law and 2, we would
want that law to protect basic liberties. Classical liberalism is a 'deontological' doctrine: it asserts
certain principles as universally applicable. Another strand of liberal thought is Bentham’s
utilitarianism. The utilitarian conception implies that when thinking about political actions,
policies or arrangements, we are obliged to pursue that which will maximize general levels of
weil-being. In “On Liberty”, John Stuart Mill drew out a direct connection between the
maximization of happiness and liberal politics. It is under conditions where individual freedom is
maximized that we have the best chance to engage the resources which, when applied, make
for a satisfying life. Mill's famous 'harm principle': whilst the community through the agency of
the state, might legitimately intervene to prevent or punish those acts that harm others, above
and beyond this, we should respect the liberty of the individual. Built on utilitarianism, “new
liberalism” argued that if well-being is the principal aim, then the state should play a role in
securing for people the material resources required in order to be able to make free choices and
to take opportunities for self-development. Liberal theory in the 20th century is revived by Rawls
with “A Theory of Justice”. Rawls follows social contract theory and stipulates an “original
position” where people don’t know their individual characteristics nor conceptions of the good,
so that they cannot pursue personal interests (= “veil of ignorance”). People would choose
principles that require the maximization of basic liberties, combined with a redistributive state
that would ensure that everyone, and particularly the less well off, benefits from the system.
Challenges to liberalism. 1, critical theory. Developed by the Frankfurt School and based on
Marxism, critical theory regarded liberalism as an ideological edifice of capitalism, and liberal
appeals to the “universal” are actually limited to the perspective of capitalist society. Marcuse
argues that liberalism makes us conceive ourselves as mere “rational producers and
consumers”. “Return of the repressed': a reassertion of our instinctual need for sensuous and
aesthetic gratification, vis a vis capitalist materialism. This provides the basis for anti-capitalist,
anti-liberalism politics. For Habermas, liberal capitalism “systematically distorts communication”
by marginalizing certain voices and points of view. 2, communitarianism. Comm.s accuse Rawls
of ignoring “shared conceptions of the good and ethical solidarity”, and argue that there’s no
universal value, but rather different identities and beliefs based on membership to communities.
Sandel and Walzer argue against Rawls’ “unencumbered self”, because we are culturally and
socially determined, and it’s thus impossible to be unbiased. For Walzer, the welfare state is just
when the individual recognizes their shared sense of responsibility. 3, post-modernism: calls
into question the liberal assumption as to the fundamental autonomy of the individual and the
priority it gives to the idea of free choice, e.g. Foucault argues that identity is “given” rather than
, freely chose. Discourses constantly arise and battle for dominance, the dominant one currently
being liberalism.
In conclusion, contemporary debate is concerned more with how to justify liberal principles than
with the validity of those principles themselves. For example, republicanism proposes a
conception of liberty as non-domination: the requirement that individuals are free from the
arbitrary power of others. For republicans, the state that is more interventionist than in traditional
deontological liberalism; and to avoid dependence to the state, republicans argue for an
arrangement that maximizes opportunities for debate over matters of principle and policy and
that opens up to citizens as many forums as possible. Some other debates that remain in
liberalism are: to what extent should states carry out redistribution; should the state legislate for
morals; how do liberals respond to illiberal beliefs.
Behavioralism
Behavioralism differs from other social science in their belief that 1. observable behavior should
be the focus of analysis, and 2. any explanation of that behavior should be susceptible to
empirical testing. It originated in Comte’s writing and in positivist thought. For positivists, only
“useful tautologies” (purely definitional statements) and empirical statements count, while all
other statements that don’t fit into these categories are devoid of analytic meaning. For
behavioralists, an empirical theory is a set of interconnected abstract statements consisting of
assumptions, definitions and empirically testable hypotheses; an explanation is a causal
account of the occurrence of some phenomenon. For both positivists and behavioralists there
are three ways in which explanatory theories can be evaluated: 1. a good theory is internally
consistent, 2. a good theory should be as consistent as possible with theories that explain
related phenomena, 3. theories must be capable of generating empirical predictions that can be
tested against observation. This emphasis on empirical observation produces the 2
characteristics of behavioral approach to social enquiry: the commitment to the systematic use
of all the relevant empirical evidence rather than a limited set of illustrative supporting examples,
and that scientific theories must be capable of being falsified. If a statement is not falsifiable, it’s
tautological and pseudo-scientific. Theories however have “core” propositions that are not
falsifiable.
Criticism against behavioralism. 1, some object to the positivist claim that statements which are
neither definitions nor empirical are meaningless. Most important criticism, as statements that
are labeled “meaningless” can still contain ideas that add significantly to our understanding of
behaviour. Modern behavioralists (post-behavioralists) have therefore grown to accept the role
of normative theory, and argue instead that they just yield a “different form of knowledge”. 2,
tendency towards mindless empiricism, emphasis on data and tendency to ignore the
importance of those phenomena which are difficult to measure. A related problem is that
behavioralism would focus on readily observed phenomena rather than on structural forces that
can influence a pol.system. An example of concept that’s been neglected is that of “individual
interests”, which are difficult to observe. Behavioralists also tend to not acknowledge the
imprecise nature of the data analysed. 3, the assumed independence of theory and observation,
and the idea of being “value-free”. Modern behavioralists have rejected these notions and taken
