Brief Summary
This video provides an overview of traditional approaches to political science, contrasting them with modern approaches. It explains the meaning of "approach" in the context of political science, discusses the characteristics and types of traditional approaches (Philosophical, Institutional, Historical, and Legal), and offers a critical evaluation of their limitations. The video also touches upon the importance of understanding these approaches for exam preparation.
- Understanding the meaning of "approach" in political science.
- Exploring the characteristics of traditional approaches.
- Examining the types of traditional approaches: Philosophical, Institutional, Historical, and Legal.
- Critically evaluating the limitations of traditional approaches.
Introduction to Traditional Approaches in Political Science
Deepika introduces the topic of traditional approaches to political science, contrasting them with modern approaches. The video will cover the meaning of "approach," the characteristics of traditional approaches, their types (Philosophical, Institutional, Historical, and Legal), and a critical evaluation of their limitations. The importance of this topic for exams is also highlighted.
Understanding the Meaning of "Approach"
The video explains that an "approach" in political science refers to the methods and strategies used to understand political phenomena and theories. It's the process one undertakes to arrive at political truths. Different political scientists have their own approaches to understanding concepts like justice, with examples given of John Rawls, Amartya Sen, and Plato.
Traditional vs. Modern Approaches
Traditional approaches are value-based and normative, focusing on values like good life and social order. Modern approaches, on the other hand, are scientific and fact-based. The video explains that traditional approaches, prevalent from Plato to the 18th century, aimed to understand political science through a specific lens, often focusing on ideal states and moral purposes.
Characteristics of Traditional Approaches
Traditional approaches are value-based, emphasizing ethical and moral values. They are also largely normative, focusing on the values of politics. Supporters of traditional approaches believe that political science is value-based and cannot be entirely scientific because human behavior and societal values are not easily quantifiable. Traditional approaches also neglect the findings of other social sciences, lacking an interdisciplinary nature. They are formal in nature, focusing more on formal institutions like government, state, judiciary, legislative and executive bodies.
Types of Traditional Approaches: Philosophical Approach
The Philosophical approach combines political science with ethics, believing that human philosophy and ethical values influence politics. It focuses on moral values and truth, with supporters like Plato, Rousseau, Kant, and Hegel. The goal is to create a good social and political order where humans can pursue a happy life.
Types of Traditional Approaches: Historical Approach
The Historical approach emphasizes understanding the history of present political processes and institutions. It argues that contemporary political phenomena can only be understood through their historical development. Thinkers like Machiavelli and Left Tanning believe that politics and history are interlinked.
Types of Traditional Approaches: Legal Approach
The Legal approach interlinks politics with legal processes, legal institutions, and legal mechanisms. Supporters believe that understanding the state and politics requires understanding the judicial process. Key supporters include Body in Growth Years, Hops Dicee.
Types of Traditional Approaches: Institutional Approach
The Institutional approach focuses on institutions like the legislature, executive, and judiciary. It studies these formal structures, with supporters like Arrest Total, James Bentley, and Walter or Last.
Critical Evaluation of Traditional Approaches
Traditional approaches are criticized for being normative and idealistic, often ignoring contemporary society and focusing on what "should be" rather than what "is." They are also seen as speculative and abstract, neglecting political behavior and international problems. Additionally, they are criticized for focusing on single aspects (historical, legal, ethical, or institutional) rather than adopting a multi-dimensional, interdisciplinary approach. This limitation led to the development of modern approaches.
