Social scientists have managed to keep their professions, at the level of witchcraft, magic and folklore.’ As the goal of making a scientific political theory has not been realised, it is advisable to deal with acceptable substitutes or ‘theorisation- in-practice’. These are analysis and explanation.
Analysis:
Conceptual Clarification:
Analysis is logical examination of a problem or subject matter by using some formalised or non-formalised means and methods of study. It is an attempt to know reality with a specific perspective. A perspective allows us to select and organise our perceptions, and guide our actions.
Analysis can relate to old or new approaches. Older approaches move around reason, law, laws of nature, values, institutions, and are mostly non-empirical. Modern approaches are conceptual, empirical and theoretical. But there is no reluctance or reservation on the part of an analyst when he undertakes to study ideas, ideals, and other metaphysical realities by following philosophical method; or background of events, traditions, culture and ethos adopting on the basis of historical method; or reality of psychological phenomena by adopting psychological methods including introspection. It is freedom from methodological formalities which makes analysis amenable to all aspects of non-empirical areas of Political Science. It has grown over thousands of years, both in the East and the West, and has thrived in all cultures.
To narrow the focus, analysis is the process of mental or factual breaking down of a whole into its component parts and elements. It is a method of obtaining fresh knowledge, separating the essential from the non-essential and reduce the complex to the simple. The breaking down of the object into its component parts reveals its true structure, form or pattern. It is used in all mental operations such as, abstraction, conceptualisation, generalisation etc.
It appears differently according to the nature of the object or problem of study. As a developing process, it reveals various stages which may be cohesive or contradictory. The analyst proceeds from the complex to the simple, from the fortuitous to the necessary and from multiformity to identity and uniformity. The purpose of analysis is the cognition of the parts as elements of a complex whole, particularly less observable, less empirical and too big and too subtle for measurement and comprehension.
Analysis is the use of reason in an understanding of a problem or an issue. In the absence of a general theory, it can be regarded as a workable device to obtain knowledge. It is an action-frame of inquiry with a purpose.
From that point of view, it is not so value-free or scientific. Every analyst adopts his own intellectual posture or has his own conceptual priorities. This is his privilege. This can be regarded as an underlying assumption that precedes his analysis. It may not be deduced from his analysis of the phenomena he undertakes to describe and evaluate.
In this sense, analysis is different from a theory, approach, ideology or explanation. It is an intellectual process to know reality in a limited manner. Often analysis in Political Science is circumscribed by given historical conditions and prevailing circumstances. It caters to know specific problems and feels free to make use of any method and seek counsel of any discipline or source of knowledge.
An analyst may take micro or macro problems and conduct his enterprise at any level – higher or lower. It has imprint of its user in matter of purpose, style and strategy. Each analysis attempts to yield some conclusions in the form of propositions, working hypotheses and generalisations that may not be regarded by others as valid and general.
Forms of Analysis:
Analysis is a much-used mental activity in academics. Still it is not uniform.
It appears special in three areas:
(i) Empirical research,
(ii) Elaboration, explanation and drawing conclusions, and,
(iii) In submitting individualized statements.
In a way, all of them are sub-theoretical attempts made by individual scholars. However, we are more concerned with second area, i.e., elaboration, explanation and drawing conclusions as actual form of theorisation.
Analysis, in the first area of empirical research is used when the whole body of the gathered data is at hand. It is also known as ‘data analysis’. That comes after data-processing. It involves scrutiny of the assembled data, outlining the major aspects of the data, classification, coding, tabulation, statistical analysis, inferring cause-effect relationship and formulating scientific law. It begins with hypotheses, concepts and variables developed around some research questions.
Coming to the second area, it can be said that all politics is not amenable to observation or sensory treatment, therefore, may not be scientifically studied. No doubt politics is largely temporal, human, relational and oriented to big and small groups, still, all of its subject-matter is enmeshed with and moved by non-empirical forces like values, ideals, ideas, ideology, tradition, faith, myths and ignorance.
If we confine ourselves only to empirical or behavioural part of organised life, the discipline would be able to retain only a small fraction of presently available subject-matter. We may broaden our outlook by adopting ‘scientific value relativism’ and feel free from the charge of apolitical scientism. But still some of the real source and forces of politics are left over.
They do reflect in behaviour, thought and communication, but their abstract, subjective and ephemeral nature prompts pure science scholars either to isolate them or treat them as givens. This is an scientific attitude towards them. Some of these forces are responsible for the generation and germination of all types of politics. Therefore, even if they do not appear in concrete or semi-concrete forms, their study should be made part of Political Science.’” Without knowing them, concrete structures, institutions, behaviour-patterns and other isolated political activities may not be properly comprehended.
Their force continues to operate in air, changing sometimes, the very meaning, goal and purposes of popularly known political activities, institutions and structures. At times, scholars and politicians are taken aback on sudden turns of political events only because they happen to neglect them and fail to appreciate them in a suitable manner.
Their knowledge does not stand on empirical grounds, but their force and potency is unparalleled, subtle and unique. However their task of knowing them fully may not be left to the field of analysis. In this sense, both scientific method and analysis stand complementary to each other replacing and removing their limitations and weaknesses by mutual strength.
This is not a concession to analysis, as till today, there is little ‘science’ with Political Science. A large part of the knowledge of politics is produced by Analysis. Most of politics continues to operate on the basis of analysis, and there is little of it with Political Science. Till Political Science assumes all over responsibility, there is no alternative to resorting to political analysis.