The word ‘value’ is used in two but interrelated senses. In the first sense, it is used by political actors for desirable or undesirable things such as, democracy, justice, freedom, power, etc. Easton mostly uses it in this sense. In the second sense, it is a criterion or basis of evaluation which an individual, group or society uses it to accept or reject some goals, means to achieve them, procedures, ideals, etc. In the latter sense, values influence political behaviour.
As such, origin, relevance, and interrelation among various values must be studied and analysed. Various values when put together make up the ‘value system’. An individual carries them within himself either as a whole or in part. The value system can be consistent, cohesive, specific, latent or manifest.
It can take the form of an ideology, policies, goals, laws, rules, ideals, and moral precepts. All of them can be directly stated as in a party manifesto. Otherwise, the values or value system can be known by studying behaviour patterns, value statements, culture-symbols or works, literary or artistic expressions, institutional presentation, or language formulations.
A value judgement involves a statement which connects a trans-empirical value with an individual, thing or abstraction. As it is non-empirical, it cannot, therefore, be easily refuted by objective means. Most of the value judgements are the formalised expressions of sentiments and emotions derived from culture and invoke men to action. One can also reach values through observation of action or one’s culture leading to value judgements. Values are major determinants of human behaviour. They become, thus, major areas of study for Political Science.
Many things contribute to the making of values – intellect, will, sentiments, religion, ego, superstition, ignorance, tradition, etc. On the basis of values, a man regards a thing or activity as ‘good’ or ‘bad’, and may act accordingly. The individual may express them in form of his ideas, desire, act, will, goal, or opposition. It is difficult to validate the bases or sources of those values, but the latter, to a large extent, determine his attitudes, choices, activities, and aspirations. Therefore, the problem of values has to be studied, at least from the view of developing a science of politics.
Normally, the term ‘value’ is used in the following sense:
(1) All the economic or physical means helpful to achieve some immediate cause or purpose. They are mostly called as instrumental values.
(2) Some express purpose or objective as aid to fulfill some other tacit or indirect purpose.
(3) Humans, things or tangibles for which there is clash, conflict, rivalry or competition to own.
(4) Pleasure-giving things, activities, ideas, purposes, or desires expressed to have them.
(5) Ultimate goals or ends which cannot be expressed through other aims, actions or purposes.
(6) Dispassionate actions involving no self-interest, such as making sacrifice for a general cause.
It may here be pointed out that all values do not influence an individual or group equally. The same value may have varying influence. There is lack of consensus among scholars about what place should be accorded to values.
The problem is discussed below:
Study of Values:
Early behaviouralists, with a view to developing a ‘science of politics’ by adopting the scientific method, stood for a ‘value-free’ Political Science. The traditionalists, on the other side, always talked of ubiquitous role of values and value preferences. They had them from religion, nature, philosophical meditation, axiomatic postulates, introspection, history, law and morality. The relationship of values with the individuals was based on faith, belief, confidence, intuition, superstition or ignorance. As such, few could claim to know them or understand their implications.
The rulers could easily sustain themselves in power in the name of those mystic ideas or esoteric values. Against them, there arose a sharp reaction banishing all values from scientific studies. The latter group of behaviouralists tried to eliminate all emotional attitudes, particularistic fallacies, false idols, bias and prejudice, ethnocentrism, vested interests, moral values, and even ideals. They wanted to mould Political Science in the form of physics and chemistry.
Very soon, they began to face difficulties in developing a value-free Political Science. They confined themselves to mere description and classification of facts in the hope to realize a descriptive, empirical, operational and causal political theory. But their hopes withered within no time. It was pointed out that these adventures too had their own hidden values, ideals, and prejudices, which influenced their choices of problem, methods and findings.
Thus, the whole discipline was split into two warring camps, and stood on a cross-road. Felix Kaufmann in 1944 had found that in social sciences, controversy relating to values was greatest among all the methodological problems. Values have a role to play before and after every research venture. No scholar can afford to avoid it.
From the viewpoint of values, scholars of Political Studies can be divided into three categories:
1. Social scientists who keep their studies completely away from values. They can be named as ‘value-neutralists’.
2. Scholars who stand for values and regard safeguarding certain values as their main objective, are known as ‘traditionalists or classicists’.
3. Scholars who, while keeping themselves as value-neutral, regard study of values as possible and desirable. Brecht calls them as ‘scientific value relativists’.
Position of first and third categories is relevant to the discussion of values and making of a scientific political theory.