Structure of a political science

The political science represents a wide complex of knowledge of the politician, covering its various displays. Specificity of political science consists in revealing of the nature, conditions and technology of distribution and power realisation in politi -

ческом community, that is among those who expressly or by implication participates in political life.

Being the uniform and integrated science about the politician, the political science includes a number of private disciplines which investigate those or other parties of the political validity. Among them it is possible to allocate political philosophy, political sociology, political psychology, political anthropology, history of political doctrines etc.

Fig. 4.2. Structure of a political science

So, the political philosophyinvestigates valuable world outlook aspects of a policy, political ideals, norms, on

логии, cybernetics, she focuses attention on the decision of concrete political problems: development of mechanisms of a resolution of conflicts, technology of conducting political negotiations, definition of models of behaviour of voters, revealing of value of regional factors on political life, creation of favorable political image, planning and carrying out of election campaigns, technology of a manipulation mass consciousness etc.

Thus, the political science represents a uniform science about the politician, integrating conclusions of private political disciplines. It organically combines three levels of knowledge of the politician: philosophical on which are defined sense, the nature and appointment of the power, the state etc.; theoretical, revealing a place and a role of each political institute and the subject, the form and types of functioning of imperious relations; sociological, opening the reasons and motives of political influence and behaviour of individuals, groups.

Modern politological schools (the basic paradigms)

As the initial basis of the analysis of a policy in modern Anglo-American political science the political behaviour caused by inducing motives acts. Психологизация political relations, i.e. search of the reasons of political behaviour of subjects in the psychological mechanisms, steady psychological reactions, characteristic for political activity, is a defining tendency of development of a political science in the USA and Great Britain in first half XX century

As a unit of measure of a political reality were are taken «the political person» and its will to dominate. It allowed to consider a policy зримо, particularly, opened possibility to develop effective practical means of overcoming of conflicts, destructive actions.

Dominating directions in an Anglo-American political science are бихевиористское, structurally functional and герменевтическое the directions based on the approaches with the same name.

Bihevioristsky direction

Founders бихевиоризм (from English behaviour - behaviour) and consequently, and behavioural (бихевиорального) directions in Anglo-American political science it is considered to be group of scientists

The Chicago university led by C.Merriam (1874-1953), XX century which have undertaken in 30th attempt to deduce formal structure of political relations from "natural" essence of the person.

The pupil and colleague C.Merriama, and English political scientist Dzh were engaged in the further working out of the behavioural doctrine in G.Lassuell (1902-1978). Кэтлин (1896-1975).

In 60th of their XX century has replaced «the second generation» researchers-bihevioristov, among which such visible theorists, as D.Truman, D.Iston, R.Dal, etc.

Initial methodological installation бихевиористов consists that the nature of the power and a policy is deduced from the human nature accessible to research by scientific methods.

Like representatives of European political philosophy XVII-XVIII centuries, бихевиористы start with a parcel about «the natural person» - the independent subject of political process, some kind of «political atom», initially allocated with a certain set of lines and the characteristics following from its universal, extrahistorical nature. This invariable and all-powerful human nature finally defines all system of sociopolitical relations of any society during any historical period of its development.

However unlike educators бихевиористы have refused a moral estimation of political problems, considering them it is exclusive as natural. The political reality is a part of a natural, natural order and consequently political processes proceed in invariable forms which are caused by the invariable nature of the individual. Thereupon the problem of the political theory consisted in explaining the phenomena of political life proceeding from natural properties of the person, to deduce political phenomena from laws of natural vital behaviour of people.

In opinion бихевиористов, defining line of human mentality and behaviour is not realised aspiration to a personal authority understood as possibility to influence someone. The person - «an ambitious animal»: not realised aspiration to the power underlies all its acts and actions, from professional career before ordinary acquisitions. It is shown in all without an exception forms of ability to live of the person: in relations between spouses, parents and children, friends, colleagues, chiefs and subordinates and even in the relation to pets. This primary and insuperable passion to domination, aspiration by all means to subordinate

• natural resources;

• industrial potential;

• military readiness (including a level of development of military technology, a military management, quantity and quality of armed forces);

• population;

• «national character» (the relation of the population to war);

• «national morals» (the relation of the population to the governmental policy);

• quality of diplomacy which acts as «the most important factor defining power of the country».

As wrote Morgentau, diplomacy - «this art of combination of various elements of national power round achievement of the foreign policy purposes», is quality of the government, i.e. its ability to provide support of the foreign policy from public opinion.

Naming quality of diplomacy the major factor of national power, Morgentau did not belittle thereby a role and value of military force as efficiency of politiko-diplomatic possibilities, in its opinion, is in direct dependence on a military power of each concrete state. In a world policy, it explained, «military force which can be put into practice or used as threat, is the most important material factor providing political power of the state».