張文蔚
政治學報；0期 (05/01/1970) P81-144
關鍵字：（無）
中文摘要
（本刊使用科技部人社中心期刊數位傳播計畫經費送譯）
以下這篇原文以中文撰寫而成的文章發表於1970年的中國政治學會會議，以作為與會者總討論之基礎。本文的寫作背景係現代化過程及政治發展。
當亞洲和非洲的舊社會遇上西方思想，社會變遷的問題在不同國家在不同程度上得到解決。本篇文章討論了六個由白魯恂(Lucian W. Pye)教授提出的建國危機。本文將會進一步探討政治發展的意義，而政治發展需要一個在亞洲和非洲尚未被開發的的新社會基礎建設。這些新的基礎建設包括，例如不同類型的非政府自由社團之存在，國民間新的社經關係，科學進步的影響，及對社會演化的信念。
政治發展需要一種新的政治文化，除非舊有的宗教-社會思想群聚有一個慢慢枯萎的過程，否則新文化是不會來臨的。這些舊思想現今在偏鄉地區仍然很興盛，而大多數的人們仍生活在每個國家的鄉下地區。
本文將提及西方和原住民文化價值間的衝突；在許多新國家，這些文化價值往往源於特定的宗教信仰。在亞非社會，貧窮、教育和失業問題經常帶來更多的社會和政局動蕩，導致對抗風雨搖擺政權之革命。近年來，政治精英未能完全理解自家人民的期望和渴求。即時政治精英相當了解人民，他們也未能提供恰當的解決方案以面對變遷與人民的訴求。在某些國家，治理精英和一般民眾之間的鴻溝是令人費解。故此，不滿浮現和動盪越趨激烈。本文檢視發展中國家治理精英的合適度和勝任度，因為大部分的精英份子都曾在西方國家的大學受教育。因此，相較於國內的問題，他們更熟悉西方社會的本質與問題。在同一個精英群內，抑或不同的精英群間也存在受西方教育者及在本地受教育者間的緊張情緒或衝突。
本文也探討了國家發展和制度建立之工具。這些工具的本質需有社會和政治目的之先決概念。一般而言，這些工具用於社會動員及謀求共識，以促進民眾和不同群體間目的與行動之凝聚。該等工具至少涵括，作為基礎之國家憲法、政黨、大眾媒介、社團、公務員，及組織良好的公共行政等，而這些元素本身也是建國的一部分。政治任命的工作，和決策過程，例如投入-轉換-產出的過程。基本的運作機構當然包括，政府的立法、行政、和司法部門。其之下為選舉、文官，溝通渠道等機構。
總體而言，本文未能詳細論述每一個提及之範疇。本文僅試圖以服務與會者討論為目的。故此，本文並沒有提出任何主要結論。
英文摘要：
The following articIe written in Chinese Ianguage was presented at the l970 Conference of the Chinese Association of Political Science as a basis for general discussion among the conference participants. It was written within the context of modernization process and political development.
The problems of social change, as old societies in Asia and Africa meet with Western ideas,are being resolved in different counties with different degrees of success. The article discusses the six rises of nat- ion-building as suggested by Prefessor Lucian W. Pye. It further explores the meaning of political development which requires a new social infrastructure yet to be developed in Asia and Africa. This new infrastructure includes,for example,the existence of non-governm- ental free associations of various kinds, new socio-eco- nomic relations among citizens, the impact of scientific progress, and beliefs in social which can not come about unless there is a general decaying process of the old clusters of religion-social ideas which presently remain strong in rural areas where the majority of the people live in each country.
The article touches upon the conflicts between the Western and the indigenous cultural values which often originates from a particular religion in many new countries,The problems of poverty,education and unemployment often create additional social and poli-
tical unrests in Afro-Asian societies and lead to revolutions against the shking political regimes. PoIitical elites recently can not fullg understand the
hopes and aspirations of their own people. Even if they knew well their own people,they can not provide adequate solutions to meet such changes and demands from the people. In some countries the gap between the ruling elite and tlhe common people are incompre-hensible. As a result, frustrations emerge and unrests intensify. The article examines the suitability and ade- quacy of the ruling elites in the developing countries,
because most of the elite members have been schooled in the universities of Western countries. They are, therefore,more acquainted with the nature and problems of the Western societies than their own. There is also a high-pitched tension or conflict betweeen the westernly educated and locally educated members of the same elite or among different elite groups. The tools national deveIopment and institution- building are also discussed in the article. The nature of the tools requires predterminaion of social and
political purposes.Generally speaking,tools are used for sncial mobilization and development of consensus in osderto foster cohesion among purposes and actions between citizens and groups. These tools include,at least, the naional constitution as a fundamental basis, political parties, mass media, associations, civiI servants and well-organized public administration, etc, which themselves are parts of nation-building. The task of poiitical assignment,and the decision-making process, such as the imput-conversion-output process. The basic performing institutions include,of course,the legislative, executive and judicial branches of government.Below which are the institutions of eIection,civil service, communication channels, etc.
In aIl,the article could not deal much in each of the areas mentional. It attempts only to serve the purpose of discussion by the audience. It does not, therefore, draw any major conclusion in itself.
連結：期刊全文尚未取得作者授權
江炳倫, Joseph P. I. Jiang
政治學報；0期 (05/01/1970) P15-79
關鍵字：（無）
中文摘要
（本刊使用科技部人社中心期刊數位傳播計畫經費送譯）
本篇論文分成下揭四大部分：(一) 將政治發展的研究帶向學術分支學科之階段；（二）尋找一個可接受的定義；（三）在建構發展理論時，一些必須解決，或至少須留意之顯著理論性問題；和（四）評估「政治主導」(the primacy of politics)和「社會主導」(the primacy of society)作為兩個不同政策建議學派的爭議。
(一) 在50年代末60年代初，幾個因素的交會令政治發展成為學術研究的新興重點。首先，隨著戰後重建與前殖民地獲得獨立地位，經濟發展研究蔚為風潮。逐漸來到我們沒辦法再繼續忽略落實經濟發展計劃的社會和行政環境之階段。因此，後來在美國行政學會支持下，創立比較行政組，並擔任主席的佛瑞德・雷格斯(Fred Riggs)教授，在1956年一篇名為「公共行政：一個在經濟發展中被忽略的因素」（“Neglected Factor in Economic Development”）（美國政治和社會科學年刊，第305卷，1965年5月）的論文中，公布了一個與經濟發展結合之新研究領域。惟即使是公共行政領域本身仍尚未大到能涵括所有與經濟發展相關之因素。對感興趣的學者而言，創造「政治發展」一詞以涵括所有在研究經濟發展中的非經濟因素是很理所當然的下一步。
同時，社會學家並沒有忽略在當代世界中正在發生的複雜現象，尤其是在所謂的發展中地區。只要這些現象跟傳統秩序不同，整個過程被稱為「社會變遷」(“social change”)，而「西化」（“westernization”）一詞則意味西方國家的影響，以及往類似在西方社會觀察到的新社會秩序方向。「現代化」（“modernization”）一詞似乎意味沿著主要令人嚮往的方向，邁向一個具備明顯可預見之共同世界文化的過程。不論該等過程之命名為何，社會學家已建立不同的理論框架和方法去研究之。在眾多理論框架和分法中，最值得注意的是所謂的「微觀分析」(“micro-analysis”)和「宏觀分析」(“macro-analysis”)。前者標榜仔細研究與快速變遷過程相關之心理因素與個人反應；而後者則著眼於研究整個體系統內角色互動之模式。政治次級系統作為動員和分配社會資源的層面，自然在社會變遷和現代化的過程中特別突出，作為一個相當關鍵的變數。事實上，有些人喜歡將政治次級系統視為可左右其他現代化努力成功或失敗之因素。因此政治發展研究和社會現代化的研究變得密不可分。
然而，當今政治發展研究可的真正起源可直接追溯至存在於比較政治這門學術分支學科的內部變化。正如加布里埃爾·阿爾蒙德（Gabriel A. Almond）所言，在第二次世界大戰前和戰後，該門分支學科曾是形式主義的、墨守成規、與偏狹的。 它完全缺乏高層次的普遍性和實用性。然後，約莫自1954年起，新一代的美國政治學家開始一連串的自我批判與探索，並提出兩個具深遠影響的主張：（1）比較研究的範疇必須立即延伸，以包括非西方世界的新國家，而搜集比較數據的工作須持續和強化；（2）須透過提出新概念和方法論取代傳統學院形式主義和墨守成規之形態。為了達到真正地比較方法的，學者們認為這股新嘗試須涵括建可研究類型學之建立、較重要的變數之定義，還有在比較的基準上達成某種共識。唯有當在世界任何角落都可被觀察到的政治行為能夠以普遍適用的論點解釋和預測，我們才可說比較研究的目的被實現。在美國社會科學研究委員會的支持下建立的比較政委員會賦予了該等抱負一種制度上的表態。該委員會的首個計劃是由加布里埃爾・阿爾蒙德和詹姆斯・薩謬爾・科爾曼所編輯的「發展地區的政治」( The Politics of the Developing Areas)一書（普林士頓：1960年）。在這之後，該委員會規劃和執行了一系列探討不同政治發展面向之七本書籍。這些著作係為一由近一百位不同學科背景的社會科學家所構成，堪稱典範的團隊合作；這本書亦是近十年來政治發展研究最重要的著作。
(二) 要找到一個所有學者皆同意之政治發展的定義是不容易的。白魯恂曾列出十種被使用之不同定義。認知到白魯恂和其他學者在這方面的努力，我們將依序分類和檢視明顯帶有某些價值取向，試圖透過增加功能性產出以解釋發展，及將發展主要視為往特定結構性特色方向改變的這些定義。
定義政治發展時常常涵括或指涉的價值有政治民主或其他更明顯的面向，包括建立一個現代民族國家、建立和維持工業化秩序之能力、維持法治、強化國力等等。然而，由於價值是主觀的選擇，也因此其本質是獨特的，有些作者偏好透過某些功能性產出類別的增長以定義發展，因為這更為客觀，且能適用於所有政治體制。功能被定義為與延續體制相關之規律性行為結果。那政治體制的普遍性功能為何呢？對於這個問題，不僅不同的作者有不同的答案，即使是同一個作者每當發表新文章時，其政治體制的必要功能的分類往往會改變。舉例而言，阿爾蒙德在一文中列出了以下的政治功能：a) 汲取的、b) 規約的、c)分配的、 d) 象徵性的、 e)回應的；但在另一文他列舉 a)整合能力、 b) 國際適應力、c) 參與能力 ，及d)福利和分配能力為對一個制度的發展性改變最相關的功能。在他著名的「發展地區的政治」一書之導論篇章中，他將政治社會化和政治甄補、利益表達、利益匯集和政治溝通列為輸入功能；而將規則制定、規則適用和規則裁決列為輸出功能。
然而，即使對於何為政治功能達成共識，尋找一個政治發展更為根本的定義至為重要。我們將行為的結果追溯至其先前的原因，然後詢問當我們聲稱發展正在發生時，行為的模式意味著怎樣的改變。關於該點，追隨塔爾科特・帕森斯(Talcott Parsons)和佛瑞德.雷格斯步伐的學者相信結構性分化可被視為發展過程中的核心基準。因此，該章節的主要部分會用於解釋結構性分化的意義與其主要表徵。
(三) 當嘗試建立政治發展理論時，必須留意幾個假設性問題。該章節略述六個該等問題，並簡單地探討它們。它們分別為：循環因果的問題、選擇一個合適的概念框架、究竟應該把政治發展視為最終產物抑或一個持續而開放的過程、隨心所欲加速政治發展的可能性，隨之而來有關發展過程是否有特定階段的問題；若此，一個發展中國家是否可以跳過某些階段，單線社會演化與多線社會演化之抗衡，還有關於發展過程之可分性和不可分性爭議。
未必總是能夠明確地解釋社會現象的因果關係。在更多的情況下，因果關似乎構成一個圓圈，互相強化，而導致貢納爾・默達爾(Gunnar Myrdal)貼切命名為「擴散效應」（““命名為「擴散效應」dal)”）和「迴流效應」(“backwash effects)的現象。尤其是在與社會變遷和政治發展研究相關時，研究者必須意識到如果他們倘能解釋哪些現象在某程度上互相關聯就已經相當幸運，就算其無法解釋哪些是原因，哪些是結果。
在整體社會系統的研究中存在兩套相反的概念框架或兩種思考取向。其中一方相信一個社會系統總傾向回到一個預設的平衡狀態。一個系統之當務之急為模式維持和邊界維持。理想型分析和結構功能性分析成為這門學派的主要研究工具。另一學派則相信衝突和改變是所有社會系統固有的。政治發展的學生應該採用哪個概念框架呢？抑或他們可以不需要這兩者，或選擇其他理論呢？
有一些學者將政治發展形容為一條刻苦道路的最後階段，一旦抵達終點，旅者即可放鬆，在安詳中睡去。然而，更常見的想法是將政治發展視為一個持續而開放的過程。根據該看法，一個政治體制總是需要在最理想的程度上，平衡整合和彈性的要求，且一旦環境因素改變的話，要準備好進入一個新階段。
無疑許多亞非新興國家之領袖希望他們的國家盡可以儘速發展，趕上西方國家是經常聽到的口號。這有可能嗎？鑒於部分國家進步神速，這無論如何定會影響到新國家之行為模式。但未知的是，此種影響是有益的，抑或有害的？新國家踏過舊道路的每一步嗎？抑或它們可以跳過某些階段，甚至找出一條新道路以達到當今西方所達到的發展水準。如果領袖們嚴厲的逼迫人民，抓著他們的脖子和袖口以實現發展目標，可能會導致那些後果呢？
現今我們很少會遇到一個提倡單線歷史演化的理論家。但至少有一位社會科學家會改變其宣稱在人類社會發展過程中的「有限抑制性和相似性」(“limited uniformities and parallels”)。由於我們不願意相信社會現象只是偶然巧合，人類學家朱利安・史都華(Julian H. Steward)的社會革命理論顯然值得特別留意。
不同面向的發展是可分割的嗎？雷格斯教授從分化的概念邏輯地推論出的答案為：不。根據他的比喻，倘若你想要剖開一株竹子，在沒有另一半之下，你無法擁有另外一半。然而，如果發展是完全不可分的話，計劃並帶來期望的轉變將會變得相當困難，因為每一個面向都是不可分的，環環相扣，有意識地同時改變整個社會將會變得幾乎不可能。其他作者至少在某種程度上，相信不同發展的事實及可能性。
(四) 只有為數不多研究政治發展的學生投入政策建議的工作。而其中投入政治工作者，我們可以籠統地把他們的思路分為兩派。其中一方相信政治領導者的智慧，法治的制度化，和政府與/或政黨的重要地位。羅伯特・沃德(Robert Ward)、威廉・福爾茲（Willian Foltz）、曼弗雷德・哈爾彭(Manfred Halpern)和大衛・阿普特（David Apter）等人似乎大致上認同該觀點。山繆・杭亭頓(Samuel P. Huntington)似乎是持最詳細和極端立場者，他在一九六五年四月於《世界政治》期刊(World Politics)出版的一篇長文中，甚至將1917年的布爾什維克黨（Bolshevik Party）崇拜為他理想中的政治發展模式。
儘管中央集權、紀律、秩序，乃至一黨制是政治主導學派的基本詞彙，另一派思路相信低政治重要性，保持自由浮動的資源儲備，鼓勵更多參與及真正平等之實現，創造及擴大現代專業人士的島嶼以作為政客墮落的解藥；此外，整體而言，同間動員與現代化社會各個面向。根據該學派擁護者的說法，不論在任何情況下，政治通常反映了集體態度，只能從社會中享有局部獨立性和有限的的自主空間。政治權力如何將其行為準則加諸在整體社會行為上，較依視社會行為的本質而定，而社會行為視治理機構中的活動中社會學無條件元素而定。
第一種觀點假設政治權力有作為一個獨立變數的力量。第二種觀點主要將政治權力視為一個依變項。即使對於實務者而言，其含義顯而易見，但該議題本身尚無定論。
英文摘要：
This paper is divided into the following four parts：（Ⅰ）The steps leading to the study of political development as an academic subdiscipline;（Ⅱ）The search for an acceptable definition;（Ⅲ）Some of the outstanding theoretical problems that must be resolved or at least taken note of in the construction （Ⅳ）Evaluation of “the primacy of politics”versus “the primacy of society”controversy as two opposing schools of policy recommendation.
Ⅰ. Several factors converged in the late 1950＇s and the early years of 1960＇s to make political development, which became a fad following the postwar reconstruction and the emergence into independent status of former colonies, gradually came to a stage where it was no longer possible to ignore the social and administrative setting where economic development program was being implemented. Thus, Professor Fred Roggs, who later founded and chaired the Comparative Administration Group with the sponsorship of the American Society for Public Administration, declared in 1956 a new line of research in connection with economic development in an essay entitled：“Public Administration：A Neglected Factor in Economic Development”（The Annals of American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol.305, May 1956）.But even the domain of public administration itself was not large enough to contain all the relevant factors of economic development. A step further was only too logical and interested scholars coined the term“political development”as that which could comprise all the non-economic factors in the study of economic development.
At the same time, sociologists did not overlook the very complex phenomena that were taking place in the modern world, especially in the so-called developing areas. Insofar as these phenomena differed from that of the traditional order, the whole process was known as “social change”, while the term“westernization”implied the impact of western countries as well as the direction towards a new social order similar to that observed in the West. The term“modernization”seemed to imply that the process was moving along mainly desirable direction towards a modern industrial order with a common world culture apparently in view. Whatever the designation of this process was, the sociologists have devised various theoretical frameworks and the most noticeable are the so-called“ micro-analysis”and “macro-analysis”.The former purports to closely study the psychological factors and reactions of individual persons involved in the process of repaid change, while the latter studies the patterns of role interactions within the context of the whole system. Political subsystem, being the aspect through which social resources are mobilized and distributed, naturally stands out as a very critcal variable in the process of social change and modernization. In fact, some people like to see it as that which can determine the success or failure of other modernization efforts. Hence the study of political development and the study of social modernization become inseparable.
The real parentage of the present study of political development, however, can be directly traced to the internal changes obtained in the academic subdiscipline of comparative politics. Before the Second World War and immediately afterwards, this subdiscipline, as Gabriel A. Almond characterized it, was formalistic, legalistic and parochial. It completely lacked high-level generalizations and applicability. Then from about 1954, the younger generation of American political scientists began a series of self-criticism and probing, and came up with two far-reaching proposition:（A）The scope of comparative research must be immediately extended to include the new countries of the non-Western world, while the work of collecting comparative data should be continued and strengthened;（B）Formalistic and legalistic description of the traditional school must be replaced by introducing new concepts and methodology. To be really comparative, it was felt, the new endeavor must include the establishment of researchable typologies, a definition of the more important variable, and securing some agreement on the criteria of comparison. Only when political behavior which may be observed anywhere in the world is liable to be explained and predicted through universal propositions, can we say that the goal of comparative study is realized. These aspirations were given an institutional expression with the setting up of the Committee on Comparative Politics under the auspices of the American Social Science Research Council. The Committee＇s first project was a book edited by Gabriel A. Almond and James S. Coleman, The Politics of the Developing Areas（Princeton:1960）. Since then a series of seven volumes on the various aspects of political development have been planned and executed. Together they constitute an exemplary team-work of nearly one hundred social scientists with different subject backgrounds as well as the single most significant contribution to our present topic in the decade.
Ⅱ.It is not easy to find a definition of political development with which all scholars would agree. Lucian W. Pye listed ten different definitions currently in use. Cognizant of Pye and other scholar＇s efforts in this respect, we classify and exaime in turn those definitions which apparently carry some value connotations, those which seek to explain development mainly as change in certain direction of structural characteristics.
Values often include or implied in defining political development are political democracy or some more outstanding aspects of it, the building of a modern nation-state, the capability to create and sustain an industrial order, the maintenance of law and order, the fostering of national power and so on. But because values are subjective choices and, therefore, particular by nature, some writers prefer to look for the meaning of development through increment in some category of functional outputs that are more objects and applicable to all political systems. Functions are defined as consequences of patterned behavior relevant to the system＇s continuation. What are then the universal functions of political systems？Not only different writers have different answers to the question, even the same writer often changes his categorization of the requisite functions of political system each a new essay is published. For example, Almond lists in one place the political functions as follow: a）extractive, b）regulative, c）distributive, d）symbolic, c）participation capability, and d）welfare or distributive capability as those most relevant to a system＇s developmental changes. In his well-known introductory chapter to The Politics of the Developing Areas, he means as input functions political socialization, and political socialization and recruitment, interest articulation, interest aggregation, and political communication, and as output functions rule-making, rule-application, and rule-adjudication.
But even if agreement as to what the political functions are is possible, it is still imperative that, in searching for a more fundamental definition of political development, we trace the consequences of behavior to their antecedent causes, and ask what changes are implicated in the patterns of behavior when we say that development is taking place. In this respect, those scholars who follow the lead of Talcott Parsons and Fred W. Riggs believe structural differention can be taken as the central criterion of the development process. A major portion of this section is, therefore, devoted to explain the meaning od structural differentiation and its main manifestations.
Ⅲ.One must pay close attention to number of theoretical problems when attempting to build a theory of political development. This section outlines six of such problems and briefly discusses them. They are: the problem of circuIar causation, the selection of an appropropriate conceptual framework,the question whether political development should be viewed as an end-product or as a continuous and open-end process,the possibility of speeding up political development at will,with the attendant questions whether the develop-mental process has definite stages and, if so,whether it is possible for a developing country to skip over some of them, the unilinear versus the multilinear theory of social evolution, and the divisiblity or indivisblity controversy of the developmental process.
It is not always possible to unequivocally determine the cause-effect relationship of social phenomena．More often than not，they seem to constitute a circle, rein- forcing each other and resulting in what Gunnar Myrdal has felicitously christened the “spread effects" and the backwash effects". EspeciaIly in connection with the study of social change and political development, researchers must deem themselves pretty fortunate if they are able to describe which phenomena are related in some manner, although cannot explain which are the causes and which the effects.
They are two opposing conceptual frameworks or sets of mental orientations in the investigation of total social systems, One believes that a social system always tends to return to a pre-established equilibrium﹒Pat- tern maintenance and boundary maintenance are the preoccupation of a system's activities.Ideal-type analy- sis and structural-functional analysis become the main research tooIs of this mode of thought. The other school,however,holds that conflict and change are intrinsic to alI social systems﹒Which of the two concep-tual frameworks do the students of political develo-pment have to adopt? Or can they manage without either of them or with some other theory?
Some scholars write as if poIitical development is the end stage of an assiduous road, where, once reached,the travelers can relax and rest in peace.The commoner notion,howevec, is to treat political development as a continuous and onen-end process.Under this notion, a political system has always to balance the requirements of integration and flexibility at some optimal level,and be ready to move onto a new stage once environmental factors have changed.
No doubt many leaders of the new Afro-Asian countries wish to see their own nation develop as fast as possible to catch up with the West is the often-heard slogan. Is this possible? The fact that some nations have moved far ahead would certainly influence one way or another the behavior patterns of the new nations.But in the balance, is the influence beneficial or harmful？ Do the new nations have to tread every step of the same old path, or can they jump over some stages of it,or even search for a new way in order to reach the level of development now obtained in the West？ And what consequences are likely to result if the leaders relentlessly push their people, holding them by the neck and cuff,to realize the goal of development?
Nowadays one does not frequently encounter a theorist who propounds unilinear evolution of history. But there is at least one social scientist proselytizing what he calls 〝limited uniformities and parallels" in the development of human societies. Insofar as we disdain to believe that social phenomena are just haphazard coincidences,anthhropaloist Julian H.Ste-ward〞s theory of social evelution certainly mertis special attention.
Is development in its various aspects divisible? Professor Riggs,logically inferring from the concept of differentiation,answers: No. If you wish to split a bamboo, according to his own analogy, you cannot have one half without the other. Yet if development is completely indivisble,it would be extremely difficult to plan and bring about the desired change as every aspect is inseparably intertwined with all the others, and it is almost impossible to consciously change the whole society at one same time. Other writers believe in the fact and possibility of uneven development, at least to a certain degree.
IV.Not many students of political development indulge themselves in making policy recommendations. Of those who do, we can vaguely distinguish two different lines of thought. One line believes in the sagacity of politicar leadership,the institutionalization of law and order,and the primacy of government and/or of political party.Robert Ward,William Foltz, Manfred Halpern and David Apter seem to have more or less approved this approach.The most elaborate and extreme position however, seems to have been taken by Samuel P.Hutington,who,in a long article published in World Politics, April 1965, went as far as to idolize the Bdlshevik Party of 1917 as his model of political development.
While centralization, discipline, order and even one
party rule are the catchwords of the primacy of poli-ties schodl, the other line of thought believes in low salience of politics, keeping a reserve of free-floating resources, encouragement of more participation and realizaion of true equality，creating and expanding an island of modern professionals as an atidote to the demagory of the poIiticians,and in general,mobilization and modernization of aIl aspects of the society at the same time.Politics in any situation, according to the proponents of this school, is mostly a reflection of the collective attitudes,enjoying only partial indepen- dence from the society and a limited sphere of auton- omy. The way in which politicar power imposes norms on the whoIe of social behavior depends more on the nature of the latter than this behavior depends on the sociologicaIly unconditioned eIement in theactivity of the governing bodies.
The first view assumes political power has the force of an independent variable. The second looks at it primarily as a dependent variable. While its implications for the practitioners are abundantly clear,the issue itself is by no means settled﹒
連結：期刊全文尚未取得作者授權
連戰(Chan Lien)
政治學報；0期 (05/01/1970) P1-14
關鍵字：（無）
中文摘要
（本刊使用科技部人社中心期刊數位傳播計畫經費送譯）
雖然嘗試定義政治行為學是一個危險的舉動，但為了分析之目的，在政治學研究中這通常被視為實證主義之表現。相較於其他社會科學領域，在過去一個世紀裡，政治學無疑是最遲擺脫傳統主義，轉而擁抱科學文化洗禮的學科之一。透過密切注意政治學之快速發展，部分政治行為學的趨勢變得相當明顯，且清晰可辨。 大衛·伊斯頓(David Easton)教授認為這些趨勢包括：對規律性之信念、對驗證之要求、研究技巧之改善、強調量化、價值觀之迴避、系統化之嘗試、專注於純科學， 還有最後一點，期望融合其他社會科學以處理不同的社會和政治問題。
當然，這些趨勢源自於一種對傳統政治科學的普遍不滿，行為學家認為傳統政治學停滯不前、守舊、情感化，僅適合脫離現實的哲學家。然而，就另一方面而言，政治行為學家們深陷於他們的樂觀主義，並小心翼翼保護自身的認知和研究。所以政治行為學者也無法免於某些不僅來自於傳統學派政治學者，甚至來自於同陣營不同地位和背景之學者的意見分歧。後者的批評主要針對部分政治行為學者在面對許多困擾當代之棘手議題時的保守主義而提出。自60年代初起，這群政治行為學家選擇從伊斯頓理論中演繹出一套新的政治關聯信條(credo of Relevance)。為了將他們的努力概念化，其主張從純科學回歸至政策科學，並強調重要議題，而非技術性問題之解決方法。同時，他們也專注於建立一套新價值理論之重要性，以期更全面的社會科學整合，從而提升對社會世界的整體理解。他們的努力現在被名為後行為主義。
在過去半個世紀中，政治行為學為政治學研究帶來了革命性的變革。學者期望後行為主義可透過在新的視野上提供新觀點，持續這場革命。然而，到目前為止，後行為主義學者仍無法成功闡述可以解決政治學中最根本的議題 – 價值問題 –之方法與手段。也難怪在許多傳統主義學者眼裡，後行為主義學者和行為主義者的努力被視為同等無效。
英文摘要：
Although it is a hazardous attempt to define political behavioralism, for purpose of analysis, it is generally regarded as a manifestation of Positivism in the study of politics. Comparing to other social science diciplines, political science is undoubtedly one of the last subjects that broke away from traditionalism and embraced the baptism of the scientific culture during the past century. By carefully following its rapid growth, certain trends of political behavioralism could become quite obvious and identifiable. In the opinion of Professor David Easton, these trends include, among other things, the belief in regularities; the requirement of verification; the improvement of research techniques; the emphasis of quantification; the avoidance of values; the attempt of systematization; the concentration in pure sciences in tackling various social and political problems.
To be sure, these trends arise out of a general dissatisfaction with the traditionally-oriented political science which was regarded by the behavioralists as static, dogmatic, sentimental and befitting only the armchair philosophers. But, on the other hand, deeply immersed in their own optimism and jealously protective of their own precepts and methodologies, political behavioralists are not altogether free from certain disagreements coming not only from the traditionalists but even from the rank and file of their own camp. Among the latter category, criticisms are launched primarily against the conservatism of some of the fellow behavioralists in facing the numerous burning issues that have plagued the contemporary scene. Ever since the early 60’s this group of the political behavioralists have opted from the Eastonian norms for a new Credo of Relevance. To help conceptualize their endeavor, they call for a return from pure science to policy science an emphasize the solution of substantial rather than technical problems. At the same time, they also focused on the importance of constructing a new value theory and hoped for a more thorough integration of the social sciences in order to promote over-all understanding of the social world. Their effort is now being called the post-behavioralism.
Political behavioralism has revolutionalized the study of politics during the past half-century. It is hoped that post-behavioralism will carry this revolution further by offering new visions on a new horizon. But so far post-behavioralists have failed to elaborate the ways and means through which the most fundamental issue inpolitical science—the problem of values—could be solved. Small wonder that their efforts are viewed as equally futile as the behavioralists in the eyes of many traditionalists.
連結：期刊全文尚未取得作者授權