Systems theory, as it stands today, has only analytical or conceptual relationship with general systems theory. Historically, systems theory is prior, methodologically more empirical, and, practically more useful. But it relates, only to one discipline. Like general systems theory, it does not cover all political and non-political phenomena, and conjoins or does housekeeping for all disciplines.
However, systems theory, too has not yet emerged as an explanatory empirical theory, and is still used for constructivist or heuristic purposes, and as a conceptual framework or approach for political analysis. It is particularly framed for the study of politics and its central conceptual apparatus is also used in a narrower sense. Recently, there has been a successful thrust by automation and computerisation programmes. Relevant data have been collected and set on computers, operated on the outlines of systems theory, and results read out to relevant segments of political life.
Background:
There is a lack of unanimity regarding conceptual relationship of systems theory with other approaches and theories. Easton regards it as applied form of functionalism.’ Eugene J. Meehan identifies it with general systems theory and functionalism. Herbert J. Spiro disagrees with them and maintains that ‘system’ as a concept in Political Science is more than three centuries old.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
According to Kaplan, Aristotle was the first system theorist. But Almond and Powell accept the theoretical influence of sociology, economics, and cybernetics on the concept of ‘system’. Their systems approach, while remaining in the tradition of political thought, has been adopted only as a conceptual apparatus. David Easton and Karl Deutsch have taken the concept from sociological and communication theories.
From this view, Almond and Powell regard their systems approach as different from the concept of both Easton and Deutsch. Almond and Powell related it to the principle of separation of powers as given in the Federalist Papers, which came out of the changes released by the forces of enlarged franchise and industrialisation. They regard it an empirical concept.’ Morton A. Kaplan has used systems theory in the analysis of international politics.
Thus, many scholars, both sociologists and political scientists, consider it a kind of functionalism. But ‘pure’ system theorists do not accept their view. Functionalism lays more stress on maintenance and equilibrium of the system. In the system perspective, attention is concentrated more on the system as a whole and its interaction with internal and external environment. Still both systems theory and functionalism, by their nature, origin, role and development are close to each other, yet for analytical purposes they should be kept apart.
The concept of ‘system’ is not new to Political Science still it has been invoked afresh by David Easton. In the elaboration and use of the concept, he is much influenced by Ashby, Parsons, Merton and others, but it is novel in presentation. However, he has developed it as a conceptual framework for political analysis, but he himself has not used it.
Mainly A. Almond, Apter, Coleman, Eckstein, Kaplan, etc. have undertaken its use as a ‘theory’ for conducting empirical investigation. Gabriel A. Almond has applied it in the studies of development and comparative politics. Morton A. Kaplan has used it in the field of international politics. Systems theory is indebted to general systems theory, but at present, it is more interested in its application to political system only.
