Evolution of Political Science and Its Sociological Implications

Political science was not always the broad, socially-aware discipline it is today. For much of its history, it was largely confined to examining constitutions, laws, and the formal structures of government. But over the past century, the discipline has undergone a fundamental transformation – one that has brought it closer to sociology, expanded its scope to include human behavior, and pushed it to grapple with some of the defining forces of modern life: democratic capitalism, identity politics, and transnationalism. Understanding this shift helps explain not just how political science changed, but why those changes matter for how we understand society itself.

The traditional focus: government, institutions, and the state
The behavioral revolution: a turning point
What behavioralism changed
From government to governance: expanding the scope
The sociological implications of the behavioral shift
Democratic capitalism, identity politics, and the modern agenda
Democratic capitalism
Identity politics
Transnationalism
Political science as a social science: the broader significance

The traditional focus: government, institutions, and the state

In its earliest form, political science was primarily concerned with the formal machinery of government. Thinkers like Plato, Aristotle, and Machiavelli laid the groundwork by analyzing ideal forms of rule, the nature of authority, and what made political systems stable or fragile. This approach treated the state as an isolated entity – something to be understood through its constitutions, laws, and institutional arrangements rather than through the social forces shaping it from below.

As Encyclopedia.com notes, the traditional approach focused on detailed descriptions of political history, institutions, and legal systems, earning traditionalists the label of “hyperfactualists.” Questions about how ordinary people behaved within these systems, or what social conditions shaped their political choices, were largely left unasked. Politics was studied from the top down – through the lens of rulers, laws, and formal procedures – not from the ground up.

The behavioral revolution: a turning point

The most decisive shift in the history of political science came in the mid-20th century, with what scholars now call the “behavioral revolution.” According to Wikipedia’s overview of political science, the 1950s and 1960s saw a wave of emphasis on the rigorous scientific study of individual and group behavior, moving away from the interpretation of legal texts and formal institutions.

This transformation was driven by a growing dissatisfaction with purely descriptive and normative political theory. As scholars of the behavioral approach explain, the goal was to move beyond asking “what ought to be” toward examining “what is” – using empirical methods borrowed from psychology, sociology, and statistics to study observable political behavior.

What behavioralism changed

Behavioral political science replaced the historically dominant, legalistic methods of the traditional approach with the more empirical methods of modern social science. Researchers began asking questions that had rarely been posed before: How do voters make decisions? What role does social class play in shaping political participation? How do religion, education, and media influence political attitudes? These were no longer abstract philosophical questions – they were empirical ones, to be studied through surveys, statistical analysis, and field research.

One landmark contribution came from sociologist and political scientist Seymour Martin Lipset, whose work Political Man: The Social Bases of Politics (1960) used statistical data to demonstrate that social class is one of the chief determinants of political behavior. Meanwhile, the University of Michigan’s Survey Research Center pioneered large-scale electoral studies, developing the concept of “party identification” – the long-term psychological bond between voters and political parties. These studies showed that political outcomes could not be understood without examining social context.

From government to governance: expanding the scope

As the behavioral turn took hold, the very language of political science began to change. The discipline shifted its focus from “politics” – understood narrowly as the workings of government – to “political systems,” a broader concept that included all the social processes through which decisions are made and authority exercised. Alongside this came a parallel shift from “government” to “governance,” recognizing that political power flows not only through formal state institutions but also through civil society, international organizations, media, and social norms.

As explained in the academic study materials from IGNOU’s eGyanKosh, political science shifted its focus from politics to political systems, from government to governance, and from political reasoning to social determinants – and this transformation was not isolated from broader societal changes but directly reflected them. The changes in a globalizing, interconnected world reshaped what political science needed to study.

This is where the discipline’s relationship with sociology became particularly important. Political sociology, as defined in the International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, is a subfield that combines the explanatory concerns of both disciplines, focusing on the interrelationships between politics and society, and on questions of power, domination, and exploitation. It emerged precisely because neither political science nor sociology alone could fully account for how political outcomes were shaped by social forces – and vice versa.

The sociological implications of the behavioral shift

The behavioral revolution did more than make political science more scientific. It fundamentally reoriented the discipline toward the social world. As Encyclopedia.com’s overview of political behavior notes, an increasing number of political behavior studies began drawing on sociological concepts of social role, social structure, and group dynamics. Political behavior analysis was recognized as inherently interdisciplinary because human political action is only one dimension of a person’s total social behavior – it cannot be understood without considering cultural, economic, and psychological context.

This growing convergence also gave rise to new sub-disciplines. Political sociology, political anthropology, and political economy all emerged as fields designed to study the socio-political dimensions of human life that neither parent discipline could adequately address alone. These subfields acknowledged a basic reality: politicians and political institutions do not operate in a societal vacuum, and society does not function outside of politics.

Democratic capitalism, identity politics, and the modern agenda

As political science broadened its scope through the latter half of the 20th century, it also had to contend with new and complex social phenomena that resisted simple institutional analysis. Three of the most significant were democratic capitalism, identity politics, and transnationalism.

Democratic capitalism

Political sociology grapples directly with the tension between democratic constitutional liberal states and capitalist economies. While democracy promises legal equality and impartiality for all citizens, capitalist systems produce unequal economic power – and with it, potential political inequality. This tension has become central to how political scientists and sociologists analyze governance. The question of who benefits from political systems, and why, cannot be answered without examining economic structures alongside formal political ones.

Identity politics

The rise of identity politics – where race, gender, religion, ethnicity, and sexuality become central axes of political mobilization – is another development that has pushed political science further toward sociology. Research published in Science argues that identity politics is at its core driven by economic concerns, as social identity is frequently closely correlated with economic status, access to resources, and systemic opportunity. The Black-to-white per capita wealth ratio in the United States stands at roughly 1 to 6; Bangladeshi, Black African, and Pakistani households in the United Kingdom face substantially higher risks of deep poverty. These disparities make identity politically salient.

Understanding identity politics requires both political science (how these group claims translate into policy and institutional change) and sociology (how identity itself is shaped by social conditions, historical inequalities, and group dynamics). Research in the journal Constellations argues that identity politics is not merely about power struggles but about addressing systemic gaps in knowledge and representation – and that securing equal access to social and political institutions is essential for generating what scholars call “strong objectivity” in democratic governance.

Transnationalism

The third major development reshaping political science is transnationalism – the growing reality that political, economic, and social processes increasingly cut across national borders. Wikipedia’s overview of transnationalism describes it as a research field grown from the heightened interconnectivity between people and the receding economic and social significance of national boundaries. Political transnational activities range from participation in diaspora political movements to the lobbying of international organizations, the transfer of political norms across borders, and the formation of transnational advocacy networks.

For political science, this means that the nation-state can no longer be treated as the sole unit of analysis. For sociology, it raises urgent questions about how identities are formed and maintained across borders, how migration reshapes communities, and how global inequality is produced and reproduced. As ScienceDirect’s overview of transnationalism and identity notes, contemporary transnationals participate in social movements addressing human rights and social identity in ways that transcend static notions of citizenship – demonstrating that the personal and the political are now global.

The evolution of political science from a narrow study of government institutions to a broad inquiry into political systems, behavior, social determinants, and global forces reflects a deeper intellectual maturation. As political science educators note, the study of politics cannot be confined to one discipline – it is part of a larger web of social sciences that inform and shape how societies function. The relationship between sociology and political science is not merely academic; it has direct consequences for how we understand inequality, governance, migration, and democracy in the real world.

Political sociology, in particular, arose to correct behavioralism’s overemphasis on psychological explanations of individual behavior by restoring the social determinants of politics to their rightful place at the center of analysis. Structures of society and social institutions became primary units of analysis rather than afterthoughts. Today, this integrated view is indispensable – whether analyzing voter behavior, understanding populist movements, or examining how global economic policies reshape local communities.

What do you think? How do you think the shift from studying “government” to studying “governance” changes what political scientists can explain about power and inequality? And as issues like climate change and migration increasingly transcend national borders, do you believe political science needs to move even further toward a sociological and global perspective?

How useful was this post?

Click on a star to rate it!

Average rating 0 / 5. Vote count: 0

No votes so far! Be the first to rate this post.

References

PDF 📄

Table of Contents

The traditional focus: government, institutions, and the state 🔗

The behavioral revolution: a turning point 🔗

What behavioralism changed 🔗

From government to governance: expanding the scope 🔗

The sociological implications of the behavioral shift 🔗

Democratic capitalism, identity politics, and the modern agenda 🔗

Democratic capitalism 🔗

Identity politics 🔗

Transnationalism 🔗

Political science as a social science: the broader significance 🔗