Introduction
Political science is a core discipline within the social sciences, yet providing a single, universally accepted definition is a challenge. At its most basic level, it is the study of politics. However, what constitutes 'politics' is itself a subject of debate. This essay will propose a working definition of political science as the systematic study of power, governance, and political behaviour. It will argue that this broad definition is necessary to encompass the discipline's diverse and expanding scope. The discussion will explore this scope by examining the principal sub-fields of political science, including political theory, comparative politics, and international relations. Furthermore, it will address the fundamental debate concerning the 'science' within political science, evaluating the tensions between empirical, scientific approaches and more interpretive, normative methods of inquiry. Through this discussion, it will become clear that political science is a dynamic and contested field, unified by its focus on understanding how human societies govern themselves and distribute power.
Defining the Discipline: Politics, Power, and the State
A foundational definition of political science was offered by Harold Lasswell, who famously described politics as the study of "who gets what, when, how" (Lasswell, 1936). This definition helpfully directs our attention to the core concepts of resource allocation and power dynamics within a society. It moves beyond a narrow focus on formal government institutions to include a broader range of social interactions where power is exercised and decisions are made. Power, in this context, can be understood as the ability to influence the behaviour of others, to make them do something they would not otherwise do (Dahl, 1957). Political science is therefore fundamentally concerned with how power is acquired, used, maintained, and challenged.
Historically, the study of politics originates with ancient philosophers like Plato and Aristotle. For Aristotle, politics was the 'master science' because it dealt with the affairs of the polis, or city-state, and aimed to understand how to achieve the 'good life' for the community (Aristotle, 1981). This classical view ties the study of politics to a normative goal: the pursuit of justice, order, and collective well-being. This tradition views political science as the study of the state and its formal institutions, such as the legislature, executive, and judiciary. This is often referred to as the traditional or institutional approach.
However, modern political science has broadened its scope considerably. Scholars now recognise that politics occurs not only in parliaments and government offices but also within families, workplaces, and social movements. A wider definition, favoured by many contemporary political scientists, sees politics as the activity through which people make, preserve, and amend the general rules under which they live (Heywood, 2019). This definition accommodates the study of civil society, identity politics, and global governance, reflecting the complex and interconnected nature of modern political life. Therefore, political science can be defined as the academic discipline that systematically describes and analyses the acquisition and application of power, the processes of governance, and the characteristics of political systems, both in theory and in practice.
The Sub-fields of Political Science
The breadth of political science is best understood by examining its main sub-fields, each with its own distinct focus and set of questions. While there is some overlap, these areas demonstrate the discipline's extensive range.
First, Political Theory or Political Philosophy is the oldest branch of the discipline. It is concerned with normative and philosophical questions about politics. Political theorists analyse fundamental concepts such as justice, freedom, equality, and authority. They engage with the history of political thought, studying canonical thinkers from Plato and Machiavelli to John Rawls and Hannah Arendt, to understand how ideas about the ideal political order have evolved. For example, a political theorist might analyse Rawls's theory of 'justice as fairness' to evaluate the moral basis of welfare policies (Rawls, 1971). This sub-field provides the conceptual and ethical foundations for the entire discipline.
Second, Comparative Politics is the empirical study and comparison of different political systems. Rather than focusing on a single country, comparativists analyse multiple cases to identify patterns, test theories, and develop generalisations about how politics works. Key areas of study include democratisation, political regimes (e.g., democracies vs. autocracies), electoral systems, and political culture. For instance, a specialist in comparative politics might investigate why some countries successfully transition to democracy while others fail, comparing factors such as economic development, civil society strength, and institutional design across different nations (Lijphart, 1999). This comparative method allows for a more robust and less culturally-bound understanding of political phenomena.
Third, International Relations (IR) focuses on the interactions between political actors on the global stage. Traditionally, its primary subject was the relationship between sovereign states, with a focus on issues of war, peace, and security. Major theoretical traditions within IR include realism, which emphasises state power and conflict, and liberalism, which highlights the potential for cooperation through international institutions and trade (Waltz, 1979; Keohane and Nye, 1977). More recently, the scope of IR has expanded to include non-state actors like multinational corporations and non-governmental organisations (NGOs), and to address global issues such as climate change, terrorism, and human rights.
Finally, areas like Public Policy and Administration concentrate on the 'how' of government. Public policy scholars analyse the policymaking process, from agenda-setting to implementation and evaluation, asking why governments pursue certain courses of action. Public administration focuses on the machinery of government itself, examining the organisation and management of public services and the bureaucracy.
The Debate Over ‘Science’
A central and ongoing debate within the discipline concerns its status as a 'science'. The term 'political science' suggests an aspiration to the rigour and objectivity associated with the natural sciences, such as physics or biology. This ambition was most clearly articulated during the 'behavioural revolution' of the 1950s and 1960s. Proponents of behaviouralism argued that political science should move away from the descriptive and normative focus of the traditional approach and instead adopt a more scientific methodology (Easton, 1953).
The behavioural approach insists on studying observable political behaviour (e.g., how people vote) rather than unobservable concepts like 'the state' or 'justice'. It prioritises the use of quantitative methods, such as statistical analysis and surveys, to formulate and test falsifiable hypotheses. The goal is to discover patterns and regularities in political life that could lead to the development of general theories, much like in the natural sciences. For example, a behaviouralist might collect large datasets on voting patterns to test the theory that higher levels of education correlate with higher rates of political participation. This approach, along with rational choice theory, which models political actors as self-interested utility maximisers, seeks to make the study of politics more systematic and evidence-based (Downs, 1957).
However, this scientific aspiration has faced significant criticism. Critics, often labelled 'interpretivists' or 'post-positivists', argue that the social world is fundamentally different from the natural world. Human beings have consciousness, intentions, and values, and their actions are infused with meaning. Therefore, it is argued, human behaviour cannot be explained in the same way as the behaviour of atoms or cells. To understand political action, one must interpret the meanings and beliefs that motivate it, a task that requires qualitative methods like interviews, historical analysis, and case studies rather than just statistical correlation (Marsh and Stoker, 2010). Critics also point out that political phenomena are often too complex, contingent, and context-dependent to be captured by universal scientific 'laws'. The attempt to create a value-free science of politics is also seen as problematic, as the choice of what to study and how to study it is itself influenced by the researcher's own values.
Conclusion
In conclusion, political science is a multifaceted discipline that resists a simple definition. It is best understood as the systematic study of politics in its broadest sense, encompassing the state, government, and the pervasive exercise of power and authority in all areas of human life. This essay has shown that the field is organised into several major sub-disciplines, each contributing a different perspective to the overall project of understanding political phenomena. Furthermore, the discussion has highlighted the core methodological and philosophical tension that animates the discipline: the debate between those who believe politics can and should be studied as a science, and those who argue for a more interpretive, humanistic approach. While a consensus on this debate is unlikely, the ongoing dialogue itself is productive. It ensures that political science remains a self-critical and intellectually vibrant field, capable of employing a diverse range of tools to analyse the central questions of how we govern ourselves and contest the distribution of power.
References
Aristotle (1981) The Politics. Translated by T. A. Sinclair, revised by T. J. Saunders. Penguin Classics.
Dahl, R. A. (1957) 'The Concept of Power', Behavioral Science, 2(3), pp. 201–215.
Downs, A. (1957) An Economic Theory of Democracy. Harper & Row.
Easton, D. (1953) The Political System: An Inquiry into the State of Political Science. Alfred A. Knopf.
Heywood, A. (2019) Politics. 5th edn. Red Globe Press.
Keohane, R. O. and Nye, J. S. (1977) Power and Interdependence: World Politics in Transition. Little, Brown.
Lasswell, H. D. (1936) Politics: Who Gets What, When, How. McGraw-Hill.
Lijphart, A. (1999) Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries. Yale University Press.
Marsh, D. and Stoker, G. (eds.) (2010) Theory and Methods in Political Science. 3rd edn. Palgrave Macmillan.
Rawls, J. (1971) A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press.
Waltz, K. N. (1979) Theory of International Politics. Addison-Wesley.
