Skip to main content

Approaches in Political Sociology

Like all discipline, Political sociology has also been discussed in terms of different approaches. It goes without saying that each approach postulates a certain emphasis on limited contours of the topic concerned, highlights some portion over other parts of the subject, and holds very peculiar frameworks and theories to deal with. Behavioral approach was dominated in political sociology from 1940s to 1970. Spotting the problems of this approach, a many particular approach has become popularized, namely Marxist, Elite or managerial, pluralist, and Weberian approaches. We shall here discuss these ways of understanding separately although in a succinct manner. 

  • Behavioral Approach: It considers the state far too obscure and ideological to be analytically useful. The political sociologist, it was argued, should instead take into consideration the political behavior of individuals and the institutions of civil society. Its main focus lays upon how political values were formed, the nature of a country's political culture, and the reasons why citizens participate politically. The behavioral approach largely ignored the state.
  • Marxist Approach: It regards state as an instrument that ruling class employs to impose their interest on propertyless class. In ‘The Communist Manifesto’, Marx argues that the executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the affairs of the whole bourgeoisie. It is a society-centered theory. The class struggle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie becomes inevitable when the contradiction of the state becomes more acute. When it is resolved in favor of working class, state will be perished by itself and civil society will replace the hold. Along Marx, Antonio Gramsci’s contributions are to be reckoned in this regard.  
  • Elite Theory: the main proponents of this approach are two Italian sociologists; Mosca and Pareto. Despite disagreements over resources which the elites utilize, both of them are agreed that the state and civil society are enclosed by an inevitable division of power between elites and the masses. According to this theory, the power is manipulated and dictated by a minority over a majority who never participate in real terms of government and are subject to the wills of minority. Even the democracy is carried out by a few of the leaders who claim the representing ability of the masses.
  • Pluralist Approach: Challenging Marxism and elite theory, pluralist thinkers such as Dahl and Truman have posited that power is not owned by a minority, instead it is dispersed through all nooks and corners of society, with no one being dominant and with each power usurping a parallel countervailing force to maintain the balance. Dahl uses the term ‘polyarchy’ to explain how in liberal democracy government by minority is replaced by government by minorities. In their view, state’s role should be minimal.
  • Weberian Approach: Max Weber differentiates between power and authority on the basis of legitimacy. State, he argues, has a monopoly to use legitimate use of power. He presented three ideal types of authority; Traditional, Charismatic and Legal-Rational Authorities. Modern societies are characterized by legal authority although there may have overlapping moments. Unlike Marxian framework, Weber has added aspect of political party in his theory of stratification. His lectures ‘Politics as a Vocation’ and ‘The General Theory of the State’ are exemplary to know his thoughts in the political sociology

. 

Book Review

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Annihilation of Caste/ B R Ambedkar

Annihilation of Caste is a polemical yet rigorously reasoned intervention in which B. R. Ambedkar presents a radical critique of the caste system and of Hindu society more broadly. The text originated as a speech that Ambedkar was invited to deliver at a reformist conference of caste Hindus, but it was rejected because of its uncompromising arguments. Ambedkar begins by explaining this context to underline a key point: Hindu reformers are willing to criticize certain social evils but are unwilling to confront the foundations of caste itself. From the outset, Ambedkar makes clear that his critique is directed not merely at social practices but at the religious and ideological structures that sustain caste hierarchy. Ambedkar’s central argument is that caste is not a simple social division or an occupational arrangement, as it is often presented, but a system of graded inequality. He directly challenges the claim that caste represents a division of labour. Instead, he argues that caste i...
Post a Comment
Read more

Book Review: Genealogies of Religion: Discipline and Reasons of Power in Christianity and Islam by Talal Asad (1993)

Are anthropologists supposed to explore Western history whenever they set out along with history? Posing this pertinent question at the beginning of the introduction to the book ‘Genealogies of Religion: Discipline and Reasons of Power in Christianity and Islam’ (published in 1993), Talal Asad, one of the most potent critics of colonial cultural politics, has astonishingly cast an arrow over the prevailing frameworks of the discipline, particularly related to religion. In this book consisting of eight separate essays, though profoundly tied together, Asad explores the historical foundations of important anthropological (and more broadly intellectual) concepts, spanning from Christian monasticism to Saudi sermons to anthropological theory: subjectivity, religion, and ritual, agency, cultural translation, and multiculturalism. The introduction generally scans over what he already carved out in his previous book, ‘Anthropology and The Colonial Encounter’ (1973). Not restricted to dispelli...
2 comments
Read more

The Dutiful Daughter/ Lila Abu-Lughod

  In The Dutiful Daughter, Lila Abu-Lughod reflects ethnographically and reflexively on her fieldwork among the Awlad ‘Ali Bedouins of Egypt, showing how her anthropological knowledge was produced through her lived experience as an adopted daughter within a Bedouin household. Rather than positioning herself as an external observer, Abu-Lughod foregrounds how her everyday conduct, emotional discipline, and moral comportment were central to her acceptance in the community and to the possibility of doing ethnography at all. She recounts how, upon being taken in by a family, she was treated as an unmarried daughter whose behavior directly affected the family’s honor. This position came with concrete expectations: she was required to dress modestly, limit her interactions with men, and seek permission for movement outside the household. Abu-Lughod describes instances where she wanted to travel independently or pursue interviews freely but was prevented from doing so because such ac...
Post a Comment
Read more