UNIT2 POLITICAL SOCIOLOGY: NATURE AND SCOPE* Structure 2.0 Objectives 2.1 Introduction 2.2 Emergence of Political Sociology 2.3 Meaning of Political Sociology 2.4. Scope of Political Sociology 2.5 Let Us Sum Up 2.6 Key Words 2.7 Further Readings 2.8 Specimen Answers to Check Your Progress 2.0 OBJECTIVES After study of this unit, you will be able to understand: ‘© Describe the emergence of political sociology; © Discuss the meaning of political sociology; © Discuss the scope of political sociology. 2.1 INTRODUCTION In the earlier unit of this block, we have discussed polity and society. In this unit we shall discuss the emergence of political sociology, the meaning, nature and scope of political sociology. Political sociology is sub field within contemporary sociology and political science. It focuses on political organization and institutions, on power and authority, and on the behaviour of the ruler and subject. It is a broad subfield that connects political science and sociology. It is essential to understand the distinction between sociology and political science; and the distinction and relationship between the sociology of politics and political sociology. Smelser proposed four criteria for scientific discipline i.e. dependent variables, independent variables, logical ordering (cause effects relationships, models and theoretical frame work), research methods. He differentiates between sociology and political science. Sociology is defined as the discipline that “tends to opt for social structural conditions as explanatory variables.” Political science is the discipline that opts for political -structural conditions as explanatory variables. According to Bendix and Lipset,’political science starts with the state and examines how it affects society while political sociology starts with society and examines how it affects the state. This distinction will help us to understand the scope of political sociology. The political sociology may be used as a synonym for ‘sociology of politics’ but itmay not, Giovanni Sartori makes distinetion between sociology of politics and *Writen by Dr. Vinod Kumar Yadav, Consultant, Discipline of Sociology, SOSS, IGNOU‘Understanding Political Sociology 24 political sociology. The scope of political sociology is broader than the sociology of polities. The vision of sociology of politics is narrow; it views only one part of the phenomenon and ignores the rest. The sociology of politics is a sub field of sociology. It is a sociological appraisal of polities. It treats phenomenon as dependent variable and accepts the underlying social phenomenon as the explanatory variable. It deals with the non political reasons why the people act the way they do in political life. Whereas, the political sociology is an attempt to understand the political phenomenon by necessarily relating it to the social determinants. It is the examination of the links between politics and society, between social structures and political structures, and between social behaviour and political behaviour. Thus, it is born when the sociological and political-logical approaches are combined at their point of intersection. It includes the political reasons why people act the way they do. According to Giovanni Sartori, “Political sociology is an interdiseiplinary hybrid attempting to combine social and political explanatory variables."Itis a connecting bridge between sociology and political science. It believes in a two way relationship between sociology and political science, giving equal emphasis on social and political variables, Let us take example of political party system. Here political sociology does not explain the working of party system only in terms of its reflection of the socio economic scene, but also investigates how the society is as much conditioned by the party system. 2.2 _ EMERGENCE OF POLITICAL SOCIOLOGY “Politics” was the famous work of Aristotle, which indicated that politics is derived from Greek word Polis which means the city-states, that which is concerned with the affairs of state, government and administration. As originated in Greek theory, political science was actually political philosophy based on theoretical interpretations, descriptive ideas, speculative options, abstract and value laden thoughts, or in other words, a ‘normative study’, Political sociology can trace its origins to the writings of Alexis de Tocqueville, Karl Marx, Emile Durkheim, and Max Weber, among others, but it only emerged as a separate subfield within sociology after World War Il. Many of the landmark works of the 1950s and 1960s centered on micro questions about the impact of class, religion, race/ ethnicity, or education on individual and group-based political behaviour. Beginning in the 1970s, political sociologists increasingly tumed toward macro topics, such as understanding the sources and consequences of revolutions, the role of political institutions in shaping political outcomes, and large-scale comparative-historical studies of state development. Today both micro-and macro scholarship can be found in political sociology. While political sociology has often been described as divergent, abstract, and fragmented, it continues to be an important subfield in sociology because a number of themes consistently explored by political sociologists are particularly relevant to the development of a sociological perspective. At least four trends can be said to characterize the history and development of political sociology. The first trend is the classical period. It existed during Greek and Roman times when man was viewed as primarily a political animal. Later, during the Holy Roman Empire, he was redefined in purely ecclesiastic terms and considered an extention of God, Political philosophers like Plato, Aristotle,Cicero, St Augustine and St.Thomas Aquinas are representatives of the classical period of political sociology. The second trend can be observed during the Enlightenment period. It consisted of a great debate between the political philosophers of two distinct schools. The first school consisted of Locke, Montesquieu, Rousseau, later followed by Saint- Simon, Comte and Karl Marx. They all made an important distinction between society and the state. The other school consisted of philosophers like Macheiavelli, Hobbs, Burke, Hegel, Bonald and Maistre, who did not differentiate between society and politics and favoured the hegemony and legitimacy of the traditional monarchy and Church. In addition, the contribution of Max Weber, Maciver and other towards the emergence of political sociology have been unique. The third trend in the emergence f political sociology is related to the role of elites in society. The term elite was introduced in the seventeenth century to describe standards of excellence. Later it was extended to refer to superior social groups, such as highly successful military units and upper ranks of the aristocracy. Itwas extensively used by two Italian sociologists, Pareto and Mosca. Generally, elite theorists argued that history was not created by ideas, or by the masses or by silently working forces but by small groups of individual who exerted themselves from time to time. Elite theorists maintained that throughout history there always had been a distinguishable stratum of rulers who comprised a small portion fsociety and, due to their monopoly over critical resources, were able to maximize effective organization and control, The resources they commanded military forces, ecclesiastical rule, economic domination, or political power varied from society to society and from one period to another, The fourth trend in the emergence of political sociology is the contemporary period. This period is more empirical and analytical. It emphasises on developing empirically verifiable generalisations linking society and polities, with theory building as the central focus of development. Many of the most prominent practitioners of contemporary political theory are leading political sociologists like Lipset, Greer, Inkles, Moore, Komhauser, Mills, Hunter, Janowitz, Lazarfield, Eisenstadt, Selnick, Rokkan, Gusfield and Macrae. These political sociologists have been creatively concerned and they have given emphasis as a rigorous and mature social scientific discipline. 2.3__ MEANING OF POLITICAL SOCIOLOGY The sociologists do not agree on the precise meaning of political sociology. There are following conflicting notions related to the meaning of the political sociology: 1) _ Iteonsiders political sociology as the science of the state. To define political sociology as the science of the state is to place it in a classification of the social sciences, which is based on the nature of the societies studied? Greer and Orleans, Jellinck and Marcel Prelot are more akin to this notion. 2) Political Sociology is the interaction process between society and polities. Bendix and Lipset say “Political science starts with the state and examines how it affects society while political sociology starts with the society and examines how it affects state.” Political Sociology: Nature ‘and Scope 25‘Understanding Political Sociology 26 3) Political sociology as advocated by Maurice Duverger is more modem lt holds that political sociology is the science of power, of government, of authority of command, in all human societies (including the national societies). Many contemporary writers accept this definition of political sociology with a few modifications; notably among them are MaxWeber, Reymond Aron, George Vedel, George Burdeau and Maurice Duverger. 4) Political sociology is that itis integration of sociology and political science, which presupposes specialization. Political Sociology, thus, could be styled as the interdisciplinary progeny of the more established parent disciplines sociology and political science and specializes in the interactions and linkages that exist between these two fields. It is more systematic for it is intended to build connecting bridges, i.e. interdisciplinary hybrids, across the various boundaries, 2.4 SCOPE OF POLITICAL SOCIOLOGY Asa discipline, political sociology is at the intersection of sociology and political science: It addresses issues related to politics, similarly to political science However, it differs from political science in a variety of ways. Political sociologists tend to emphasize the relationships between political institutions and other social institutions and society in general, rather than focusing on political institutions in their own right, Political sociology tends to have a broader and also historical scope. The main focus of the discipline has been on the political processes which take place within human societies. Political sociology deals with the relationship between state and society on the basis of mutual interaction and with power as the ultimate aim of all political processes. Political sociology deals with the study of the social basis of political competition (including social identities), between social and political attitudes (including political culture), processes of political engagement and competition (including elections and protest politics), the social basis for the formation, change, and maintenance of political institutions (including democracy and welfare states). It has been a relatively new field of study which is still developing. Various political sociologists define its s several different ways According to Greer and Orleans, “Political Sociology is concerned with the structure of the state, the nature and the conditions of the legitimacy; the nature of the monopoly of force, and peoples relations with their respective states. In other words, the scope of Political Sociology is held to concern with state, power, consensus and legitimacy, participation and representation and the relationship between economic and political development. According to Lipset and Bendix the scope of Political Sociology in concerned with voting behaviour of communities and their nation; concentration of economic power and political decision-making, ideologies of political movements, and interest groups. In dealing with these fields, Political Sociology has a vast scope because it studies the politics of power in relation to all aspects of social relations. Political Sociology studies power, authority and legitimacy of state in relation to social relations. It involves the activities of bureaucracy, interest groups, political participation of the people, conflict and conflict-resolution, political culture and political socialization, decision-making, political movements, social change, violence and revolution and some other areas/fields.Maurice Duverger observes that Political Sociology centers around two facets of power and authority i¢., both oppressor and integrator:To him its scope consists of: political structures in which the dialectic of antagonisms and integration unfolds, the causes of conflict and integration in society; and the way the conflicts are resolved and integrated. Maurice Duverger states that: (i) political sociology is the study of power in every human grouping, not just in the nation-state. Each of these groups, therefore, serves as a structure, a framework, for the enactment of conflicts and integration. Political structures include physical structures (geographical and demographic), and social structures (technical skills, institutions and cultures), (ii) Political sociology analyses the causes of political antagonisms. The causes of political antagonisms may occur between individuals as well as between groups; (iii) Political sociology is also the study of conflict and integration, Conflict naturally tends to lead to integration, and antagonisms tend, by their very development, to self-elimination and the subsequent bringing about of social harmony. So the scope of political sociology includes political structures, the causes of political antagonisms and the flow from antagonism to integration Charles Tilly, related the construction of the national state to collective action, which also has direct consequences for the understanding of citizenship. Although he considers the construction of the state as a process that is potentially independent of other social forces. Tilly (1975, 1986,) analyses it in relation to the historically variable dynamics of collective action, trying to take into account the numerous reactions, mobilizations and negotiations on the part of common people to the assault of a centralizing and resource-greedy state, The available range of collective action varies greatly as the processes of state construction, capitalist expansion, urbanization and coercion (especially war) advance. Thus, the national state implied a great transformation in the ways people acted together in pursuit of their interests: since there was greater dependence on decisions taken at the national level, the most relevant levels of political power for the interests of the common citizen were significantly dislocated, requiring new means and new goals for collective action, On the one hand, he wants to determine the capacity of agency and creativity of individuals in their mobilizations; and, on the other hand, the structural constraints that limit the possibilities ~ or, in his words, the repertoire of collective action Thus, Ulrich Beck (1992,1999), for example, claims that global processes produce a rupture in modemity, whose driving force (individualization) has profound consequences for collective identities such as the dissolution of patterns, codes and rules established by a national society. In other words, politics is not exclusively or principally found in institutions such as parliaments, parties, unions etc, It is now found at the centre of private life, since the microcosm of the conduct of personal life is interrelated with the macrocosm of global problems (such as the environmental issue). Thus, polities in the nation-state structure is no longer the starting point for a new territory of the political, the geopolitical or the global risk society. Different perspectives (Delanty and Kumar,2006; Smith, 2010 [2001]; Young et al., 2007) have been stressing the perseverance of nation and nationalism as social phenomena of restored interest, the former as a subjective community and the latter as a social force informing in a theoretical and practical way both social ‘movements and political agendas of states. In the studies on political culture, the Political Sociology: Nature ‘and Scope 27‘Understanding Political Sociology 28 relationship between socialization processes and political behaviour also becomes central, based on the acknowledgement that the actors’ answers to objective social situations are given by means of subjectively intervened orientations. Another theme of the political sociology research agenda, which directly articulates the theoretical issue of social change with the state/society relationship, concerns social movements. It is possible to identify at least three major theoretical lines that explain social movements (Alonso, 2009), all of which had to be adapted in order to face contemporary challenges, such as collective mobilizations reaching global scale, involving violence and tending to concentrate on identity issues. The first theoretical line is expressed in the so- called resource mobilization theory (McCarthy and Zald, 1977), which values rationality over explanations of collective mobilizations in terms of collective emotions. The two other major theoretical lines - the so called political process theory and the new social movements’ theory — derive from the weakness of Marxist debates about possibilities of revolution. Despite the fact that the former is devoted to a theory of political mobilization while the latter is founded on a cultural change approach, both stand up against cither determinism and economicist perspectives on collective action or the idea of a universal historical subject, preferring macro- historical perspectives, which analytically combine politics and culture in the social movements explanation, With reference to the political process perspective, Sidney Tarrow (1998), for instance, argues that when there are no changes in ‘the political opportunity structure’, that is, in the formal and informal dimensions ofthe political environment, then new channels of demand expression are opened and created for social groups outside the polity. This may occur through political and administrative institutions’ increased permeability to civil society claims, caused by some crisis in the political coalition in power; by changes in the political interaction between state and society, particularly reduced oppression of protest; and by the presence of potential allies (Kriesi et al., 1995). Mobilization is grounded in a conflict between different parts, one of which occupies the state for the moment, while the other speaks on behalf of the society. Since such positions are variable, in as much as actors move from one to another, the analyses have to overcome the conventional barriers which define ‘state’ and ‘society’ as two coherent and separate entities. In its turn, although it is not considered a homogeneous perspective, bestowed with a stable unity, one can discern a common postulate among the main theorists of the so-called new social movements- Alain Touraine, Jirgen Habermas and Alberto Melucci. If, on the one hand, each of them maintains the macro-historical approach and the association between social change and conflict forms, on the other hand so too does each consist in the elaboration of an effective cultural interpretation of social movements. Notwithstanding the fact that each has his own modernity theory, they more or less share the same central argument that, throughout the 20th century, a macro-structural change would have modified the nature of capitalism, whose centre would no longer be industrial production and work. Labour conflicts ‘would have been satisfied, either through democratic institutions, such as rights expansion movements, or capitalist institutions, like salary increases, and would have become eminently cultural, exercised through the control of information by a technocracy, There would be a politicization of private life. So the class ‘movements would give way to new expressive, symbolic and identity movements, such as feminism, environmental and students’ movements. The enhancement of global processes and the related crisis of the nation-state also pose inspiring challenges for the political sociology of social movements. It is necessary toface the shift of scale in activism, from the national/local to the transnational! global level, as well as its professionalization, which can be observed in the fact that in various western countries social movements have become bureaucratized, converted into parties, acquired an enterprise culture or assumed the administration of public/state services (Rootes, 1996). Moreover, contemporary protests involve activists and themes that cross boundaries and are often directed towards multilateral institutions or to transnational public opinion. No less important is the weakness of the association between new social movements and post materialist agendas caused by the recent wave of ethnic, religious, communitarian and conservative mobilizations. The re-emergence of the idea of ‘civil society’(Alexander, 1993) and the greater value attributed to debates on the ‘public sphere” that goes along with it, may represent relevant theoretical alternatives to the more historical orientations of political sociology that are mainly focused on the problem of the nation-state. Not coincidentally, perhaps, there are efforts to give greater historical support and breadth to these alternatives (Cohen and Arato,1992), even though their Eurocentrism is still strongly criticized (Hann and Dunn, 1996). In any case, it true that these alternatives may seem ‘minimalist ‘from the viewpoint of the problem of collective identity linked to the nation-state, in so far as they suggest that people should basically accept the procedural rules of open and equal debate between individuals bearing interests (Eder, 2003), However, perhaps what is most relevant is to observe that this revaluing of ideas of ‘civil society’ and the ‘public sphere” has led to significant redefinitions of relations between state and society from the latter’s perspective. This may lead, in some cases, to the return of separate views of state and society and therefore, in extreme cases, to compromising the specificity of political sociology as a research tradition. Check Your Progress 1) Explain the emergence of political sociology. 2) Elaborate the meaning of political sociology. 3) Discuss the scope of political sociology. Political Sociology: Nature ‘and Scope 29‘Understanding Political Sociology 30 2.5 LET US SUM UP In this unit, we have tried to trace origin of political sociology and how it became a sub discipline that connects political science and sociology. We also tried to explore the conflicting notion related to the meaning of political sociology and also discussed the scope of political sociology. 2.6 KEY WORDS Nation state: Ahistorically specific form of the state, developed initially in Europe and the US from the seventeenth to the nineteenth centuries and spread to the rest of the world with decolonization in the twentieth century, which attempts to integrate people according to shared cultural norms Transnational: — Referring to relations or processes which cross national boundaries, by - passing the nation - state. 2.7 _FURTHER READINGS Anderson B. 1991. Imagined Communities. London: Verso, Bendix R (1977 [1964]) Nation Building and Citizenship. Berkeley: University of California Marshall T. H. 1950. Citizenship and Social Class and Other Essays. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Mills, C. Wright. 1959. The Sociological Imagination. New York: Oxford University Press. Nash, Kate. 2007. Contemporary Political Sociology: Globalization, Politics, and Power. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. 2.8 SPECIMEN ANSWERS TO CHECK YOUR PROGRESS 1) Emergence of Political sociology can be traced from the writings of Alexis, de Tocqueville, Karl Marx, Emile Durkheim, and Max Weber, among others, but it only emerged as a separate entity within sociology after World War IL. There are four major trends which characterize the history and development of political sociology i.e. classical period, enlightenment period, role of elites and contemporary period. 2) Although sociologist don’t have consensus on the precise meaning of political sociology and there are certain conflicting notions related to it. These notions broadly discussed political sociology as the science of state, interaction process between society and politics, science of power, government and authority and an integration of sociology and political science. 3) The scope of Political Sociology is held to concem with state, power, consensus and legitimacy, participation and representation and therelationship between economic and political development. In dealing with _Politial Socotogy: Nature these fields, Political Sociology has a vast scope because it studies the and Scope politics of power in relation to all aspects of social relations. REFERENCES Alexander JC (1993) The return to civil society. Contemporary Sociology 22(6): 797-803, Anderson B (1991) Jmagined Communities. London: Verso. Balakrishnan G (ed.) (1996) Mapping the Nation. London: Verso Beck U (1996) The Reinvention of Politics: Rethinking Modernity in the Global Social Order. Cambridge: Polity Press. Bendix R (1977 [1964]) Nation Building and Citizenship. Berkeley: University of California Press. Bhabha HK (ed.) (1990) Nation and Narration, London:Routledge. Braungart, Richard, 1981. “Political Sociology: History and Scope.”Pp. 1-80 in Handbook of Political Behavior, edited by S. Long. New York: Plenum. Calhoun C (2007) Nations Matter: Culture, History, and the Cosmopolitan Dream. New York: Routledge. Delanty G and Kumar K (eds) (2006) The Sage Handbook of Nations and Nationalism. London: Sage. Eder K (ed.) (2003) Collective Identities in Action: A Sociological Approach to Ethnicity. Aldershot: Ashgate. Gupta D (1996) Engaging with events: The specifics of political sociology in India. Current Sociology 44(3):53-69. Hann C and Dunn E (eds) (1996) Civil Society: London: Routledge. Challenging Western Models: Marshall TH (1950) Citizenship and Social Class and Other Essays. Cambridge: Cambridge UniversityPress. Mills, C. Wright. 1956. The Power Elite. New York: Oxford University Press. 1959. The Sociological Imagination. New York: Oxford University Press. Nash, Kate. 2007. Contemporary political sociology: Globalization, polities, and power. Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. Pugh , M. ( 1992 ). Women and the Women 's Movement in Britain 1914 — 59 London : Macmillan . Rootes CA (1996) Political sociology in Britain: Survey of the literature and the profession. Current Sociology44(3): 108-132 Scott , A. (1990 ), Ideology and the New Social Movements . London : UnwinHyman 31‘Understanding Political Sociology 32 Taylor , G. (1995 ).“ Marxism , “ In D. Marsh and G Stoker (eds.), Theory and Methods in Political Science . London : Macmillan. Tilly C (1975) Reflections on the history of European state-making, In: Tilly C (ed.) The Formation of National States in Western Europe. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Tilly C (1986) The Contentious French: Four Centuries of Popular Struggle. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. Tilly C (1993) Contentious repertoires in Great Britain, 1758-1834. Social Science History 17. Tocqueville, Alexis de. 1945 [1835]. Democracy in America, New York: Vintage Books. Weber, Max. 1947. The Theory of Social and Economic Organization. Translated by A. Henderson andT. Parsons. Glencoe, IL: The Free Press. Sartori,Giovanni (1969) From the Sociology of Politics to political sociology,S.M.Lipset(edt) Social Science and Politics,Oxford University Press,London and New York Rathore,L.S.(1986) “Political Sociology:Its Meaning, Evolution and Scope” .The Indian Joumal of Political Science Vol.47,No. | January-March1986) Political Science Association.