POLITICAL SOCIOLOGY: ITS MEANING, EVOLUTION AND SCOPE

Author(s): L. S. RATHORE
Source: The Indian Journal of Political Science , January - March 1986, Vol. 47, No. 1
(January - March 1986), pp. 119-140
Published by: Indian Political Science Association

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.com/stable/41855222

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Indian Journal of
Political Science

This content downloaded from

103.72.190.89 on Mon, 06 Feb 2023 02:32:251976 12:34:56 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 POLITICAL SOCIOLOGY : ITS MEANING,
EVOLUTION AND SCOPE

L. S. RATHORE

In recent years an increasing attention has been paid to th

ing importance of political sociology. Political sociology is an
ing and burgeoning sub-field within contemporary sociology
tical science. Though it still lacks precise contours, more
scholars have come to recognise its crucial significance in th
of politics. The existence of International Committee on Polit
logy (1970) indicated the significance of the new theme. Des
flurry of interest and exuberance of social scientists, the pr
political sociology are still vaguely defined, and its sub-theme
in all directions, having an endlessly varying form. Political
is a mixture of sweet-scented material, borrowed from the
of political science and sociology. Since it is a marriage of
and political science, its scholarly threads are mostly compo
jointed and unconnected parts. Perhaps the amorphous an
nature of political sociology could be a factor of immense pre
for political scientists and sociologists to take up the challeng
cover the trends and tangents that lie unfolded in the texture
al sociology. The term ' political sociology ' is amoebic and fl
its nature criss-cross, for it lacks exactness and precision. It
and inconstant nature could be testified from the fact that it has the

power of changing itself into an endless variety of forms from continent

to continent. In France, the terms ' political sociology ' and ' political
science' are almost synonymous and they have acquired a legitimacy to
designate a particular branch of sociology, one of the social sciences. In
certain countries the distinction is purely administrative or pedagogical.
In the U.S.A. where sociology and political science are usually two
The Indian Journal of Political Science, Vol. 47, No. 1, January - March, 1986.

This content downloaded from

103.72.190.89 on Mon, 06 Feb 2023 02:32:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
120 THE INDIAN JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

separate departments, they speak of ' political sociology ' when a pro-
fessor from sociology department is dealing with the phenomenon of
power ; and of ' political sociology ' when the same subject is taught
by a professor from the political science department. In Europe, the
term ť political science ' (which is not yet widely used) often serves to
indicate the field of research of a scholar whose training is grounded
in history or law. The term 'sociologist' more often refers to profes-
sional philosophers or less frequently, to people trained in the purely
sociological disciplines. In some Continental countries, the term ' poli-
tical science ' may reflect a certain tendency toward isolating the study
of political phenomenon by limiting its contacts with other branche» of
the social sciences. The term ' political sociology ', on the other hand,
may indicate a desire to restore political phenomenon to its proper
place within the broad spectrum of social phenomenon, to remove bar-
riers between disciplines, and to emphasize the essential unity of all the
social sciences. In this sense, the term ' political sociology ' is prefer-
able. It also suggests a firm intention to use empirical and experi-
mental methods of research instead of philosophical reasoning. This
background of the term ' political sociology' may be helpful in locating
its asymmetrical boundaries. To understand properly the mean-
ing, evolution and scope of political sociology, it is essential to know
the distinction between sociology and political science; and the distinc-
tion and relationship between the sociology of politics and political
sociology.

Sociology and Political Science

The terms ' sociology ' and ' political science ' are closely related.
They both lack clearly defined meaning. The origin of the term ' poli-
tical science ' is rather old, as it is associated with the Greek word polis
whereas the term 'sociology' was coined by Auguste Comte in 1839
to designate the science of society. Comte had earlier used the term
' social physics ' in the same sense, but later replaced it with 'sociology'
because the Belgian mathematician Quetelet had applied the term
' social physics ' to the statistical study of moral phenomenon (1836),
which Comte called " a vicious attempt at appropriation " of this term.
Since Comte's time, the use of the word 'sociology' has changed little.

It is rather difficult and perplexing to draw a neat dividing line

between sociology and political science. If, as Smelser suggests, "the

This content downloaded from

103.72.190.89 on Mon, 06 Feb 2023 02:32:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 POLITICAL sociology: its meaning, evolution and scope 121

focus of a scientific discipline ... can be specified by listing the depen-

dent and independent variables that pre-occupy its investigators", then
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. It could be said that the independent variables - causes,
determinants, or factors - of the sociologist are, basically, social struc-
tures; while the independent variables - causes, determinants, or
factors - of the political scientist are, basically, political structures.
This demarcation looks neat and precise in principle, but it is an
extremely arduous task to apply it in practice. The contemporary
invasion of political science by sociologists, and the recognition of
sociology as a core social science discipline, has put political science in
a serious plight, and has even created the crisis of identity. Political
Science today is in a state of predicament, unrivalled in its entire period
of evolution. On the contrary, sociology is increasingly becoming the
infrastructure or the basis of social sciences, and its techniques and
concepts are being increasingly transplanted in political science. Never-
theless, the broad distinction between sociology and political science as
stated above, would help us in understanding the scope of political
sociology.

The Sociology of Politics and Political Sociology

The sociology of politics unmistakably indicates a sub-field, a sub-
division of the overall field of sociology. By saying sociology of politics,
we make clear that the framework, the approach, or the focus of the
inquiry is sociological; whereas the scope of political sociology is much
wider; it is intended to bridge the gap between political science and
sociology - the problem of building inter-disciplinary bridges. Politi-
cal sociology is "an inter-disciplinary hybrid" attempting to combine
social and political explanatory variables, i.e., the inputs suggested by
the political scientist. The sociology of politics is instead "a socio-
logical reduction of politics".

Giovanni Sartori makes an interesting analysis of the distinction

between the sociology of politics and political sociology. He says that
the sociology of politics deals with the consumer and ignores the pro-
ducer. This is like explaining an economic system as if there could be
buyers without sellers. Political sociology is required, instead, to follow
16

This content downloaded from

103.72.190.89 on Mon, 06 Feb 2023 02:32:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
122 THE INDIAN JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

all the cycle from both ends, from the producer's no less than from the
consumer's end. In principle, the producer's market does not matter
less than the consumer's market. Hence, in the perspective of political
sociology, a party system is not only a response to consumer's demands,
but is equally feedback of producer's options. In practice, moreover,
the political entrepreneur exerts a greater persuasive influence on the
voter than does the economic entrepreneur on the buyer. This indicates
that the scope of political sociology is broader than the sociology of
politics. 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 clearly a sub-field of sociology. It is a

sociological appraisal of politics. It treats political phenomenon
as dependent variable and accepts the underlying social phenomenon
as the explanatory variable. 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. Political socio-
logy is, thus, born when the sociological and politico-logical approaches
are combined at their point of intersection. If the sociology of politics
deals with the non-political reasons why the people act the way they do
in political life, political sociology includes the political reasons why
people act the way they do. Political sociology, therefore, is a cross-
disciplinary breakthrough seeking enlarged models which reintroduce
variables as the 'givens' of each component source.

Lipset and Rokkan's introductory chapter in Party Systems and Voter

Alignments : Cross National Perspectives (1 967) is significant in this connec-
tion. They answer a fundamental question: How are conflicts and
cleavages translated into a party system? In this chapter Lipset-
Rokkan refused to reduce politics to an epiphenomenon. Here, politics
emerges as a major independent factor. These conclusions of Lipset-
Rokkan run contrary to Lipset-Bendix model {Essay and Bibliography ,
1957). What cannot be explained by social and economic status merely
is "the competing strategies of the political struggle"; the peculiar
essence of politics is reduced to the 'strategy' of conflict management.
This version of Lipset-Bendix (1967) is opposite to Lipset-Rokkan
approach. It could be said that Lipset-Rokkan approach represents

This content downloaded from

103.72.190.89 on Mon, 06 Feb 2023 02:32:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 political sociology: its meaning, evolution and scope 123

a momentous re-balancing of the discipline. They inaugurate t

new dimensions, by discarding the old style sociology of politic
These new dimensions are seminal for understanding the realm
political sociology.

Political sociology is a connecting bridge between sociology and

political science. It believes in a two-way relationship between sociolo
and political science, giving equal emphasis on social and politi
variables. Take for example the party system. Here, political
sociology does not explain the working of party system only in terms of
its response to and reflection of the socio-economic scene, but also
investigates how the society is as much conditioned by the party system.
Or, to give an Indian illustration, while sociology of politics analyses
Indian politics in terms of its caste-ridden society, political sociology
adds to that enquiry how politics in India has affected the
Indian caste system, giving rise to what is called 'politicisation of
caste'. This distinction between the sociology of politics and political
sociology would help us in understanding the meaning of political
sociology.

The Meaning of Political Sociology

The specialists do not agree on the precise meaning of political

sociology. Political sociology abounds in conflicting notions. One
notion considers politial sociology as the science of the state. To define
political sociology as the science of the state is to place it in a classifica-
tion of the social sciences, which is based on the nature of the societies
studied. It is a political concept. Here, a state may be nation-state
or government-state. A nation-state designates national society. A
government-state designates the rulers and leaders of this national
society. To make political sociology, the science of state means to
isolate the study of national society. Hence this meaning of political
sociology is rather narrow and limited.

The definition as given by Greer and Orleans is more akin to this

notion. They wrote of political sociology as being mainly concerned
with ' 'explanation of the peculiar social structure called the states".
The other adherents to this notion have been mainly Jellinck (German
sociologist) and Marcel Prelot (French historian). To connect political
sociology with the science of state is perhaps, obsolete having

This content downloaded from

103.72.190.89 on Mon, 06 Feb 2023 02:32:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
124 THE INDIAN JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SGIENOE

little or no relevance in the contemporary society. Despite its narrow

focus, this school has found a few adherents, like Jellinck and Prelot.

The second notion of political sociology is the interaction process

between society and politics. The views of Bendix and Lipset fit in
more appropriately here. They say "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". Although an
improvement upon the first notion, still it does not convey the total
dimensions of political sociology. Critics style it as of a reductionist
nature, for it is more akin to the sociology of politics rather than
political sociology.

The third notion or conception about political sociology as

advocated by Maurice Duverger is more modern. It holds that
political sociology is the science of power, of government, of
authority of command, in all human societies (including the national
society). This conception derives its inspiration from Leon Duguit.
He made a distinction between the governors and the governed.
He believed that in every human group, from the smallest to
the largest, there are those who command and those who obey, those
who give orders and those who comply with them, those who make
decisions and those who abide by them. Many contemporary writers
accept this definition of political sociology with perhaps a few modifi-
cations; notably among them are Max Weber, Raymond Aron,
Georges Vedel, Georges Burdeau and Maurice Duverger. For us
Maurice Duverger is significant, as we are elaborating upon his theme.
He equates political sociology with the science of power. Although it
is a preferable interpretation, we cannot say that it is closer to
reality. The difficulties in Maurice Duverger's definition arise from
two angles:

(i) The concept of power is broad and vague. The size and com-
plexity of groups add to the bewilderment.

(ii) The concept of the science of power creates confusion about

the universal societies; and private societies and authority in
elementary groups and complex groups.

However, Maurice Duverger's interpretation of political sociology

is more useful, because through this basic premises can be identified.

This content downloaded from

103.72.190.89 on Mon, 06 Feb 2023 02:32:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 political sociology: its meaning, evolution and scope 125

Power, for Duverger, comprises of the entire range of social institu-

tions connected with authority. It excludes simple, unequal relation-
ships that have no institutional character and that do not derive from
an institution. Power is always regarded as something legitimate, to a
greater or lesser degree, meaning thereby, that we find it more or less
natural to obey it. Power is obeyed because we think that we ought to
do so, because we believe that it is legitimate to obey it. As long as
there is cohesiveness, physical stability, and adherence to structural
model, it is this sense of legitimacy that distinguishes power from
authority relationships. Duverger says, "The notion that politics is both
a conflict between individuals and groups for the acquisition of power,
which the victors use to their advantage at the expense of the vanqui-
shed, and an attempt to establish a social order beneficial to all consti-
tutes the basis of our theory of political sociology''. Although this
theory of Duverger is not accepted by all, nevertheless, it is useful in
understanding the meaning of political sociology, i.e., political sociology
is the science of power.

And the fourth notion about political sociology is that it is integ-

ration of sociology and political science, which presupposes specializa-
tion. Political sociology, thus, could be styled as the interdisciplinary
progeny of the more established parent disciplines -sociology and poli-
tical science- and specializes in the interactions and linkages that exist
between these two fields. This is a fruitful notion, because it destroys
barriers between sociology and political science, without cancelling
their boundaries, i.e., withot entailing loss of identity. It is more syste-
matic for it is intended to build connecting bridges, i.e., interdiscipli-
nary hybrids, across the various boundaries. Although the term 'politi-
cal sociology' has still not acquired a clearly defined meaning, the
above four notions, taken cumulatively, would broadly indicate the
meaning of political sociology.

The Evolution of Political Sociology

At least four periods can be said to characterize the history and

development of political sociology. The first, or the classical period,
existed during Greek and Roman times when man was viewed as prima-
rily a political animal. Later, during the Holy Roman Empire, he was
redefined in purely ecclesiastical terms and considered an extension of
God. The second historical stage occurred during the Enlightenment

This content downloaded from

103.72.190.89 on Mon, 06 Feb 2023 02:32:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
126 THE INDIAN JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

when the great ideological debate raged over two opposing principles :
whether man was intended to serve the state or whether the state was

designed to serve man and society. The third period, which grew out
of the previous debate and flourished during the nineteenth century,
focused on the role of elites in modern society. Once again a dialogue
developed between the traditional elitist school, which viewed govern-
ments as closed, self-perpetuating political systems, and the democratic
elitist, who espoused a more open-ended and humanitarian view of
government and politics. The fourth stage, or current period of politi-
cal sociology, can be characterized as more empirical, analytic, and
eclectic in its depth and scope. Modern political sociologists are
principally concerned with developing empirically verifiable generali-
zations linking society and politics, with theory building as the central
focus of development.

(i) The Classical Period:

Political philosophers like Plato, Aristotle, Cicero, St. Augus-

tine, and St. Thomas Aquinas are representatives of the classical period
of political sociology. These philosophers were concerned with the
significance of social differentiation in society and how this related to
politics and the political process. Both Greek philosophers Plato and
Arstotle were deeply interested in the social origins of the state. Plato'
in The Republic , viewed the state as arising out of the unique needs of
mankind. The state was seen as founded on the ideal principles of
justice and order, with a primary purpose of providing for the common
good. Plato's conception of the ideal state was stratified along three
lines : the workers who produce, the warriors who guard, and the
philosophers who rule. In Politics , Aristotle conceived of the state
primarily in terms of a political community whose origins related
directly to the family. The family supplied its members with their
everyday needs which sustained them individually, while the village
became the first socio-political community which sustained its members
collectively. When several villages joined together, they formed what
Aristotle called the state. Both Aristotle and Plato viewed politics as
the natural creation of man, thus relegating him to the status of
homo-poi iti cus .

Unlike his Greek predecessors who focused their attention upon

the city-states, the Roman philosopher Cicero extended his vision of

This content downloaded from

103.72.190.89 on Mon, 06 Feb 2023 02:32:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 political sociology: its meaning, evolution and scope 127

society to that 4 'universal city where gods and men composed one vast
association." In The Laws, Cicero argued that society was based on a
universal set of norms - the natural law equivalent to ''right reason."
Since natural law presumably transcended all customs throughout
history, it therefore should become the foundation for a more lasting
political order. Building upon this premise, the medieval philosophers,
St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas visualized society as guided by
divine principles. St. Augustine in The City of God, wrote that the
eternal city was not of this earth but was where the glory of man was
permanent and assured. St. Thomas Aquinas, argued that there were
four kinds of laws - divine, eternal, natural and human - with the
divine order of the universe, the most fundamental. These classical
writers believed that human identity and destiny were tied directly to
the State or Church rather than to the evolutionary process of society.
This assumption was questioned and rigorously debated during the next
stage in the development of political sociology - the period extending
roughly from the fourteenth to the nineteenth centuries.

(ii) The Great Debate

The next landmark in t he evolution of political sociology 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 Machiavelli, Hobbes, Burke, Hegel,
Bonald and Maistre, who did not differentiate between society and
politics and favoured the hegemony and legitimacy of the traditional
monarchy or Church. In addition, the contributions of Max Weber,
Maclver and others towards the evolution of political sociology have
been unique.

Locke (1632-1704) was among the first to argue that men lived in
a state of nature and possessed certain inalienable rights - the rights
of life, liberty, and property. Only man, and not the state, is unique
in this fashion. Government was necessary to maintain law and guar-
antee order in so far as it reflected the expression of man's natural
rights. An agreement or bilateral social contract was entered into
whereby the sovereign was granted certain powers to govern and enforce
the laws of nature, and although social groups might surrender some of

This content downloaded from

103.72.190.89 on Mon, 06 Feb 2023 02:32:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
128 THE INDIAN JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

their rights to government, they never relinquished their basic natural

rights. The doctrine of limited sovereignty existed where people had
the obligation to overthrow the ruler when they felt that their rights
and privileges were not being represented properly or were being abrid-
ged.

Unlike Locke, Montesquieu (1689-1755) was not worried about the

basic natural rights. He was more interested in facts than in abstract
generalizations; his intent was to describe and analyze governments and
then demonstrate how political systems reflected the environment in
which they existed. In The Spirit of the Laws , Montesquieu argued that
governments conform to certain natural and social conditions (such as
geography, economics, family structure), which vary from society to
society, and that the actual administration of government depended
on its relationship to these social factors. There was no best form of
government that was universally suitable, according to Montesquieu;
the character of the state merely reflected the Unique structure of
society. Montesquieu observed that social and political change was
determined by demographic and sociological variables. The growth
in population and the expansion of society's geographic limits were the
key variables in Montesquieu's thinking, through which change is
initiated in all other areas of society and politics. It is because of this
analysis that Raymond Aron has styled Montesquieu as the first socio-
logist.

Rousseau (1712-1778), in his Discourseon the Origin of Inequality

among Men , admonished government for its protection of private pro-
perty. Rousseau rejected the ancien regime and idealized man as the
noble savage. In The Social Contract , he developed a theory of
government that attempted to reconcile the conflicting demands
between individual liberty and political organization. Employing
Locke's basic principles of the social contract and natural law,
Rousseau espoused the doctrine of popular sovereignty. He argued
against absolute monarchies and favoured the general will theory of
power whereby members of society would voluntarily form a custodial
government that would conform to their needs. If government failed
to respond to the needs of its people, they had the right and responsibi-
lity to change or replace that government.

This content downloaded from

103.72.190.89 on Mon, 06 Feb 2023 02:32:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 political sociology: its meaning, evolution and scope 129

Saint-Simon (1760-1825) and Comte (1797-J857) both believed in

extending the principle of positivism (empirical reasoning) to politica
theory through the law of three stages - theological, metaphysical and
scientific. Positivism implied the assertion of generalised patterns in
society, the employment of empirical methodology, with its emphas
upon observation and classification of social data. Through the appli-
cation of scientific principles, political leaders and government could
plan or guide social development. Herbert Spencer (1820-1903),
more controversial than any other political sociologist, stress-
ed the structural nature of society, and in his Principles of Sociology went
into great detail in giving a historical description of social institutions
and made the role of social structures stand out distinctly in the socia
and political analysis.

Emile Durkheim (1850-1917), like the positivists, rejected specula-

tive theory and the metaphysical approach; penetrated beneath th
surface of current social interaction and examined the structure and

functions of societal life, past and present, and evolved an observational

social-political theory, dealing mainly with empirical data and avoiding
value judgments. Karl Marx's (1818-1883) contribution to the sociology
of politics had been massive and varied. He along with Engels (1829-
1895) in The German Ideology and The Communist Manifesto, rejected the
idea of the political state in favour of permanent social revolution
in order to ensure the creative existence of mankind. Man could

only realise his full potentialities in society and not through the stat
The state, according to Marx and Engels, was nothing more than an
economic fiction, or false consciousness, which enslaved rather than
liberated man. Marx and Engels1 political sociology was rooted in the
theory of political action called praxis whereby "true" human consci-
ousness and will (motivation) were united in social revolution. Marxism
is a prime example of an approach to politics which located the pri-
mary source of political behaviour in sociological factors, i.e., level of
technological development and class structure.

In opposition to the master trend of the Enlightenment, Machia-

velli (1469-1527) offered an expose of the ruthlessness of state crafts-
manship. Reflecting a rather cynical attitude toward politics and the
basic nature of man, he contended that the ends always justified the
means when it came to protecting the state. A liberated society
17

This content downloaded from

103.72.190.89 on Mon, 06 Feb 2023 02:32:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
1 30 THE INDIAN JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

inevitably would destroy the state, according to Machiavelli, and poli-

tical order was effectively maintained through what people universally
understood the tactics of cruelty, intimidation and fear. Similarly,
Hobbes (1588-1679) viewed man's natural state as basically chaotic,
relegating him to the status of an aggressive, warlike animal - a fact
history had demonstrated time and again. Unlike Locke who considered
human nature hopeful and optimistic, Hobbes viewed man as funda-
mentally selfish, cruel, lawless, and lacking in both authority and
discipline. In the Leviathan , he suggested that absolute authority was
essential in order to rule effectively and that if society was to survive,
people would have to surrender all their rights and power to the
monarch. The social contract was an important pre-condition in
politics, but it was an irreversible contract.

Burke's (1729-1797) in his Reflections on the Revolution in France , gave

an eloquent defence of conservatism. Rejecting the ideas of
the Enlightenment, especially the social contract, he argued that
human rights did not exist abstractly or naturally. Rights and
privileges existed in a given community only when they were allowed
to evolve slowly and organically. Communities did not exist merely
in the present but were endless chains of institutions and generations;
and revolutionaries had no right, natural or otherwise, to destroy these
sacred customs and traditions. Burke claimed that the basic responsi-
bility of the community was to link the past with the future, and this
was accomplished through the present. Taking a more extreme view,
Hegel (1770-1831), in yThe Philosophy of History, glorified the state as
a world spirit - romantic cosmic force that worked its will on history.
The state was the highest order, embodying all historical forms
(rights and laws), and the Prussian state in particular was considered
the best example of this spiritual organism. Hegel exalted the state
as the center of civilization and disregarded individual rights and social
morality. The state, through its historical unfolding process (thesis,
antithesis, synthesis), was predetermined by God and should never be
obstructed or tampered with by man.

Finally, the Catholic traditionalists, Bonald (1754-1850) and

Maistre (1754-1821), each carried on a polemic against the philosophy
of the Enlightenment and the Age of Revolution. They rejected the
optimism of individual freedom, natural rights, and the social contract.

This content downloaded from

103.72.190.89 on Mon, 06 Feb 2023 02:32:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 POLITICAL sociology: its meaning, evolution and scope 131

They accepted authority as divinely established and preordained. The

state should be subservient to the Church, not the reverse, and God's
law allowed to reign supreme.

Thus this great debate between the philosophers of different

schools unleashed seminal ideas of great importance in the evolution of
the sociology of politics, which despite its limitations, provide the bed-
rock upon which the whole fabric of political sociology has been built
in recent times.

(iii) The Role of Elites in Society

The third period in the evolution of political sociology relates to
the role of elites in society. The term elite was introduced in the
seventeenth century to describe standards of excellence; it was later
extended to refer to superior social groups, such as highly successful
military units and upper ranks of the aristrocracy. The term was not
widely circulated in social and political writings until the late nineteenth
and early twentieth centuries when it was used extensively 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 individuals 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 of society and, due to their mono-
poly over critical resources, were able to maximize effective organiza-
tion and control. The resources they commanded - military force,
ecclesiastical rule, economic domination, or political power - varied
from society to society and from one period to another.

Pareto, Mosca, and Michels were representative of the conservative

elitist school. Pareto (1848-1923), in The Mind and Society, justified elitist
theory on the basis of his conception of man: "Whether certain theorists
like it or not, the fact is that human society is not a homogeneous thing,
that individuals are physically, morally, and intellectually different."
Pareto classified those who possess the highest qualities and abilities in any
given social area as elites. A further subdivision included the governing
elite, with the remainder of society falling into the realm of the non-
elites. The governing elite was in a state of slow but continuous trans-
formation and Pareto built up a remarkable theory of the 'circulation
of elites.'

This content downloaded from

103.72.190.89 on Mon, 06 Feb 2023 02:32:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
132 THE INDIAN JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

For Mosca (1858-1941), the elites in society were nothing other

than a ruling class. In his Ruling Class , such a stratum represented the
dominant social, economic and political interests of a particular period
in time, and as these various interests changed with history, the recruit-
ment base of the elites shifted as well. As a result of the perpetual
struggle over status and prestige in society, certain individuals rose to
positions of power and pre-eminence while others did not. The more
successful tended to consolidate and perpetuate their positions of power
through advantages in education, inherited resources, political opportu-
nities and organizational skills. All societies were governed by this
select group of rulers who constituted the organized minority among
the unorganized majority. Mosca, like Pareto, endowed the elite with
superior-qualities of ambition, drive, intellect, hard work, strength of
will and self-confidence. Both theorists argued that the ascribed
characteristics of elites rendered them the most capable contenders for
power in society.

Michels (1876-1936) argued that a conservative ruling oligarchy

existed within every organization. He wrote: "... leadership repre-
sents always the past rather than the present. Leadership is indefinitely
retained, not because it is the tangible expression of the relationship
between the forces existing in the party at any given moment, but
simply because it is already constituted." For this reason, leaders
remained at the top of the power pyramid: " nominated by indirect
suffrage, prolong throughout their lives the powers with which they
have once been invested. The re-election demanded by the rulers
becomes a pure formality. The temporary commission becomes a
permanent one, and the tenure of an office an established right."
Similar to Mosca and Pareto, Michels argued that all formal organiza-
tional systems were contrary to the democratic principles of majority
rule, for organization was synonymous with oligarchy. Political parties
in particular, whether democratic or socialist, were vulnerable to this
"iron law of oligarchy." Parties competed for power, but once power
was obtained the party structure itself became a conservative force,
concerned primarily with maintaining order and stability rather than
with its original objectives. Democratic or egalitarian principles were
no longer regarded as essential, since the prevailing ideology of
oligarchy centered around justifying the status quo.

This content downloaded from

103.72.190.89 on Mon, 06 Feb 2023 02:32:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 political sociology: its meaning, evolution and scope 133

These three theorists presented a dismal picture for the future of

democratic society. Their views were countered by the second
school who were more optimistic. The philosophers like Tocque-
ville and Durkheim belonged to this school. Tocqueville (1805-1859),
in his classic Democracy in America , conceded the need for elites in
society but cautioned that the state leviathan, if left unchecked, would
destroy individual dignity and freedom. Consensus was important in
constitutional democracy, as was the principle of the separation of
powers. The best guarantee against a growing, centralized mass
society - the result of increasing industrialization, bureaucratization,
and zealous nationalism - was strong local government supported by
a sense of personal independence, civic consciousness, and numerous
voluntary associations. Consistent with this line of thinking,
Durkheim (1858-1917), in one of his lesser- known works, Professi-
onal Ethics and Civic Morals , described the state as a super-group repre-
renting the inner order of numerous interdependent sub-groups in
society. Durkheim viewed the state not as a leviathan, but as a collec-
tive representation reflecting the emergent needs of its citizenry. Occu-
pational associations and political parties were considered mediating
institutions in society, established for the purpose of representing and
linking constituencies to the growing political division of labour. Both
Durkheim and Tocqueville regarded the state as being in perpetual
tension due to the dispersed nature of power. However, tension in the
form of conflicting group factions was held to be beneficial since it
helped mitigate the threat of tyrannical rule.

Representing the middle group or a more objective position bet-

ween the conservative and democratic elitist theorists were Weber and
Mannheim. Max Weber (1864-1920), in The Theory of Social and Economic
Organization , argued that bureaucratic organization was fundamental
for all political development. Modern state elites could be classified as
having evolved through at least three historical phases: (1 ) the authori-
tarian leadership phase, which was rooted in personal or familial
charisma; (2) the patrimonial and feudal phase, where the elite struc-
ture was either the extension of the ruler's household or based on filial
obedience and knightly militarism; and finally (3) the phase of modern
nation-states founded on more formal or rational-legal methods of
adjudication and the professionalization of law and justice. State elites
ranged in history from substantively rational forms of authority

This content downloaded from

103.72.190.89 on Mon, 06 Feb 2023 02:32:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
134 THE INDIAN JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

(charisma and tradition) to formal authority structures (rational-legal),

such as political bureaucracies. The danger in formal rationality,
according to Weber, rested in its technical adherence to bureaucratic
rules aud standards at the expense of moral reasoning or personal
feelings.

Karl Mannheim (1893 - 1947), in Ideology and Utopia , envisioned

elitist theory as fascist in nature. In his later years, however, Mannheim
amended his thinking on formal institutional control. In Man and Society
in an Age of Reconstruction , he viewed industrial society as a movement
from class systems to elite systems; that is, hierarchically arranged
societies based not entirely on blood or property, as was the case in the
past (aristocratic and bourgeois control), but on individual merit and
achievement. Later in Essays on the Sociology of Culture, he addressed
himself to the problem of the co-existence of elites and democracy:
"... the actual shaping of policy is in the hands of elites; but this
does not mean to say that the society is not democratic. For it is suffi-
cient for democracy that the individual citizen, though prevented from
taking a direct part in government all the time, have at least the possi-
bility of making their aspirations felt at certain intervals." The elitist
approach to society proved to be a significant land mark in the evolu-
tion of political sociology.
In recent years, the contributions of Ostrogorski, James Burnham,
C. Wright Mills and Rose have added new dimensions to political
sociology. Ostrogorski held that an elite owed its power predomin-
antly to its organizational abilities. James Burnham has attempted a
marriage between elitism and Marxism, and saw the power of the elite
as a consequence of its control of economic resources. C. Wright
Mills explained the elite's dominance not as a product of the personal
qualities of its members but of the positions they occupy in a number
of key institutions within the society. Rose has demonstrated the
inadequacy of the 'economic-elite-dominance hypothesis' and indicated
the greater theoretical and empirical viability of the 'multi-influence
hypothesis' as an explanation of political power and political process in
the American society. Thus Mosca's 'political class', Michel's 'iron
law of oligarchy', Ostrogorski's 'caucus polities', Pareto's 'circulation
of elites', G. Wright Mill's 'economic-elite-dominance hypothesis', and
Rose's 'multi-influence hypothesis' ramain even today, the central
concerns of political sociology.

This content downloaded from

103.72.190.89 on Mon, 06 Feb 2023 02:32:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 POLITICAL sociology: its meaning, evolution and scope 135

(iv) The Contemporary Period

The fourth stage in the evolution of political sociology is the

cotemporary period. This period is more empirical and analytical. It
lays emphasis on developing empirically verifiable generalizations
linking society and politics, with theory-building as the central focus of
development. The nature of political sociology in the current period
can be better understood, if we study in detail the scope and parame-
ters of political sociology, as it exists today. The remarkable growth
of political sociology during the past forty years has offered political
analysis with new questions, concepts, findings and theories. Many
of the most prominent practitioners of contemporary political theory
are leading political sociologists like Lipset, Greer, Inkeles,
Moore, Kornhauser, Mills, Hunter, Janowitz, Lazarsfeld, Eisenstadt,
Selznick, Rokkan, Gusfield, and Macrae. These political socio-
logists have been creatively concerned with clarifying the condi-
tions and requisites by which political understanding can be advanced
into a more rigorous and mature social-scientific discipline.

The Scope oj Political Sociology

Neither the political scientists nor the sociologists, despite the vast
richness and long-lived literature, have still been able to define precisely
the scope of their disciplines. Political sociology is, therefore, no excep-
tion. Its recent emergence and diverse array of writings available,
have made it difficult for us to delineate its scope exactly. The blurred
and overlapping nature of the various themes and sub-themes in politi-
cal sociology make it extremely hazardous for us to indicate its scope
neatly. Despite this limitation, an attempt can be made to locate the
main threads that often compose the rubric of political sociology.

Greer and Orleans claim that political sociology has been mainly
concerned with: (1) the structure of the state; (2) the nature and
conditions of legitimacy; (3) the nature of the monopoly of force and
its use by the state; (4) the nature of the sub-units and their contention
with the state. This agenda of research and theory is subsequently
translated by the authors as consensus and legitimacy, participation
and representation, and the relationships between economic develop-
ment and political change. These three surveys or accounts of the
concerns of political sociology seem highly interesting and exhaustive.

This content downloaded from

103.72.190.89 on Mon, 06 Feb 2023 02:32:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 136 THE INDIAN JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

Lipset argues that political sociology consists of whatever

political sociologists do or claim they are doing. He states, "If
the stability of society is a central issue for sociology as a whole,
the stability of a specific institutional structure or political regime -
the social conditions of democracy - is the prime concern of political
sociology." Elsewhere, Lipset and Bendix havp asserted that political
sociology studies (1) voting behaviour in communities and in the
nation (attitude and opinion research); (2) concentration of economic
power and political decision-making (documentary evidence and
mathematical models); (3) ideologies of political movements and
interest groups (documentary evidence, content and analysis); (4) poli-
tical parties, voluntary associations, the problems of oligarchy and
psychological correlates of political behaviour (documentary evidence;
attitude and opinion research, psychological testing, etc.); and ^govern-
ment and the problem of bureaucracy (documentary evidence, attitude
and opinion research, etc.). Lipset again indicates five substantive
areas of political sociology. They are (i) electoral behaviour; (ii) ex-
tremist political movements; (iii) politics of bureaucracy; (iv) internal
government of voluntary organizations; and (v) the concept of power.
To these, he also adds, the concept of legitimacy and effectiveness.
Legitimacy involves the capacity of a political system to engender and
maintain the belief that existing political institutions are the best that
could possibly be devised. While the effectiveness aspect of the relation-
ship is primarily instrumental in character and is measured by indivi-
duals and groups in terms of self-interest, the legitimacy component is
much more evaluative. The study of legitimacy and effectiveness is
the key component of political sociology. These areas may be accep-
ted as the most authoritative description of the scope of political
sociology.
Another well-known authority has indicated nine sub-divisions of
political sociology which in some way or the other affect the dynamic
relationship between society and politics. The nine sub-divisions of
political sociology are (1) the field of political sociology; (2) social
and political development; (3) political elites and systems; (4) macro
socio-political systems; (5) society and power; (6) community power;
(7) mass society; (8) social structure and politics; and (9) social and
political change. This broad categorisation of the sub -themes may be
useful for us while framing the schemes of courses and curricula in

This content downloaded from

103.72.190.89 on Mon, 06 Feb 2023 02:32:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 POLITICAL sociology: its meaning, evolution and scope 137

political sociology. These areas of specialisation provide the founda-

tions upon which much of contemporary political sociology rests. They
can be explicitly reduced to three broad areas: the historical scope and
development of the field, the relationship between society and politics,
and the connection between socio-political organization and change.
These general themes address the fundamental question of the causes
and sources of power, the power structure and process, and the general
consequence of power in society.

Equating political sociology with the science of power or authority

relationship, Maurice Duverger indicates that its scope centers around
the two facets of power or authority - that is, both oppressor and inte-
grator. As such, its scope consists of (1) political structures in which
the dialectic of antagonisms and integration unfolds, that is to say,
the context of political phenomena ; (2) dialectic itself in its primary
manifestation, the existence of antagonisms. Since integration repre-
sents an attempt to suppress or reduce these antagonisms, it is appro-
priate to study their underlying causes ; and (3) how antagonisms
are resolved and integrated, as well as the apparent limits to this
procedure. To put it simply, 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 integra-,
tion. Political structures include physical structures (geographical and
demographic), and social structures (technical skills, institutions and
cultures), (ii) Political sociology analyses the causes of political anta-
gonisms. The causes of political antagonisms may occur between in-
dividuals 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 inte-
gration.

The syllabus of the Graduate Studies in Politics (1980 - 81) of the

London School of Economics and Political Science is useful in under-
standing the scope of political sociology. It indicates its scope as
follows:
18

This content downloaded from

103.72.190.89 on Mon, 06 Feb 2023 02:32:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
138 THE INDIAN JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

(i) Theories and Concepts of Political Sociology.

Theories and concepts of political sociology from Marx to the pres-

ent, with particular reference to explanations and views of the main
factors which affect the character and role of the State and nature of

political life in different types of society.

Power and authority, theories of the state, pluralism, corporatism,

ideology, oligarchy, hegemony, Marxist dialectics, theories of conver-
gence.

(ii) Revolutions and Social Movements :

Theories and concepts associated with political stability and

change, mass movements, and revolutions in different types of society.
Nation-building, the origin and development of cleavage systems (class
religion, ethnicity, etc.) and their translation into politics.

Historical-functionalist and Marxist theories of revolution, nation-

building and state formation processes, theories of imperialism, depen-
dency and underdevelopment, millenarian movements, the roles of the
peasantry and the working class in the Russian, Chinese, Mexican»
Cuban, Turkish and other revolutions.

(iii) The Study of Political Behaviour :

An examination of the principal studies of political behaviour with

particular reference to political socialisation, participation, public opi-
nion, electoral choice, political culture and the role of the mass media.
Behaviouralism, theories of political culture and socialisation, the media
and politics, class, religion and ethnicity in voting behaviour, mass
society, working class conservatism, and electoral volatility.

Political sociology is thus not scopeless. Despite its rugged and

vignette frontiers, the political sociologists are making frantic efforts to
indicate its scope in a skilful and adroit manner. The syllabus of the
Graduate Studies in Politics of the London School of Economics
and Political Science contains guidelines for us to frame courses
in political sociology, perhaps with suitable modifications to suit Third
World countries.

This content downloaded from

103.72.190.89 on Mon, 06 Feb 2023 02:32:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 political sociology: its evolution, meaning, and scope 139

The Impact of Political Sociology on Political Theory

The political sociology has led to the growth of a spirit of scientific
inquiry and research in political studies, attempting to solve the pra-
ctical problems that arise in the struggle for political life. It is in this
background that one can appreciate what Kant said: "To yield to every
whim of curiosity, and to allow our passion for inquiry to be restraine
by nothing but the limits of our ability, this shows an eagerness of mind
not unbecoming to scholarship. But it is wisdom that has the merit o
selecting, from among the innumerable problems which present them-
selves, those whose solution is important to mankind". The applica
tion of this to biological and more to social sciences is clear. Pasteur's
reform of the biological sciences was carried out under the stimulus of
highly practical problems, which were in part industrial and agricul-
tural. And social research nowadays has a practical urgency surpass-
ing even that of cancer research. As Professor Hayek says, "economic
analysis has never been the product of detached intellectual curiosity
about the why of social phenomena but of an intense urge to reconstruc
a world which gives rise to profound dissatisfaction;" and some of th
social sciences (political science being one of them which has latel
adopted it), that have not yet adopted this outlook, show by the bar-
renness of their results how urgently their speculations are in need of
practical checks. Thanks to the sociological invasion of political studies
the political theories are today more relevant to the study of politica
problems. This has been the main advantage of the impact of politica
sociology on political theory.

The impact of political sociology on political theory has raised

several questions:

(i) The inter-relationship of political theory with political

sociology has complicated the task of scholars and students in the field
Much of contemporary political theory is replete with references to
works, concepts, and methods which come from political sociology.
Political sociologists seeking to apply sociological generalizations to the
analysis of political institutions, have made the field of political theor
as heterogeneous as ever and has accelerated a process of theoretic
ferment;

(ii) Political theory, under the influence of political sociology,

faces the issues of 'departmentalization', 'integration', 'specialization',

This content downloaded from

103.72.190.89 on Mon, 06 Feb 2023 02:32:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
140 THE INDIAN JOURNAL OF POLITICAL SCIENCE

'sterility', and 'rationalization'. Whether political science can or should

attempt to formulate an analytically distinct theoretical system remains
an open question;

(iii) The logical relation between a (more or less empirical)

proposition in political sociology and a (more or less prescriptive)
proposition in traditional political theory is a complicated and intra-
ctable problem;

(iv) The multitude of empirically oriented theories, that political

sociology has encouraged in political science arouses little interest from
scholars with more humanistic and philosophical inclinations; and

(v) The empirically oriented political theory has also resulted

in a heightened awareness of the problems of values, of the importance
of normative theory, and of the relationship of philosophical premises
to the study of politics.

It is time now that the political scientists ought to study and

evaluate the dimensions of political sociology in an objective manner.
Whatever may be its limitations, the study of political sociology has added
new dimensions to the study of politics. It would perhaps be wrong
to style political sociology as a naive or a wild turnip, for its emerging
contours are inventive and rich in fertilising resources. Its fast emerg-
ing boundaries have excited commendable interest among the socio-
logists and political scientists. Political sociology is extensive in scope;
its formidable flow based on the gains of specializations attained in
sociology and political science would, in future, enhance its power of
procreation and virility and ensure a vouchsafe voyage. The political
sociologists belonging to the Third World countries should seriously
engage themselves in its study and research and formulate vivacious
theorems and paradigms relevant to their society. That could perhaps
in the long run help in explicitly exploring the inexhaustible and pro-
ductive terrains of political sociology.

This content downloaded from

103.72.190.89 on Mon, 06 Feb 2023 02:32:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms