Q A political subculture may be defined as a group of the population that possesses a distinct and

consistent set of attitudes, beliefs and orientations to political objects. Elucidate

INTRODUCTION

The cultural thrust in comparative politics, conspicuously prominent during the 1960s, emanated
from traditional work on culture in anthropology, socialization and small group studies in sociology,
and personality studies in psychology. The concept of political culture was related to nations or
national cultures. In this sense political culture represented a sort of recasting of the older notions of
national character. Types of political culture characterized systems; for example, parochial, subject,
and participant political cultures. These types of political cultures reflected the psychological and
subjective orientations of people toward their national system.

One obvious objection to this idea of national political cultures was that such things do not exist.
Rather, goes the argument, we should recognise that culture is important but also acknowledge that
many political cultures may co-exist within any given political system. Our attention should be
focused upon the interaction of different subcultures and the impact of that interaction upon the
political system as a whole.

So the idea of subcultures becomes an important corollary to the ideas developed above about
political culture. One understanding of the concept of subculture was provided by Dennis Kavanagh,
a British political analyst who has written extensively on post war British politics. Dennis Kavanagh
defines a political culture as a set of values, beliefs and attitudes within which a political system
operates.

Some of the scholarly works on political culture suggested that this very assumption that there exists
only a single type of political culture across a nation was a complete myth.This broader view
challenged the notion of a singular national political culture, suggesting that numerous political
cultures might coexist within a single system. Understanding the dynamics between these
subcultures became essential in comprehending their influence on the overarching political system.

WHAT IS POLITICAL SUBCULTURE?

A nation's political culture may conceal marked variations in the orientations to politics of different
groups of the population (more likely the 'public opinion'). However, opinions of sections of the
public are also important. These different group orientations, which may or may not result in an
integrated and coherent culture, we call 'subcultures'.

A political subculture may be defined as a group of the population that possesses a distinct and
consistent set of attitudes, beliefs and orientations to political objects.

Region, religion, social class, language, generation and occupation are often basic reference- groups
for many people and provide the important cleavages in political systems. In addition, there are role-
cultures, arising from the orientations commonly associated with one's position in the political
system, e.g. in the bureaucracy, political party or interest-group.

The identification of political subcultures is complicated somewhat by the variety of possible ways in
which such strata might be conceived. In his book Political Culture (1972), Dennis Kavanagh identifies
four distinct bases on which subcultures develop:

1. Elite versus mass culture.

2. Cultural divisions within elites.

3. Generational subcultures.

4. Social structure.

Each of these ways of thinking about the basis of subcultural divisions produces particular sorts of
investigation.

The second way of thinking about subcultures is associated with the branch of political science which
argues that the most important venue for politics is the zone populated by elite groups. Here,
degrees of stability are not likely to be related to the prevailing ‘macro’-political culture in society as
a whole, but to the level of cultural consensus or divergence between elite groups.

The generational model of political subcultures proposes that distinct political cultures emerge
within specific generations. This dynamic view suggests that political culture evolves over time as
new generations adopt and pass on different values, affecting political agendas and necessitating
adaptations by political parties and institutions.

Another perspective views subcultures as expressions of a nation's social structure, encompassing

class, religious, linguistic, and ethnic divisions. For example, working-class culture in many Western
countries influences political systems through parties like social democratic or labor parties. Some
states, like the Netherlands, exhibit distinct Catholic and Calvinist political cultures, while others,
such as Belgium and Switzerland, are divided along linguistic lines, shaping their political systems
accordingly.

A. THE FOUR DISTINCT BASIS OF SUBCULTURE BY DENNIS KAVANAGH:

1. ELITE VERSUS MASS CULTURES:

Attitudinal difference between the political class as a whole and the remainder of the

Population. Elites do not represent the attitude of the population, rather have a distinct subculture in
its own which is shaped by ruling or influential classes, prioritising their interests and values. Mass
subculture reflects beliefs and behaviours of the general population, influenced by education, media,
and collective experiences.

Eg.

1. In Britain and America there is ample data to suggest that the democratic political culture,
i.e. understanding of an approval for liberal-democratic principles, is concentrated among
the political elite, activists and opinion-leaders.

2. Weiner has felt able to identify two political cultures in India:

 an elite one which is secular, modern and national,

 and a mass one in which orientations are particularistic, emotional and populist.

2. GENERATIONS

Rapid social transformation invariably highlights the culture gaps between generations.

Almond and Verba showed how, across their five nations, social and economic change was leading to
more participant orientations among younger citizens. In many new states young people are
particularly sensitive to appeals based on a political religion. Frequently it is the young, relatively
unsullied by direct contact with colonial and traditional values, who are the prime objects of the
regime's efforts to create a new culture. The results tend to involve a discontinuity in the values and
outlooks between generations.

3. DIVISIONS WITHIN ELITES

Cultural consensus or divergence also exists between Elite groups.

Eg.

1. Lucian Pye has pointed to the differences in outlooks between Burmese administrators and
Burmese politicians. They were frequently trained for a career in a colonial civil service,
under British guidance. Their identification with British ways and their respect for orderly
and predictable procedures in government have brought them into conflict with the
politicians. The latter, recruited through enthusiastic and anti-British national movements,
tend to be more emotional and idealistic, and suspicious of the administrators' connection
with the British. What emerges, according to Pye, is a fragmented political culture at the elite
level, preventing the two groups from reaching a mutual understanding of their roles and
hampering the development of a stable sense of Burmese identity.

4. POLITICAL PARTIES
Administrators Parties differ in the emphasis which they place on socialising or integrating the voter
into a set of values.

Eg.

1. In the communist states of East Europe and in many Afro-Asian states, the party, as mobiliser,
has a strong ideological bent.

2. Parties in the industrialised Western states are more concerned to represent the various
groups than to maintain their ideological purity.

a. Supporters of competing American and British political parties differ over certain
political issues while agreeing on the acceptability of the major institutions. Even
here, however, talk of policy subcultures may be exaggerated. It is clear that most
voters lack the mental equipment and awareness of politics to interpret political
issues along ideological or even party lines. In spite of the parties' ability to maintain
the electoral allegiance of most voters, the instability of opinions and high rates of
disagreement on policy preference between supporters of a party suggest that party
is a rather weak influence on policy outlooks.

b. Also, in Britain and America participant and acquiescent outlooks are distributed
across voters with little reference to party. On the other hand, communist and
religious parties in France and Italy represent more distinctive subcultures;
partisanship between party supporters is intense and pervades family
relationships.18

c. Supporters of the Italian Christian Democratic Party view with great displeasure the
prospect of a son or daughter marrying a socialist or communist; this is not
surprising, perhaps, since, in the past, the Vatican has denounced voting for such
parties as a sin.

Some cleavages are of more political significance than others.

 Sometimes, question of identification with the national community overrides other divisions.

 The way in which decisive episodes in a nation's history have occurred and been managed
has long-run consequences for the nature of contemporary subcultures

Efforts have been made to specify the conditions in which the inevitable divisions in the culture will
weaken the performance of the political system even to the point of threatening its stability. For
example, Gabriel Almond, in a seminal paper, has explained the greater political stability of Britain
and America over France and Italy in terms of the differences in the subcultures between the two
pairs of countries." In Britain and America, according to this analysis, the political culture is
homogeneous. A salient feature of this thesis is that cross- cutting cleavages and subcultures
moderate partisanship and thereby underpin the stability of the system.

However, in contrast to that, According to Arend Lijphart, the reason for the greater stability in
countries like the Netherlands, that possess mutually antagonistic subcultures without their political
stability being imperilled lies in the fact that the Dutch political system is a consociational democracy,
so called the elites in Parliament are willing and able to compromise and co-operate with one
another in spite of the isolation of the sub cultures at the mass level; in other words, antagonistic
subcultures are not fatal for political stability where the political elites fail to transmit to government
the bitterness felt at the mass level.

Some of the conditions suggested by Lijphart, in which frag- mentation and contradictions in the
political culture will permit the emergence of the stabilising form of consociational leadership, are
set out below. At the level of the elites, it is likely to emerge where:

1. The elites recognise the dangers of cultural fragmentation to the integrity of the state or to other
desirable goals.

2. The elites are committed to the system

3. The elites accept the need for maintenance of the accommodation, and are skilful enough to bring
it about.

4. The elites grant proportionality of rewards and vetos on sensitive issues to the groups.

Conditions found in the social structure and mass culture which encourage competing elites to come
together are:

1. Where there is low loading on the system. Ideally, major issues should be handled singly..

2. Where there is an approximate balance of power between groups, providing incentives for them
to co-operate with each other.

3. Where there are clear divisions and infrequent contacts between the subcultures. It is argued that
such isolation reduces the potentially stressful interchanges which might threaten the identity and
autonomy of particular subcultures.

4. Where there is deference to political elites. The discretion allowed to party leaders by voters
allows bargains and corn promises to be made at the elite level.

Other factors influence the relationship between the subcultures and the political system.
Particularly important appear to be the bases of the cleavages between parties.. Much also depends
on the degree to which the subcultures are institutionalised by the parties.

CRITICISM

1. Reductionism: Kavanagh's subculture theory is criticized for oversimplifying political behavior

by attributing it solely to a unified "subculture." This reductionist approach neglects the
multifaceted influences, such as socioeconomic status and ideology, shaping political actions.

2. Lack of Empirical Support: Critics highlight the theory's limited empirical evidence,
questioning its ability to accurately explain political phenomena.
 3. Inadequate Explanation of Political Variation: The theory struggles to account for the
diversity and variability of political behavior across different contexts. Critics argue that a
one-size-fits-all approach fails to capture the complexities of political dynamics, such as
cultural differences and institutional structures, limiting the theory's applicability and
explanatory scope.

CONCLUSION

By studying cultural questions and surveying changes in the political culture we get a better idea of
how

to confront the messy thicket of identity politics. Everybody is somebody. That would seem to be an
inescapable fact about the political world. How they become who they are, and what happens when
they realise who they are and what they should do accordingly are really what the study of politics is
all about.