The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics (209 page)

 
Back
  -  
 
New Search

The process by which people come to acquire political attitudes and values. Socialization in childhood has been extensively studied. Most of the studies show that children first acquire warm feelings towards authority figures who might appear in fairy stories (such as queens and princesses). Similarly warm feelings to elected officials (presidents, prime ministers) emerge later,
party identification
later again, and something like a reasoned
ideology
not until well into the teenage years. The earliest socialization is believed to be the deepest. Therefore one's awareness of one's sex and ethnicity precedes anything more directly political. Each layer of socialization colours those that come afterwards.
Critics of the mainstream programme of socialization research make a number of points:

(1) There have been too few studies of children whose family position and early experiences might be expected to put them at odds with the values of most people in their society.
(2) Socialization research cannot by its nature tap
false consciousness
or any other way in which dominant values may be inculcated without the subjects of it being aware of it.
(3) Party identification is not necessarily a reliable guide to voting, or political attitudes. Sex and ethnicity are genetically determined; political attitudes are not.

 
Back
  -  
 
New Search

Political sociology broadly conceived is the study of power and domination in social relationships. It could thereby include analysis of the family, the mass media, universities, trade unions, and so on.
Political science and sociology began to develop as independent disciplines in the nineteenth century under the influence of marginalist economics which attempted to demarcate the study of the ‘political’ from that of the ‘social’ and the ‘economic’ ( see
political economy
). Political science became focused on the analysis of the machinery of government, the mechanisms of public administration and theories of governance. Sociology adopted a much broader definition of its subject matter.
Weber
provided the theoretical underpinning for modern sociology defined as the interpretative understanding of social action linked to a causal explanation of its course and consequences. By concentrating on the reciprocal influence of social structure on social action, sociology is free to analyse all forms of social interaction (from language and sexuality to religion and industry).
Three main approaches to political sociology have considerably narrowed its subject area. The first builds directly on Max Weber's notion of ‘politically oriented action’. Weber defined an organization as ‘political’ in so far as its existence and order is continuously safeguarded within a territorial area by the threat and application of physical force on the part of an administrative staff ( see
state
). The study of the direct agents of the legitimate use of force could, Weber argued, be distinguished from the study of groups which attempt to influence the activities of the political organization. This latter study Weber designated as ‘politically oriented’ action. Weberian political sociologists have therefore traditionally focused attention on such issues as voting behaviour in communities, ideologies of political movements and interest groups, sociopsychological correlates of political behaviour and organization, and the relationship between economic power and political decision-making. In the late 1960s under the influence of Seymour Lipset and Stein Rokkan a second main approach to political sociology was developed. The subdiscipline now encompassed the comparative and historical study of political systems and nation-building. By analysing the role of political institutions in social development (and revolution) this branch of political sociology has contributed to the comparative analysis of welfare systems, to studies of the relationship between democracy and industrialization, and to charting the role of the state in the creation of national identity. The third focus of modern political sociology is on theories of the state, and here the subdiscipline draws particularly on currents in Western Marxism and contemporary political theory. Building on the Marxist critique of pluralist approaches to the state, political sociologists have focused on the problem of state/society relations and developed detailed empirical studies of the exercise of power both within and between states.
Attempts to maintain a clear-cut distinction between political science and sociology break down in the face of the continuing salience of class, gender, and ethnic divisions on the process of governing. In an effort to conceptualize the global system, political sociology provides a secure basis for future collaboration between the disciplines.
PBm 

 
Back
  -  
 
New Search

Critical, systematic reflection about power in its public and private forms, particularly about the claims of government to possess legitimacy and authority; and, more generally, such reflection about the place of politics in social life. There is no generally accepted distinction between political theory and
political
philosophy, but two differences of emphasis may be mentioned. First, political philosophers have developed and defended particular conceptions of human nature, before going on to explore the implications of their view for political life; but political theory may be less ambitious, exploring what follows if assumptions are made about that nature. Secondly, because political theory is eclectic, it draws upon the work not only of philosophers but also of lawyers and social scientists: particularly sociologists, economists, and psychologists—as well as, of course, political scientists. Its ambitions are to explain the political realm, to explore what is at stake in political practice, and to elucidate the values which motivate political action or which are affected by it.
One approach to the fulfilment of these ambitions is conceptual enquiry, aiming to elucidate the meaning and value-content of ideals by which political actors are guided, like
liberty
,
equality
, and
fraternity
, or terms of political debate and analysis like
power
and
authority
. A second approach has been the provision of models of behaviour generated by a restricted set of assumptions and compared to experience. In particular, there has been some emulation of the process of model-building in economics, and often the direct use of the assumption of self-interested behaviour associated with it. So, for example,
democracy
has been modelled as a market in which parties (producers) meet voters (consumers). More generally,
game theory
has been applied to explore what ‘rational’ actors would do in political contexts. Thirdly, reflecting its eclectic nature, political theory has aimed to synthesize the findings or insights of the many disciplines upon which it draws. For example, the political theory of
property
has tried to embrace the philosophical, psychological, sociological, legal, and economic components of the social significance of property. Fourthly, there is the critical evaluation of the findings of political science, in particular a concern with the methodology of enquiry which is informed by the philosophy of the social sciences. Fifthly, prescription may result from analysis of contemporary conditions: for example, arguments in favour of greater participation are associated with a particular diagnosis of democratic malaise. Finally, there is a concern with the exploration of political ideologies, particularly
socialism
,
conservatism
and
liberalism
. Because such exploration has a necessary historical component, political theory and political philosophy are brought together to the point where many practitioners would deny that a useful distinction may be made between them.
AR