3 Historical development of the discipline

Sophia Abbas

Introduction

 

In order to trace what the trajectory of the discipline of political sociology has been it is essential that we address certain questions as basic starting points. How far in history do we go to make sense of the emergence of this discipline? Who were its main proponents? What is the basic premise on which this discipline rests? What were the major concerns of this discipline? What were the major theoretical standpoints and concepts prevalent as part of political sociology during its emergence? How does it shape our current understanding of the discipline? To what extent is political sociology interdisciplinary in its relationship to other disciplines like political science?…..It is by attending to these given set of questions that the current module shall try and highlight the historical development of the discipline.

 

While it is commonly argued that political sociology as a distinct subject emerged during the mid-nineteenth century, many thinkers such as Runcimanand Bottomore, propose that the concepts and concerns outlined by the discipline started to emerge much earlier in the early nineteenth century. These scholars trace the emergence of the discipline to the writings of thinkers such as , Adam Ferguson, Saint-Simon,and Hegel and argue that an unravelling of the history of political sociology calls forth an unravelling of the history of early European political thought1 (Bottomore 1979, Horowitz 1972 and Runciman 1969).This is because the basic premise on which the emergence of the discipline rests-which is the idea of a separation between the political-and more especially the state from the social, has its roots in the works of the above mentioned thinkers. While a detailed discussion around their arguments regarding the relationship between the state and society should be pursued later in the course of the module, it is suffice to say that a theoretically coherent account of the historical  development of political sociology has to dig deeper into the debates around state, power, civil society and so on, characteristic of the eighteenth and early nineteenth century.

 

1   See W.G Runciman, (1969). Social Science and Political Theory (Second Edition,) pp 22-42 Tom Bottomore, (1979), Political Sociology, and Horowitz,, (1972). Foundations of Political Sociology for a detailed account of how the emergence of the discipline traces its history to the ideas manifest in early European political thought, where the idea of state and society separation first found expression.

Likewise a theoretically sound description of the course of growth of political sociology cannot ignore the interdisciplinary distinctive of this discipline. Political sociology has a relationship of theoretical borrowing and lending with manifold disciplines such as economics, political science, law, jurisprudence and so on (Botttommore,1979).However the discipline with which it is most closely associated is that of political science. In fact the commonsensical perception has often been to view both these disciplines as almost synonymous with each other based on the close overlaps between the question and subject matter of these disciplines. While it is true that both these disciplines are similar in their concerns for the state and society relationship as well as in their concern for the concept of power –the latter being a concept critical to both political science and political sociology, yet these subjects differ in their lines of inquiry. Political science is concerned with looking at the operation of governments, the process of legislation and administration and on the “front stage’ agencies of the government, as opposed to political sociology which tries to direct its attention to the backstage operations of power and looks at the government as one of the many locations of power for which many social groups/individuals compete. This implies that political science focuses its attention to the formal organization and its operation and distribution of power, while political sociology takes such kind of power as already given and tries to move beyond this to the hidden reality of politics. In this sense then, the crucial difference between these disciplines as has been highlighted by many scholars is the fact that while the former deals with the effects of state on society, the latter tries to look at the society’s influence on the state2(Bottomore 1979, Bendix and Lipset 1967 and neuman 2007). However despite these differences the boundaries between these two disciplines are fuzzy and constantly shifting, and the distinctions springing from their treatment of the question of the relationship between state and society are blurred today because of the constant variations in their theoretical vantage points.

 

2 See Bendix and Lipset ,”political Sociology”, Current Sociology,(1957,6:79-99) section 3 for this particular discussion on the differences between political science and political sociology and with regard to the differences in their treatment of the question of the autonomy of the state. Also see Lawrence Newman, (2007), ‘’Political Sociology” in 21’st century Sociology: A Reference handbook, edsByrant and Peck(VOL 1) for a brief outline of the broad contours of the discipline.

This also makes the task of determining the subject matter of political sociology a complex exercise given the presence of various theoretically diverse positions within social sciences. Hence tracing a historical trajectory of the discipline involves looking at all these myriad positions and debates regarding the relation between the political and the social that come to shape the contours of the discipline. For the purpose of the current module, I have divided these debates into two sections. The first section is a brief sketch of the history of ideas part of European political thought that emerged from the early nineteenth century onwards to the writings of Marx and his followers and critics, which I shall label the historicist approach. This is because Marxist thought is also seen as rooted in history, and as Botttomore puts it as a “philosophy of History” (Bottomore, 1979). This section shall focus on the basic principle around which the emergence of political sociology rests which is the separation of the social from the state. Debates related to the emergence of the modern state, on power shall also find brief mention in this section.

 

The second section on the other hand focuses on the debates that emerged in the latter half of the nineteenth century and helped shape the nature of the discipline in its later stages. These debates pertain to the Behavorialists and structural functional schools of thought that emerged in the American context which tried to incorporate a more “empirical” approach in their analysis of politics and political systems.

 

Historicist Approach

 

As already mentioned, the history of political sociology can be traced to the idea of a separation between the social and the political or the state. Here the attempt is to construct the state as a concrete political agency or structure distinct from the social agencies and structures of the society in which it operates, acting on them or being acted upon. While it is true that Marxism also builds on a similar distinction of the social and the political drawing from its critique of Hegelian thought, the roots of such an idea found expression earlier than it is assumed. W.G Runciman in his book “, Social Science and Political Theory (Second  Edition,1969) provides an excellent account of what the history of such an idea has been and serves as a useful text for the purpose of the subject of the module.

Runciman argues that while this idea found explicit expression in Hegel’s writings in the 1840’s,such an idea existed much earlier in a more unfinished and covert form in the debates regarding the transposition of natural law to natural rights that occurred between Rousseau and Grotius. However as Runciman argues, Rousseau’3s idea of the divide between man and citizen was actually a severance of “man in a state of nature” and “man in civil society”, and not between society and the political as such. In fact this he proposes remains the problem with later writers such as Adam Ferguson4too whose seminal text An Essay on the History of Civil Society (1767), while addressing the idea of state and civil society, does not outline a clear divide between the political and society.

 

Saint-Simon’s work has also been accused of similar shortcomings, and despite his ability to outline the relationship between the economic structures of society as being the base for the formation of the state, and outlining a separation between government and administration, he is unable to demarcate between the social and the political. Rather than showing us the interconnections between government or the political and administration or the social, he divests the political out of the government and refrains from approaching the question of the simultaneous existence of the political and society (Runciman, 1967, 28) .This coexistence of the state and society was also dismissed by the Anarchists, none of whom believed in the need for a certain form of political organization as crucial for the continuation of society5.for them the state stood for all the “vices of mankind” and had to be done away with. (Runciman,)Clearly then, while the idea of modern state, of sovereignty, and of society were prevalent in propositions put forth by these thinkers, a clear idea of the separation of the state and society only emerged with Hegel’s Philosophy of Rights(1942).In fact much of the literature around

 

3 Jean-Jacques Rousseau(1762)Of The Social Contract, Or Principles of Political Right (Du contrat socialouPrincipes du droit politique;

4Ferguson, Adam. (1767), An Essay on the History of Civil Society for his influence on Marxist thought.

5See Proudhon, P. J). (1969), Selected writings of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon. . Paine 2011, Thomas. Rights of man. Broadview Press,. And looked this school of thought believed in the idea of society being an outcome of the the needs of people and looked at the state as an autcome of the evil of mankind.

 

      the historical development of the discipline traces the origins of the discipline to Hegel’swritings6.Hegel argued for a clear distinction between the state and civil society where the latter was seen as a product of modern capitalism and free market economy. Such a society was characterised by people coming together to serve certain common and individual interests through the law which is a guarantee of property, and through other external associations. These varying interest imply the existence of asymmetries and conflicts within civil society which emerge as problematic for the state. The state for Hegel is considered as a “universal” which includes under its rubric civil society rather than coexisting with the it.

 

However this idea of the state as a “universal” which alone can resolve the contradictions generated by civil society between different classes, interests and modes of production was seen as problematic for Marx, who dismissed this idea on the grounds of its exaggeration of therole of the state. Marx’s critique of Hegel lay in the fact that for Marx the conflict produced by civil society was crucial for the sustenance of the state and heavily relied on by the state. The state for Marx was embedded in the economic conditions of life, brought about by mode of production characteristic of the capitalism, and was seen as subsumed under the domain of civil society. Civil society here is seen as almost co-terminus with bourgeois society and is seen as reinforcing socio-economic inequalities attributed to modern capitalism (Bottomore 1979 Runciman1969 and Faulks 2000).The crucial question for Marxist analysis then is to do with the extent of autonomy enjoyed by the state in its relation to the primary developments of civil society, namely social classes. In fact this question regarding the autonomy of the state evolved as a crucial point of debate within the discipline and has produced three major theoretical positions which have contributed effectively in shaping the history of the discipline. These are the pluralists, the elite theorists and the theory of class analysis.

 

The theory of class analysis emanating largely from the Marxist positions, came to dominate during the mid 1970’s and underwent a split regarding their position on the relationship between state and capitalist society. This split expressed itself in the form of the -The Instrumentalists and the Structuralists. The instrumentalists such as Milliband and Domhoff argued for the presence of a capitalist class that directly rules and controls the state seen as part of the capitalist society7. The structuralistson the other hand such as Paulantzasclaimed that the while the state was part of the capitalist society it was yet relatively autonomous and not ruled directly by a capitalist class8. This is because capitalist structure demanded the state to fulfil certain needs of capital accumulation, and it was this structure that used the state to ensure class dominance. (Newman,2007).Here the state while appearing to mediate between different class interests, helps keep the class structure intact

 

6 See Bottomore (1979), Runciman (1969) Faulks (2000) and NashNash, K., & Scott, A. (Eds.). 2008. for a brief outline of the history, the debates, and ideologies within the discipline.

      the pluralists, in this sense are closer to the primary Marxist position in terms of both being society-centric theories rather than state centric yet their position on the nature of existence of the state and on the operation of power is radically different from the Marxist one. Pluralists attempt to describe the power relations as they actually exist in a “liberal society’ which are not seen as related to the larger questions about the class that owns the means of production( part of Marxist ideology) or about the unequal distribution of skills/resources (as prevalent in elitist theory).For them, the state is seen as a neutral arbitrator between different competing interests within society, where no particular interest dominates and polity is underlined by a “value consensus”(Faulks 2000:44-45).In this sense then it is also a dismissal of the zero-sum conception of power whereby some have all the power as opposed to others.9

 

Such a view is diametrically opposed to the position taken by the Elite theorists, who willingly accept the importance of the state and argue for its autonomy from society. In fact the idea of independent political factors playing a role in determining individual liberty or the nature/form of the polity is reinforced in this school of thought. Such a theory emphasizes on the growing similarities between the political structures of all societies which are seen as unaffected by the varying socio-economic contexts and are based on universal asymmetry in 7See RalphMilliband, (1968) “The State In Capitalist Society” where tries to demonstrate empirically the nature of Ruling Class domination in society. Likewise see William G Domhoff ,(1967) Who Rules Americaand (1970)The Higher Circlesfor the instrumentalist apporach  the distribution of skills, in the positions occupied by different individuals and so on. Elite theorists such as Moscaargue that all societies are characterised by two classes, those who rule and those who are ruled upon. It is with the former that a monopoly of power rests as opposed to the latter who are a majority under the control of the former.

 

8N Poulantzas,(1978) ” State Power and Socialism” argued that the state depended upon the structural arrangements of capitalist society, attempting to show how a Ruling Class is able to dominate the rest of society economically, politically and ideologically without the need for its members to personally oversee the workings of the State.

9For a detailed account of pluralism see Steven Lukes, 1974) .Power:A Radical View,( where he speaks about the three dimensions of power. Likewise see R Dahl’s, (1961) .who Governs? Democracy and Power in an American City, which looks at the American political structure from a pluralist perspective.

Likewise Pareto in also makes similar arguments regarding elite rule being a “universal” that relies for its survival on the disparities between individuals10 (Bottomore,1979).While both Pareto and Mosca differ in the way this elite rule is carried out, both concur on the fact that state and society is underlined by an unavoidable division of power between the elites and the rest of the society (Faulks,2000).In this sense then such a theory seems rather close to the class analysis position in terms of its outline of power as being concentrated in the hands of a few and not shared and dispersed like the pluralists would argue, however because of its highly state centric approach it is also markedly different from the Marxist position.

 

This brings us back to the theme regarding the boundaries between the state and society, and as clearly evident from the above outlined discussion, the question of ascertaining where the state ends and society begins, or whether there is a need even for such separation are crucial questions that have been responsible for the foundation of this discipline. What the trajectory of political sociology has been after these debates emerged in the European context is a question that one shall explore in the next section of this module.

 

Emergence of the discipline in the American Context: Functionalists and behaviour lists.

 

The previous section highlights how Western Europe remained the centres of the discipline right from the inception of political sociology till late nineteenth century; this section shall direct attention to how post the Second World War the hub of the discipline shifted to America. While the previous concerns of the discipline were regarding the development of industrial capitalism, class conflict, elite power, and so on, the emergence of participatory democracy became a prime object of focus for the discipline in the American context.

 

 

10 For a detailed account see G Mosca, (1939) The Ruling Class and V Pareto, (1968) the Rise and fall Of Elites along with Michels, Political Parties (1962) where he speaks of Elite rule through the idea of “Iron Law of Oligarchy”. Also see Skocpol, (1979). States and Social Revolutionfor a critique of elite theory as not focusing adequately on many aspects of the state such as its reliance on economic factors.

Such an idea first found expression in Alex De Tocqueville’s influential text titled Democracy in America(1945),which deviated from Marx’s obsession with industrial revolution and paid greater attention to the emergence of democracy. He looked at the effects of democracy in terms of its tendency to create greater social equality and challenge hierarchy alongside also its potential to threaten individual freedom. Largely however Tocqueville made a case for the co-existence of the social institutions with the political ones rather than arguing for the importance and autonomy of one over the other.

 

This idea also finds expression in a different form in the writings of one of the most influential political sociologists Max Weber.11Weber is credited with the first adequate understanding and definition of the modern state and his contribution to the discipline is essential to outline in making sense of the theoretical undercurrents underlining the discipline. Weber defined the “state as a human community that which successfully claims within a given territory the monopoly over the legitimate use of force” (Weber, 1948:78). Weber’s political sociology argues for centralization of the means and forms of administration, highlights the role off the nation state and understands society as underlined by the currents of Rationalization. (Bottomore, 1979).However largely Weber’s contribution also rests in his caveat regarding the defining of the state in terms of its functions. While the reasons for such cautioning have been well spelt in Runciman’s account of political sociology, what comes to the fore in this discussion is the fact that Weber provides an efficient critique of the functionalists.

 

Functionalism as a theory owes its existence much earlier to the writings of scholars like EmileDurkheim, Radcliffe Brown, Malinowski and so on which largely influenced the early subject matter of sociology as a whole. However its emergence within political sociology in the American context specifically can be traced to the 1950’s and 1960’s in the writings of Parsons, and Easton who emphasized on the importance of functions rather than structures. Broadly speaking functionalist position viewed the state as a unit of a larger social system whose relation to other units was that of integration and adaption. This relationship of complementarity and consensus between the sub-parts of the system then is seen as accounting for the larger solidarity of the system. This gets reiterated in Parson’s social systems theory where the state and society are subsumed together under a social system whose parts are bound together by an overarching and unified set of values and norms. Power here is seen as a social resource or a capacity to mobilize general resources in society for the attainment of social goals, which can be shared by everyone through cooperation. In this sense then as Parson’s argues power is something “possessed by society as a whole”. (Parsons, 1966)

 

 

11See deGerth, H. H. and C. W. Mills (eds.). (1948.) From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. Weberand Max Weber,(1978).Economy and Society For a detailed discussion of the idea of power and authority and for the three different types of authority.

 

This idea however became the subject of massive critique and in opposition gave birth to an alternative model focusing on conflicts and constrains articulated by theorists like Ralph Dahrendorf12. This looked at the functionalist desire for consensus and “equilibrium’ as an insufficient attempt at resolving the contradictions present in society. From the vantage point of the conflict theory the idea of common values and consensus are a product of political authority that relies for its operation on the use of force in some measure. This is why conflict theorists find it essential to focus on forces that resist this political authority and demand change in society. (Bottomore, 1979).

 

Clearly then as Bottomore highlights, the history of the discipline gets shaped by the emergence of four basic models. While the first two models debating the autonomy of political organization has informed the content of the previous section, the other two approaches of stability and consensus vs. Conflict and contradiction have come about in the current discussion. Furthermore Bottomore also draws our attention to other set of debates prevalent within the discipline which act to shape its broad contours.

 

This brings us to another essential theoretical model that is seen to have radically upturned the orientation of the discipline in the past two decades. This is the behavorialistview that believes in a cause and effect based analysis of events and argues for a shift in focus from the state to the observance of political behaviour as it plays out in actuality13. It adopts a “single  dimensional view of Power and takes up a micro level approach to the study of politics. Behaviouralists argue against the massive and historical emphasis on the state which considered by them as highly normative approach. Rather they argued in favour of studying empirically observable facts revolving around individual and group political behaviour such as voting, political values and so on. This was juxtaposed against the Interpretative approach that argued that rather than looking at behaviour as directly observable empirical fact, society had to be studied according the interpretation of the meaning of the rule based social action. This was the phenomenological position which could trace its roots to Weber’s interpretive sociology.

 

12See Ralph Dahrendorf ,(1959). Class and class conflict in industrial society.Dahrendorf critiqued Parsons for his oversimplification of society. He dismisses the concept of political ‘systems’, mainly because it assumes that social orders are self-sufficient, closed and internally consistent. Societies, according to Dahrendorf, are built on conflict because they are built on norms which cannot be shared by everyone.

13See David Easton. (1957) ‘An Approach to the Analysis of Political Systems’, World Politics, 9(3): 383-400.To get a sense of the input-output model which relates the input side of political process involving goal implementation, expropriation of resources, conflict integration to its output function. Also see Almond, G. V. S.(1963), The civic culture. Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations, Princeton.

Likewise Weberians also outlined other critiques of this position14 which have been well documented by Faulk’s work which deals majorly with the problems inherent with the behavorialist position. Drawing from Kings’s arguments, he points out how such an approach overlooks the question of importance of the state and the centralization of power within the state. Similarly it also uncritical of the existing asymmetrical power relationships characteristic of the political economy of liberal democracies. Likewise behavorialists such as Easton who propose an input -output model and advocate the idea of “ political system based on an authoritative allocation of values “ derived from various sources have also been subjected to criticisms for its inability to point out to how such authority is acquired or why the idea of political system is any less ideologically charged than the state (Faulks 2000 and King,1986).Such critiques then serve as valuable contributions that have acted effectively to shape the discourse around politics and are essential to analyse in making sense of the present nature of existence of the discipline.

 

Conclusion

 

Broadly then, in tracing the sketch of the historical trajectory of this discipline right from Hegel and Marx, to the pluralists, elite theorists, functionalists and behaviouralists one realises that the theme of power alongside that of the state- society relationship remains consistent. While later studies shifted attention to other ideas of citizenship, public sphere social movements and surveillance, these ideas cannot be comprehended without engagement with the primary theoretical debates and discussions prevalent within the discipline .These which are relevant for making sense of the direction political sociology has taken and also serve as a necessary background to understand the subject matter of the next module that focuses on the growth of the discipline in the Indian context.

 

14See Faulks, Political Sociology (2000) :A critical introduction pp12-13,The author refers to the work of Skocpol, (1979) States and Social Revolutions that reinforced on the importance of the State.

Reference bibliography

 

 

  • Almond, G. V. S. (1963), The civic culture. Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations, Princeton.
  • Bendix Rein-hard, 1968. State and Society, A Reader in Comparative Political Sociology. Boston: Little, Brown Bendix and Lipset , (1957).”Political Sociology”, Current Sociology, 6:79-99Bottomore, T. B. (1979). Political sociology (Vol. 1993). Hutchinson.
  • Dahl, R. A. (1961). Who governs?: Democracy and power in an American city. Yale University Press.
  • Dahrendorf, R. (1959). Class and class conflict in industrial society. Stanford University PressDomhoff, G. W (1983). Who rules America now?: A view for the’80s. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:Prentice-Hall.
  • Domhoff, G. W. (1971). The higher circles: The governing class in America (Vol. 671). Vintage.
  • Easton, D. 1957. ‘An Approach to the Analysis of Political Systems’, World Politics, 9(3): 383-400.
  • Ferguson, Adam 1995.: An Essay on the History of Civil Society. Cambridge University Press,
  • Faulks, K. (2000). Political sociology: a critical introduction. New York University Press.
  • Gerth, H. H. and C. W. Mills (eds.). 1948. From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. London Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friedrich. , 2004. The Philosophy of Rights. Courier Corporation
  • Henri Saint-Simon (1760-1825): selected writings on science, industry, and social organization. Holmes & Meier Pub.Ferguson Irving Louis Horowitz. (1997). Foundations of political sociology. HOEPLI EDITORE.
  • Janoski, T., Alford, R. R., Hicks, A. M., & Schwartz, M. A. (Eds.). (2003). The Handbook of Political Sociology: States, Civil Societies, and Globalization. Cambridge University PressLukes, S. (1974). Power: A Radical View (Vol. 1). Macmillan: London.
  • Marx, K., & Engels, F. (1965). The German Ideology (1845). London.
  • Marx, K. (1904). A contribution to the critique of political economy (No. 1). International Library Publishing Company; London,
  • Michel, R. (1962). Political parties. New York:Free Press.
  • G Mosca, (1939).The Ruling Class .New York:McGraw-Hill Milliband, R.(1968) .The State In Capitalist Society. London Weidenfeld and NikolsonN. Eisenstadt ,1971 (eds). Political Sociology, A Reader. New York: Basic Books,Nash, K., & Scott, A. (Eds.). (2008). The Blackwell Companion to Political Sociology. John Wiley & Sons..
  • Neuman, Lawrence.2007.Political Sociology in Clifton D. Byrant and Dennis L.Peck (eds) 21st Century Sociology :A reference Handbook, Vol 1, Sage Publications
  • Runciman, W. G. (1963). Social Science and Political Theory. Cambridge University Press Pareto, V. (1991). The Rise and Fall of the elites: an application of theoretical sociology. Transaction Publishers
  • Parsons (1966) (2nd edition). ‘On the Concept of Political Power’, in R. Bendix and S.M.Lipset (eds.): Class Status and Power (240-66). London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
  • Paine, Thomas. (2011). Rights of man. Broadview Press.
  • Poulantzas,N. (1978). State Power and Socialism .London: Verso
  • Proudhon, P. J. (1969). Selected writings of Pierre-Joseph proudhon. Anchor Books.
  • Skocpol, T. (1979). States and social revolutions: A comparative analysis of France, Russia and China. Cambridge University Press.Tocqueville, A. D. (1945). Democracy in America. 2 vols. New York: Vintage Weber, M. (1978). Economy and Society. Berkeley: University of California Press. (Vol. I).