Chapter 2. Political Theory:
Normative and Empirical
Last updated 8-24-2009
Copyright 2008-9 Robert E. Botsch
The
trouble ain’t that people are ignorant; it’s that they know so much that ain’t
so. Josh Billings
OUTLINE
I. The Idea of
Theory
A. Definitions
B. Scopes of theories
1. Macro‑level theories
Example: Systems Theory
2. Middle Range
theories
Example: Critical Election Theory
3. Micro‑level theories
Example: role theory
C. Two general types of theories in
political science
1. Normative theory
2. Empirical theory
D. "Fact" statements and "value"
statements in theories
1. Difference
2. Examples
3. Relationships between values and facts
in science
II. Ideology
A. Definitions
B. Difference from theory and relationship
to theory
Illustration: the "end of
ideology" debate
III. Examples
of Normative Theory
A. Karl Marx
1. Life and times
2. Central ideas
a. Economic determinism
b. Dialectics
c. Stages of history and "seeds of destruction"
1) Primitive Agrarian Economy
2) Slave Economy
3) Feudal Economy
4) Capitalism
a) exploitation and surplus
value
b) boom and bust cycles
c) alienation
d) class consciousness
5) Socialism ‑‑ the
"dictatorship of the proletariat"
6) Communism ‑‑ the
"state withers away"
d. Evaluation
1) Where Marx was correct
2) Where Marx was incorrect
3) A mixture of normative and
empirical theory
B. Herbert Marcuse
1. Reality and artificiality
2. Ideology and the creation of artificial things
3. Normative stance ‑‑ rejection of artificial things
4. Technological Society ‑‑ the villain
5. Prescription ‑‑ "negation" ‑‑
revolution by dropping out
6. Evaluation ‑‑ more pure normative theory
C. Other examples
IV. Examples of Empirical Theory
A. Machiavelli ‑‑ the first empirical political scientist
1. Machiavelli's world (1469‑1527)
a. The Renaissance
b. Florence
c. Professional career‑‑diplomat and writer
2. Forces at work in the world
a. Chaos
b. Fortuna
c. Entropy‑‑things tend to come apart
3. What can people do?
a. Develop the VIRTU to know the right OCCASIONE to do what is necessary
(NECESSITA) to bring about ORDINI (peace and prosperity)
b. Learn the rules of power
1) How to get it
2) How to most effectively use it
3) How to keep it
c. Act‑‑where most people fail
4. Rules for effectiveness
a. Economize violence
b. Engage in logical thinking
c. Seek and gain power
1) power over oneself
2) two interpretations of
"might makes right"
d. Study history and politics to avoid others' mistakes
e. Be realistic about ones own strengths and weaknesses
f. Control your emotions
g. Understand that sometimes good can come from evil
h. Understand the limits of power
1) excessive violence
2) excessive deception
3) reputation
4) danger of Totalitarian power
5) the "paradox of means"
i. Learn the values of your followers
j. Understand that there are few perfect answers
k. Be willing to confront when necessary.
l. Be creative
m. Understand the difficulty of change
n. Prosperity
o. Beware of participating in plots
p. Have clear priorities
q. Good help
r. Know how to manipulate symbols
s. Build institutions with deep support
t. Be careful not to overextend yourself
u. Renewal
B. Democratic Pluralism
1. Developed by a number of behavioralist political scientists
2. Central ideas and relationships
a. Distribution of influence relatively equal
b. Specialization of interest groups and spheres of influence
c. Moderate levels of political participation
d. Law of anticipated reaction limits elite control
e. Competition among and rotation of political elites
3. Evaluation
a. Strengths
1) Focuses on actual behavior
2) Realistic‑‑significant
empirical content
b. Weaknesses
1) Hidden normative element‑‑supports
status quo
2) Ignores "nonissues"‑‑the
second face of power
C. Other examples
V. Summary: Normative versus Empirical
Theory
A. Arguments in favor of Normative theory
1. Empirical theory is really normative
2. Normative theory necessary to choose problems
3. Empirical theory biased toward the status quo
4. Empirical theory tends to be self‑fulfilling
5. Normative questions define us as human beings
B. Arguments in favor of Empirical theory
1. Normative theory often openly biased and selective
2. Normative theory tends to mix values and facts
3. Normative theories can never be fully tested
4. Empirical theory never claimed to fully describe reality
C. Evaluation
1.The battle between behavioralists and post‑behavioralists on a
theoretical level
2. Lessons
a. Clearly lay out values at the outset
b. Understand the limitations of our findings
c. Sensitivity to the implications of our results
TEXT
I. The idea of Theory
Theories are used in all areas of political science. So no matter what
kind of political science course you take, you will be taking a course in
theory. More generally, all social sciences and all sciences use theory. In
fact, the whole process of scientific research is about discovering, testing,
and improving theories. The facts that we base on observation and accept as
reality are important because of the implications they have for theories.
When Sir Isaac Newton observed the apple falling from the tree, the
significance of that observable and therefore scientifically factual event was
not that the apple did in fact fall. Rather, its significance was the
implications of that event for his theories on classical physics. After much
testing and application these theories later became known as laws. Later
physicists found that these classical laws of gravity and motion had limited
applicability. They improved upon them using theories developed by Einstein.
The same thing is true in political science, although our theories are
much less elegant and precise. When you observe that your old friend at work
who got a promotion and became a boss no longer acts friendly toward you, you
have observed a political fact that fits into a social science theory known as
Michels' "Iron Law of Oligarchy." Your observation had scientific
significance if you thought about it in more general terms. Of course, it also
had personal significance‑‑losing a friend is sad. But if you understand
the theory, coping and not blaming yourself or your friend becomes easier.
Michels' law has a couple of implications. The first one is that leaders and followers will always exist.
Moreover, most people are content to just simply follow. That
gives an advantage to those who would like to lead, especially when a group is
forming. All you have to do is speak up first and you are almost immediately
seen as a leader. That is true at work and it is true in social settings as
well. If you haven't noticed this in the simulations we play, you have been
missing something. A small group of leaders‑‑an oligarchy‑‑develops pretty
quickly.
Second, leaders develop separate interests from their followers. The most important of these is an interest in
maintaining and often even increasing the perquisites (that means benefits‑‑like
special hours, eating areas, and so on) that go along with being a leader. The
danger here is that leaders may lose touch with their followers. They may even
begin to exploit their followers in order to protect and expand their
perquisites. Do you ever feel that your boss wants you to really sacrifice
yourself so that she/he can get a promotion or a raise? This is part of what
people mean when they say that power corrupts.
At this point I hope you understand that theories are important. They
are central to what we do in science and in political science. So before we start talking about some of
them, let's start by defining them and then discussing some of their
characteristics and qualities.
A. Definitions
Just as for political science, no one single definition exists that
everyone accepts. So I'll give you a couple and underline the main ideas of
each.
Most simply, theory refers to a set of relationships. If
you think about it this way, then the word "school" is a theory.
School signifies very specific and concrete observable relationships. If you go
somewhere and observe teachers and students and maybe a little learning going
on (but not necessarily), you have probably found a school.
A more complex definition of political
theory is a set of specified relationships involving political matters
that focus and organize our inquiry in our attempt to describe, explain, and predict
political events and behaviors. The
most powerful political theories accomplish all three goals: describe,
explain, and predict.
Let's look at the key ideas in this definition. This definition is
similar to the previous simple definition because it also involves
relationships. For example, Michels' theory on oligarchy involved power
relationships between leaders and followers.
The definition eliminates all relationships that are not political in
nature. Think about the definitions of politics we studied in the last module.
If the relationships involve power questions, then we are in the area of
political theory. Michels' theory qualifies.
Next, the definition tells us that the relationships in question
"focus and organize our inquiry." That means the theory tells us at
what we should look and suggests what questions we should ask. Again, using
Michels' theory, we will look at how leaders arise and how they relate to their
followers. We will ask about how leaders’ perceived self‑interests
develop and how these interests begin to differ from those of their followers.
We will ask when and if followers begin to realize that their leaders have
separate interests.
Finally, the definition lays out the goals of all theory: describe,
explain, and predict. A good theory should help us describe what is going on.
In doing so, the theory should help us separate the significant from the
trivial and irrelevant. It should help us explain why these things happen, for
example, why and how a disease develops, or why and how leaders develop
different interests. The third goal is prediction. If we know the explanation
and the relevant conditions that are present when things begin to change, we
can even predict when these changes will take place. For example, different
interests will develop more quickly when leaders have separate offices that are
physically distant from followers.
The steps we go through in building theories are an essential, perhaps
the most essential part of any science. We will focus on the process of theory
building in the next module on scientific methodology. For now, we will study
the different types of theories and learn about different examples of each
type. These examples are important in that they are useful in understanding the
world around us.
B. Scopes of theories
All theories have a scope. Scope simply refers to how broad or how
narrow a theory is in its application. The scope ranges from extremely broad to
quite narrow.
1. Macro‑level theories
These theories have the broadest scope. In political science they
would be those that describe, explain, or predict the behavior of whole governments,
or of many governments in international systems. One good example of a macro‑level
theory is "balance of power" theory, which describes how nations seek
power to make sure that other nations cannot overwhelm them. One political
scientist, Hans Morganthau, equated balance of power theory in international
relations with the importance of the law of gravity in physics: a politician
who dismisses "balance of power" is about as foolish as "a
scientist who says he does not believe in the law of gravity."
Example: Systems Theory
Systems theory is another macro‑level theory that focuses on whole
nations and presumably applies to all nations. It was developed by a political
scientist named David Easton during
the period that we called the behavioralist revolution. Systems theory is based
on observations about how nations survive and answers the question of how do
nations persist? It is perhaps best understood in terms of a diagram having
four major parts: inputs, conversion, outputs, and feedback. You should note in
the figure below that two kinds of feedback exist. Internal feedback is that
which affects other parts of the political system. External feedback affects
parts of other systems. You should also note that the political system is
bounded by a dotted line. This signifies that actors move in and out of the
political system into other systems.
Let's apply this theory to the nation
of South Africa
and see what it does for us. As you see in the figure, two kinds of inputs
exist: demands and supports. Blacks and white liberal supporters in South Africa
and elsewhere demanded an end to white minority rule. Once that ended, the last
legal vestige of apartheid would be
over. (Just in case you didn't know, apartheid was the legal system of South
African laws that maintained white control over all aspects of society.) The
most important forms of demand were coercive: riots and strikes within South Africa
and threats of loss of investments from without. The government first reacted
to those demands by introducing a set of policy decisions designed to reward
some and deprive others and to thereby create the kind of support they need to
survive. It attempted to isolate blacks from other nonwhite groups by giving
"coloreds" (that is, those that are racially mixed) and Asians
increased political rights and representation within their parliament‑‑the
white government rewarded these groups and hoped for their political support.
The government also rewarded those outside the nation by pointing to these
changes and other modifications of the apartheid policies (for example, ending
laws that prohibited mixed marriages) as positive responses to demands for
reform. It hoped for financial support through continued investments. The white
government deprived many of those blacks within the nation of life and liberty
through imprisonment, torture, police shootings, and threats thereof.
Unfortunately for those who were running the nation, this mix of rewards
and deprivations did not have the desired result. These actions did not
generate support elsewhere. Demands for reform increased. The only support came
from moderately conservative whites within the nation and from more
conservative political and religious leaders of other nations (for example,
Rev. Jerry Falwell). The extremely white supremacist white Conservative Party
within South Africa
attacked the policies as too liberal and not repressive enough to be effective.
White liberals in South
Africa and other nations argued that the
reforms were too few and too slow. Moderate black leaders such as Bishop Tutu
had a difficult time convincing the impatient masses that moderation and
nonviolence were the most effective means to bring about change.
Because demands far outweighed the supports necessary to maintain a
viable nation, white leaders were forced to take further steps to generate
support. They freed Nelson Mandella and committed themselves to a long-term
goal of majority rule, with some safeguards for the white minority. This major
concession did relieve a great deal of international pressure. The
international trade sanctions were lifted. The South African Olympic Team was
allowed full participation in the 1992 Barcelona Games.
Despite these notable changes, the political system was yet under great
pressure. Black leaders felt that the government was delaying the transition.
But white conservatives, who are a small but extremely vocal and militant
minority of all whites, felt that their future physical and economic well being
was at risk. They created a great deal of trouble. They exploited ideological
and ethnic divisions among the black majority with hopes that the division
would indefinitely delay the transition to majority rule. Nelson Mandella
charged that violent attacks upon his African National Congress Party (ANC)
followers by the Inkatha Party, led by Zulu Chief Gatsha Buthelezi, were
encouraged by the government. He charged that the police themselves were
responsible for many killings, sometimes making the killings appear to be the
responsibility of other blacks. For a while Mandella withdrew from negotiations
with the white dominated government.
In terms of systems theory, the outputs of the existing system
temporarily increased supports, but demands were growing. In the summer of 1992
Nelson Mandella visited the United Nations and was able to convince the U.N. to
investigate the violence aimed at his ANC supporters. Here you see how outputs
create external feedback from other systems, in this case the international
system. Under the implied threat of renewed sanctions, the existing government of
President deKlerk had little choice but give in to at least some new demands
that arose out of that investigation. Eventually he and the white government
did make enough concessions so that Mandella and his supporters agreed to a
period of transition before holding national elections with all people
participating equally. Those elections were held in early 1994. Nelson Mandella was elected President.
However, in order to generate support from white moderates, he named deKlerk as
a key member of his cabinet. This was a remarkable transition from the past.
DeKlerk and Mandella were jointly awarded a Nobel peace prize. The question now
is whether the new government can meet the raised expectations of all those who
supported it. Output certainly increased necessary support, but demands remain
high. Unless the existing government is able to produce more material rewards,
feedback may produce less support in the future.
Thinking about the situation in terms of systems theory leads us to
conclude that the existing system could not produce enough support to maintain
itself. Therefore, its leaders created significant modifications so that a new
or at least greatly modified system might be able to generate sufficient
support for system persistence. Systems theory, because it is dynamic
(that is, it is an ongoing process), predicted that this change would take
place because all systems take actions to maintain themselves. In this case,
the change was a very significant modification before the whole thing collapsed
into total civil war. However, the theory does not tell us exactly what these
actions will be, nor does it tell us whether or not they will be successful.
Other kinds of theories would have to give us some help there. As you can see
from this brief account, systems theory is strongest in description and
explanation and weakest in prediction (except in the most general terms).
From this brief example, I hope you can see how systems theory helps us
to describe, explain, and to some degree predict the actions of a political
system. It focuses and organizes our inquiry to ask several questions. What
demands are being made? Who makes them? What is the form of the demands? What
are the rewards and deprivations created by the political leaders? How effectively
are they in generating support necessary for continued existence? If you
remember, the central question that systems theory asks is how do political
systems persist. From this discussion, you should understand that the general
answer that systems theory provides is that political systems persist by converting
inputs into outputs that generate support through feedback. You might think
about systems theory and what it might suggest about the events in Iraq – perhaps
we’ll talk about this in class as an exercise.
2. Middle Range theories
Middle range theories are those that describe, explain, and predict
political behavior and events of subunits of whole governments or of
groups. An example would be organizational
theory, a very important part of the study of public administration that
focuses on how bureaucracies behave under different circumstances. If you were to take some of our public
administration courses, you would learn some of these theories, hopefully well
enough to be able to prosper in our bureaucratically organized world. Later in
the course we will examine public administration.
Example: Critical Election Theory
Critical election theory has mainly descriptive and explanatory value
in dealing with elections in the United States. It explains where
people get their party identifications (party ID) and uses party ID to explain
electoral outcomes. It focuses our
attention on those events that may permanently or temporarily disturb party ID. It has some predictive power in telling us
that when no factors affect party identification, the election can be predicted
on the basis of party lines and a split among the independents.
Critical election theory classifies elections into one of four categories,
depending on the circumstances surrounding the election.
1) Normal elections. This is
when people vote their normal party identifications because no major events
cause a significant number of people to do otherwise. Examples would be the
presidential elections of 1940 and 1976, when in both cases the majority party,
the Democrats, voted as Democrats and carried the election for their candidate.
2) Critical elections.
Sometimes these are called realigning
elections. These are those elections in which some dramatic
crisis or set of events causes large groups of people to adopt new party
identifications. These new ID's are so strong that they are passed down to
their children, and then to their children's children, and so on. This process
is much the same way that religious ID's are transmitted between generations.
It is part of the process of political
socialization, the process by which we are taught political values.
The problem in identifying a critical election is that you can't be sure
you've had one until it is over. You can't be sure because the proof is in the
persistence of the new identification in future generations. The last critical
election we know about for sure was either in 1932 or 1936 (political
scientists are divided as to which it is‑‑I would argue that it was
really 1936) in which enough non-Southern workers and minority group members
became Democrats to make them the new majority party. Of course, the event was
the Great Depression and the reason for the mass change was approval of the New
Deal policies of Roosevelt and the Democratic Party. Looking back further, most
political scientists agree that the nation has had a critical election about
every 30 years. If so, we are overdue. We'll talk more about that shortly.
3) Dealigning Elections.
These usually precede critical elections. What happens here is that events
and failures of the current majority party to deal with those events cause
people to drop their old party identifications WITHOUT moving to the other
party‑‑they are likely to become independents. Another way to
think about this is that people reject one party without identifying with the
other. I would argue that this is what happened in 1932. Most Americans voted
AGAINST Hoover
and the Republicans for their failure to deal with the Great Depression.
Roosevelt won because he was not Hoover.
He won by default. Only in the next election did Roosevelt
win in any positive sense.
4) Deviating Elections. You
might think about these as a much milder version of a critical election.
Deviating elections are characterized by temporary issues and factors that
cause those people with party ID's to vote for the candidate of the other
party, but not change their party ID. In the next election they are likely
to go back to their own party in voting as the issue passes or as the temporary
factor disappears. These temporary factors and issues can be such things as an
issue position on which voters strongly disagree with their party's candidate.
For example, blue collar workers abandoned Hubert Humphrey in 1968 because
Nixon took a more hawkish stance on the Vietnam War. Another temporary factor
could be the personal traits of a candidate that partisans dislike. For
example, John Kennedy did not do well among Southern Democrats in 1960 because
of his Catholic religious identification.
Political scientists disagree about the proper classification of the
last several presidential elections. A significant movement away from the
Democratic identification seems to have occurred without a corresponding
increase among the Republicans. The only group to clearly move to the
Republicans is white Southerners. Beyond this group, the "no party"
or "independent" classification seems to have grown about as much as
the Republican identification.
The end result is that today the Democrats still have an edge in
identifications, but all three categories are roughly in the 30 to 40% range.
The 2004 General Social Survey of all Americans found that 29% of all Americans
identify themselves as Republicans, 34% as Democrats, and 37% as independents
(which includes those leaning slightly toward the Democrats or Republicans –
how one classified the “leaners” is critical to these kinds of questions).
The situation in recent years has been quite unstable, with the
electorate moving from one party to the other depending on the particular
candidates and short term forces. Political scientists find that in most presidential
elections 80% of the electorate votes quite predictably. Both parties can count
on about 40% of the vote. The outcome is generally decided by the other 20%.
But in 1992 the numbers were almost reversed. Each party seemed to have about a
20% base. The remaining 60% was soft and could have gone in any direction (even
Ross Perot's independent direction), depending on the headlines of the day. It
should be no surprise that the polls showed huge shifts in who was doing well
throughout the campaign. However, a weak economy that was not recovering fast
enough along with a well-run campaign by Clinton
and a poorly run campaign by Bush combined to give Clinton the win.
In 1996 the strong economy was enough to give Clinton a strong edge, one that could not be
overcome by Dole’s lethargic
campaign. People voted their normal party identifications, with few more
defections than usual from the Republican ranks. That moved this election back into what might be
considered a normal election. About the only thing that saved the Republicans
from total defeat were the last minute revelations about illegal foreign campaign contributions
collected by the Democrats. The net result was very low turnout fueled by voter
disgust and disinterest. This added an element of further dealignment to the
picture.
The electorate is so greatly dealigned that the time seems ripe for
another critical election. In many ways the situation is parallel to that of
the 1933‑6 period. Although the economic situation is not nearly as
dismal, people are feeling dismal in terms of lost hope for the future. If
either party can put in place a set of policies that at the very least give a
majority hope for the future, they can become a new majority party. Of course,
that is much easier said than done. It is far from certain that any such
package exists. And if it does, passage will not be easy. Perhaps the economic
situation must become a whole lot worse, as it was in 1932, before any dramatic
new policies can be passed. Barring dramatic successful actions, future
elections will be more and more unstable and unpredictable as the electorate
tries to make judgments based on short term factors such as the current state
of the economy, candidate personalities, and hot button emotional issues.
The picture in 2000 was similar to 1996 except for several short term
factors that helped the Republicans a bit. The GOP was more energized with a
candidate who had stronger personal appeal than Dole did in 1996. They were
also more united in the goal to oust the Democrats from the White House. The
Democrats, on the other hand, were running a much less charismatic candidate
than Clinton
and were a little more internally divided. They lost more votes to Ralph
Nader's third party candidacy than the Republicans lost to Pat Buchanan in the
badly split Reform Party. Those Nader votes would have easily carried Florida for the
Democrats, even with the ballot confusion that took place. Moreover, voters did
not clearly credit Gore with the good economic times. But in terms of issue positions,
Gore was closer to the middle except on affirmative action. And voters were not
crying out for tax reductions as Republicans hoped. Gore's positions on gun
control, on protecting Social Security and expanding the safety net to include
prescription drugs were probably more appealing to the key groups in the mid
west battleground states, middle class females (though his gun control
positions cost him West Virginia and his home state of Tennessee). In the fall
2000 module, I concluded this paragraph with the prediction that “it should be
close.” I guess I got that one right!
The election of 2004 continued the long-term movement of dealignment and
deviation with some regional realignment. The South continued to become more
Republican as white southerners voted for the party that was more opposed to
gay marriage and took a more aggressive stance in the war in Iraq. These two
issues helped Bush win in border south states like Ohio, which turned out to be the key state.
Kerry did not do as well as Gore across the nation because Americans tend to
support a war-time president, and that is clearly how Bush portrayed himself
throughout the campaign – people who might normally vote Democratic went with
the war time president.
One of these two issues, the Iraq War, turned out to be a short term
issue that cut the other way in 2008, as the nation had concluded that the war
was a mistake to start with and then incompetently pursued once it had begun.
But the “great recession” that started in 2007 or 8 turned out to be the big
issue. In one sense 2008 was a normal election but with some deviation in the
Democratic direction to add to the advantage that the Democrats already had. If
President Obama is able to successfully mend the economy and make policy
changes that turn out to be popular (like FDR did with Social Security), we
have the potential for that long-awaited critical election. But of course we
cannot know until after the 2010 and 2012 elections when we see how party identifications
change.
3. Micro‑level theories
Micro‑level theories focus on the behavior of individuals
engaged in political activities, that is, the smallest possible political
unit. Many of these theories are psychological and sociological in their
orientation and draw upon the methods of these other disciplines. Many very
fascinating theories about such things as presidential personality would fit
under this category. The example I will give you here is more applicable to the
politics of everyday life.
Example: role theory
Let me explain role theory by applying it to you as students. Role
theory focuses our attention on three major variables. The first, role expectations, refers to those things
that are expected of you as students. You are expected, for example, to attend
class regularly, to do your readings and understand them, to turn in
assignments on time, and to do well on your tests. You create some of these
expectations for yourself. But others create them for you as well. These others
include your family, peers, teachers, and even possibly your employers if they
are helping to pay your way.
The second variable is role
resources. This refers to what you have at your disposal to meet the
expectations that exist. As college students, you have the skills you acquired
in high school and grammar school, or perhaps in lower level college courses.
You have whatever time is available to you once you meet your family and
possibly work obligations. You may have money to hire tutors or bribe the
professor. You have whatever raw intellectual ability you were lucky enough to
be born with. The more of these resources you have, the better you will be able
to meet your role expectations. That gets us to the third variable.
Role stress is the shortfall
between role expectations and role resources. As I am sure you know, most
students usually suffer a shortfall. Enough time never exists. Teachers always
seem to expect a little better paper or exam than you can produce. They expect
you to remember more from other courses than you possibly can remember. As a
result, you feel stress.
Role theory does a good job in describing this situation and
focusing our attention on how people seek to cope with role stress. Different coping strategies can be explained
in terms of what resources people have and how they try to stretch them to meet
expectations. Alternatively, people may attempt to reduce the role expectations
that exist. How do you reduce your role stress as students?
Role theory has been applied to political lobbyists who are expected by
their employers to control the entire legislative process‑‑an
impossible expectation. How do lobbyists cope with this impossible situation?
They spend a great deal of time telling their employers what is and is not
possible. They are using their reputation as experts on the legislative process
to reduce the expectations that their employers have for them.
The theory does little to predict exactly how people will deal with role
stress. So while it is powerful in description and explanation, it is relatively
weak at prediction.
As you may be noticing by now, most of our theories are weakest at
prediction. This is because prediction is the most difficult of the tasks we
have set out to accomplish.
C. Two general types of theories in political science
In addition to classifying theories in terms of their scope, we might
divide all of political science theory into one of two general classifications:
normative theory and empirical theory. As you will see, the differences between
these two kinds of theory are not as clear in practice as they might seem in
abstract definitions. In addition, the differences between those who teach and
do research in these two areas reflects the conflict we examined earlier
between the behavioralists and the post‑behavioralists.
1. Normative theory‑‑"Ought"
theory
Normative theory involves questions of VALUE, of what we SHOULD do,
or of what we OUGHT to do. This is
the stuff of political philosophy, and as you know it is the oldest area of
political study. Normative theory has
had something of a renaissance with the post‑behavioralist movement.
2. Empirical theory‑‑"Is"
theory
Empirical theory deals more with questions of what IS rather than
what SHOULD be. This is the kind of theory used by behavioralist political
scientists. Empirical theorists lay out hypotheses that can be tested by
applying the scientific method. These hypotheses are generated by theories. The
results of the tests lead to refinement of these theories. In a later module,
we will examine this methodology of empirical research using public opinion
polling as an example.
D. "Fact"
statements and "value"
statements in theories
Virtually every theory involves either fact statements or value
statements or both‑‑usually both. The difference and relationship
between these kinds of statements reflect the difference and relationship
between normative and empirical theory.
1. Difference
Fact statements are those that can be observed as being true
or not true using one of the five human senses. Another way of saying this
is that fact statements can be tested scientifically. Empirical theory deals
with these kinds of statements. They meet the test of intersubjective transmissibility. That is, they are tested through
simple observations about which we can most likely agree. For example, we can
agree that a meter registered at 14, or that the respondent said
"yes" to the question, or that the senator voted in favor of the
bill. We can use one of our senses to observe what happened and what we
observed is usually not subject to controversy.
On the other hand, value statements cannot be tested directly. Even though sensory observation might be
used to determine what candidate or policy is "best," we are likely
to disagree about the conclusion because of the values that get involved with
what we see or hear. Normative theory deals mainly with value statements.
2. Examples. Let me give you some example of each and you see if you can
tell the difference.
a. Democratic nations are better to live in than non-democratic
nations. Now you probably all agree with this statement. Nevertheless, it
is clearly a value statement in that it involves the speaker making a
preference, a judgment that involves a great deal of interpretation. Exactly
what do we mean by "better?" If by better health, then living in
Castro's Cuba may be better
than living in many places in the U.S. If we mean having political
freedoms, then a different conclusion would be drawn. And what if people use
democratic processes to reduce rights? Is Iraq a better nation if the people
democratically choose to take the property rights that women had under Saddam?
b. Democratic nations have higher per capita incomes than
non-democratic nations. All of you also probably agree with this one as
well. However, it is a fact statement because it can be directly tested using
the sense of sight in looking at generally accepted economic measures and
generally accepted classifications of nations. The observations are
intersubjectively transmissible. So far, so good. Now let me give you one that
may seem a little tricky.
c. Most students on this campus feel that democracy is the best form
of government. Be careful here! It sounds like the first statement in which
there were values involved. Only this time it's not the values of the speaker,
but rather the values of a group of individuals that she/he is speaking of, in
this case students on this campus.
Moreover, this time you can test the statement in ways that depend on
the five senses and get results that are again intersubjectively transmissible.
That is, people will be able to agree whether or not the statement is true
based on the test and the test alone. We could simply do a survey of all
students on the campus or even a reasonable sample of them and SEE if in FACT
they do feel that democracy is the best form of government. We'll talk more
about doing surveys and samples later on.
3. Relationships between values and facts in science
If you think about the three examples I just gave you, you may already
see that a relationship exists between value statements and fact statements. We
can often take a value statement that is not directly testable and approximate
it with a related fact statement that is testable. If by "better" we
mean higher incomes, or less illiteracy, or more indoor bathrooms or whatever,
we can do some observation and testing.
If you think about this some more, you realize that the next question is
whether or not we can ever FULLY test and prove a value statement by testing
all conceivably related fact statements. As you might guess, this is another
question on which many disagree. I would tend to say that the answer is no,
because no matter how many tests of "better" we might come up with,
someone can think of another. It's kind
of like the concept of mathematical infinity‑‑you keep trying, but
you never can get there. You can always add one more.
II. Ideology
Ideology is a term that is used a great deal in politics and in the
study of politics. Ideology is related to the idea of theory. Because we will be using the term ideology in
this course and because you will be seeing this term the rest of your lives,
you should know what it means and have some appreciation of the powerful role
it plays in politics.
A lot of people use the term "ideology." You hear them talking
about "the left," or liberals, and "the right," or
conservatives, but few know what these ideas really mean. Studies have shown
that about a third of the American population don't understand or use the
terms, about a third use them but have the meanings mostly wrong, and about a
third use the terms and are at least in the ball park on the meanings. By the
end of this course, I hope you'll be in box seats and really understand the
action.
A. Definitions
Ideology, much like the other major terms we have been talking about,
can be defined in several ways. Let's
start with a dictionary definition, and then we'll go from there. Dictionary definitions are often not very
good to use in specialized fields, but this one is not bad.
"The integrated assertions, theories, and aims constituting a
politico‑social program, often with an implication of factitious propagandizing;
as, Fascism was altered in Germany
to fit the Nazi ideology" (Webster's New International Dictionary (2nd ed.),
1948).
Using a more specialized dictionary is usually better when you are
dealing in specialized fields like political science. Read the following
definition and compare it to the one above.
"The 'way of life' of a people reflected in their political system,
economic order, social goals, and moral values. Ideology is particularly
concerned with the form and role of government and the nature of a state's
economic system. Ideology is the means by which the basic values held by a
party, class, group, or individual are articulated" (Jack Plano and Milton
Greenberg, The American Political Dictionary (6th ed.), New York: Holt,
Rinehart, and Winston, 1982, p.10).
Both of these definitions have an "action" oriented content,
seem to apply to some kind of national grouping, and both involve goals for the
nation. Robert Lane,
in a quite important book entitled Political Ideology, argues that ideologies have a
number of defining characteristics. They deal with important
fundamental political questions, such as who should rule and how they
should rule. Ideologies are in the form of an argument designed to
persuade nonbelievers. Ideologies are programmatic (as seen in the above
definitions) in their goals. This means they are aimed at changing or reforming
major social and/or political institutions. Ideologies often rationalize
group interests so as to give some group advantages over other groups. That
means they are often selfish. Ideologies give a moral underpinning to group
advantages. That takes us to the next point. Ideologies have an ethical moral tone that is
religious in its flavor. Ideologies often have a set of heroes and
sacred documents or events that serve as sources of inspiration, almost like
religious relics (1962, pp. 14‑15).
I know this is quite complicated, so let me finally give you a short
simple definition of my own. I think it captures most of these ideas.
Ideology is a
socially and/or politically reinforced system of beliefs that tells us how to
define and interpret reality and directs our actions.
To illustrate, think about American free market capitalism or your religion
as an ideology. You should be able to show how either of these systems of
beliefs does each of the things implied in the definition. In fact, having you
do so would make a wonderful essay question on a test or an excellent in‑class
essay.
B. Difference from theory and relationship to theory
Ideology is similar to the idea of theory. Both can involve
values, both attempt to explain reality to us, and both can make predictions
about what is going to happen.
However, ideology is also quite different from theory in that
ideology is closed to change. New evidence does not alter the beliefs in an
ideological system. Any new or contradictory evidence that may arise is
reinterpreted or rejected so that the beliefs of the ideology remain firm.
How do Americans deal with the reality that other nations have higher
growth rates, higher savings rates, lower infant mortality rates, longer life
expectancies, higher literacy rates, and lower crime rates than we do? We deal with these realities in a number of
ways. We play down these uncomfortable facts by emphasizing other facts, like
price and abundance of consumer goods or military might. Or we ignore them. Or
we think that our failures are only temporary or due to unfair economic
practices by other nations. How do you deal with them? Do you use them to
question the dominant American ideology? This is another good question to think
about, and maybe even write about.
Illustration: the "end of
ideology" debate
Back in the 1950s, a number of the political scientists, whom we earlier
classified as behavioralists, argued that the need for any ideology was coming
to an end. They looked around the world and saw that most nations had rejected
the extreme ideologies of the past, such as fascism or the divine right of
kings. They saw the communist ideology as in decline in its inability to deal
with fundamental economic problems. They were certainly right about that. They
also saw that in most western democratic industrialized nations people had few
strong feelings about politics. They concluded that modern technology as
invented by Americans had conquered or was in the process of conquering nearly
all problems, especially the problems of economic scarcity and inequality. Most
ideologies of the past seemed driven by the need to solve these problems. Now
that the problems were being solved, people didn't need these ideologies and
were not attracted to them. Political scientists felt that politics would
become more and more subservient to technology and modern management. The
spirit of this theme was captured in a book written by political scientist
Daniel Bell
entitled The End of Ideology (1960).
Of course, as you now know with the benefit of historical hindsight, Bell and the
behavioralists were wrong on a lot of their predictions. Our technology and
modern management did not keep us out of a very unpopular war that shook the
very foundations of American beliefs: the Vietnam War. Nor did it solve the
problems of racial prejudice. We are still in that struggle. Nor did it keep
other nations from engaging in wars driven by the power of nationalistic
ideologies. We have avoided nuclear war, but ideologies that stress ugly
selfish notions of ethnic purity have led to many small wars all over the
globe. The new world order that we hoped for after the thaw of the cold war
turned out to be new world disorder where terrorists seem to be running amuck.
In short, the behavioralists
blew it. They were mistaken in that they failed to see that their own belief
and faith in American pragmatism and technology and support of moderate
politics had itself become an ideology to which they had become committed.
The result of this was that they became blind to the problems that we faced.
They found those problems all too easy to rationalize away. To put this another
way, these political scientists were no longer unbiased objective observers.
They became committed to their own theories of how democracy did work. Without
their being aware of it, their EMPIRICAL theories of how democracy DID work
in America
became NORMATIVE theories of how democracy SHOULD work. This is an
important point. Go back and read it again. Make sure you understand it. If you
do, you should now see the relationship between theory and ideology‑‑when
you become committed to your empirical theory, you have turned it into an
ideology.
III. Examples of Normative Theory
In reading and (hopefully) thinking about the two examples of theorists
I will be using to illustrate normative theory, you should keep in mind that
their work is actually a mixture of both kinds of theory, normative and
empirical. The reason I present them as normative theorists is that their major
emphasis is on normative matters. However, empirical observations of the
world around them inspired the norms they wrote about.
A. Karl Marx
Karl Marx is worth talking about for a variety of reasons. If this class
is the only political science course you ever take, I would argue that Marx
should be covered in some part of the course. Why? Certainly I am NOT trying to
make all of you into Marxists. In fact, late in his life after he saw what many
people were doing to his philosophy, theories, and ideas, Marx himself
declared, "I am not a Marxist!"
You should know about Marx to appreciate how his ideas have been used
and changed by others. You should know about Marx because the nation that was
the major opponent of the U.S. in world politics for nearly a half century
after World War II was based on Marx's theories (again, greatly modified into
what is called "Marxism‑Leninism"). It is wise to know ones
opponent.
On another level, you should know about Marx because he lends insight
into real problems that we face in our everyday lives. In terms of political
science, he identified concepts that play an important role in many theories.
He influenced virtually every other political philosopher that has followed,
whether in adopting his theories or in attempting to refute them. In short,
Marx is very important because knowledge about him may be useful to you in your
life.
1. Life and times
One of the things I noticed in teaching a few introductory level
political philosophy courses is that you can understand much of what each of
the major philosophers wrote about if you look at their personal lives and
circumstances. This probably shouldn't be any great surprise, because if you
think about it, you spend most of your time considering the problems that you
yourself face. Marx was no exception. If you understand his personal
motivations, you can understand a great deal about his ideas.
His family life greatly affected his attitudes. He was born into a
German Jewish family that suffered religious and political persecution. His
father lost his law practice because of religious discrimination. He attempted
to recover his job by converting to Christianity. Is it any wonder that Marx
was no supporter of organized religion? His father was humiliated by political
authorities when their thugs dragged him out of his house and forced him to
publicly renounce his political ideas. How do you think seeing all this would
affect a young boy?
Marx was no lover of the existing economic order. Marx lived when the
Industrial Revolution was beginning to gather steam. Feudalism was on the wane
and capitalism was on the rise. Great factories were being built and fortunes
were being amassed. Large cities were being populated by masses of people who
could no longer survive on farms that were growing smaller and smaller as
population grew.
Life in these cities and in these factories in the mid 1800s was utterly
miserable, squalid, unsafe, and short. Children as young as seven or eight
years of age worked from before dawn until after dark seven days a week. Some
hardly ever saw daylight for the rest of their lives. The new machinery was
literally deafening, deforming, and dangerous to life and limb. If you were
hurt and unable to work any longer, you were doomed to beg in the sewage filled
streets for the miserably yet mercifully few remaining years of your life. If
you complained about your work, thousands of unemployed were willing to take
your place. If you tried to organize other workers to protest conditions, those
who ran the factories would call in the political authorities. They would bring
in the troops to break your heads and drive you away. You would certainly lose
your job and perhaps your life as well. Is it any wonder that Marx was critical
of some of the aspects of capitalism?
2. Central ideas
Marx was a prolific writer who used many complicated words and sentences
to talk about things that are not as hard to understand as you might think. I
want to review some of the major ideas that are central to his theory.
a. Economic determinism
Marx argued that economics determines almost everything else in any
society. When you hear someone say that "money talks" or that
"it's not what you know, but who you know," they are agreeing with
Marx. Economics, or the distribution of material goods and the means to produce
those goods, was the basis for political power, social power, and even
religious power. Where would the television evangelists be without all the
contributions they bring in?
Marx argued that the economic distribution of goods determined how we
think, determined our very CONSCIOUSNESS about the world around us. If you
remember, this pretty nearly describes what earlier I called ideology.
We defined ideology as telling us how to perceive reality and how to evaluate
it and what to do. So Marx argued that economics plays a big role in
determining the ideology we believe.
Let me give you a quick example. From the "money game or
red/black" simulation, most of you concluded that we distrust each other
and compete with each other rather "naturally." Marx would say that this is not really
natural at all. Rather, it is the result of the economics of our society that
teaches (or brainwashes or socializes) us to think that this kind of behavior
is natural. The naturalness of competition as an explanation of human behavior
is part of the American capitalist ideology, which is in turn a result of our
economic system.
b. Dialectics
Dialectics is an idea that Marx borrowed from earlier philosophers and
modified to use in his own theories. Most basically dialectics refers to conflict
and change. The idea has three major parts. First, the beginning point is
some dominant force or idea called the thesis. The thesis is challenged by a counterforce or opposing
force called the antithesis. Finally, a new result that comes out of
the ensuing struggle is called the synthesis. Then the process begins all over again with
the synthesis becoming the new thesis.
You should not be surprised that Marx saw the most important theses in
economic terms. The dynamic process of one economic thesis being challenged and
replaced with a synthesis resulting in a new economic thesis was called
"dialectical materialism."
c. Stages of history and
"seeds of destruction"
Using dialectical materialism, Marx set out to explain the evolution of
human history, and more importantly, to predict the future. Up to this point, he really sounds more like
an empirical theorist. That is, he was describing the world around him based on
his observations, seeking explanations for why things were the way they were.
But as you shall see, the tone of what he does makes him somewhat more of a
normative theorist. By "tone," I mean his view of the desirability of
the predictions he makes and his advice on what we SHOULD do to help bring
those ends about. In fact, the degree of commitment he had turns him into an
ideologist as well.
In any case, Marx saw himself as doing for human history the same thing
that Darwin did
for biology‑‑scientifically describing its evolution. Using the
terminology of dialectical materialism, let us look at each of the major stages
he described and predicted. For each dominant thesis, Marx saw the antithesis
as coming from some internal weakness, what he called a
"contradiction." These contradictions ultimately led to the downfall
of that particular stage. In his terms, contradictions planted the "seeds of destruction" for each
particular thesis.
1) Primitive Agrarian Economy
The economy (THESIS) in this earliest stage of human history was based
on small units--often families--that wandered, hunted, and gathered food in
order to survive. The internal contradiction or problem that existed was that
this arrangement could not produce enough food to survive. The challenge to
this arrangement (ANTITHESIS) came from larger units that banded together and
were able to produce more food and absorb the smaller units through conquest.
The SYNTHESIS was growth of larger tribes with a new kind of economy based on
their successful conquests.
2) Slave Economy
The THESIS here is the synthesis of the last stage: tribes that use the
labor of slaves to produce the necessities of life. This time the ANTITHESIS
came from the outside and forced changes. Barbarian hordes attacked and
prevailed over the existing slave economy. The barbarians were successful in
part because the slave economy was not good at military self‑defense.
Slaves had little reason to defend their masters whole heartedly. The SYNTHESIS
was a new kind of arrangement that was based on the need for military self‑defense.
Slaves were upgraded to serfs, a slight improvement in their status that made
them more willing to fight when attacked. The other key point was that feudal
manors were economically self‑sufficient, as they had to be if they were
to withstand attack.
3) Feudal Economy
The success of the THESIS of the feudal economy in providing military
self‑defense created opportunities for enterprising serfs to upgrade
their status and eventually challenge the aristocrats who ran the feudal
economy. Military security enabled some serfs to engage in trade and commerce
so that they could better their status by providing better goods to
aristocrats. The aristocrats didn't compete with these enterprising serfs for
two reasons. First, they felt it to be below their station in life to engage in
commerce. The art of war was their calling. Second, they enjoyed the new
luxuries that were being made available to them by this trade and
commerce.
Thus, a new class of people arose who challenged the aristocrats'
political dominance (ANTITHESIS), the bourgeoisie.
This group was more and more successful in wringing concessions from the
aristocrats. The result (SYNTHESIS) was to be a new order where this new class
controlled not only the economy but also the government‑‑capitalism.
The aristocrats might retain titles and be used to maintain legitimacy for
governments, but their powers were mostly symbolic.
Marx was doing his writing during the period of this struggle between
the aristocrats and the capitalists. Because Marx felt that capitalism was a
necessary stage, he was highly supportive of the capitalists. In fact, the
aristocrats ran Marx out of several countries for being a radical
pro-capitalist! This is a great irony, considering how we think of Marx today.
4) Capitalism
Most of Marx's analysis was focused on this stage of history, a stage
that was only coming into existence when Marx was alive. The THESIS was, of
course, that those who owned the factories and corporations controlled all
aspects of society. The ANTITHESIS was the result of several problems that this
kind of economic arrangement would cause. Let us briefly examine several of his
key points.
a) exploitation and surplus
value
The capitalists wished to extract as much profit from their enterprises
as they could. Given that there was a surplus of labor (serfs displaced by
modern agricultural techniques), they could pay them barely enough to
physically survive. If the ex‑serfs, now factory workers didn't
survive or didn't like it, replace them with other willing workers‑‑exploitation. Because labor produced
goods that were worth far more than what labor was paid, a great deal of money
could be plowed back into the enterprise to improve technology and produce more
goods at lower costs. This difference between pay and price was called surplus value. Of course, more machines
meant fewer jobs for the unskilled masses and therefore higher unemployment and
lower wages.
b) boom and bust cycles
Free market economies have always gone through what economists call
economic cycles. Economists have described and analyzed these cycles in many
ways. What these cycles all seem to have in common is that times of economic
boom are followed by times of economic bust. Of course, those who suffer most
during busts are those who are the first to lose their jobs, the workers, or
the proletariat, as Marx called
them. So the workers are those who are hurt first and most by economic cycles.
c) alienation
In addition to all these physical problems, workers would also suffer
psychological problems in the capitalist economy. In order to understand this,
you must first understand Marx's view of human nature. To put it simply, people
are by their nature creative beings. Unlike other animals, people
have the ability to imagine, plan, create, and dispose. To
prevent people from engaging in these creative activities was to prevent them
from realizing their nature. Alienate means separate. So if you are separated
from your essential nature by capitalism, we could say that capitalism takes
you and alienates you from yourself.
Capitalism alienated workers in several ways. Workers were prevented
from imagining or planning what they made. They were assigned to precise tasks
that were predetermined by others. Factories broke the productive process down
into such small tasks that workers lost all sense of meaningful creation.
Workers had no say or control over the disposal of the things they made. In
short, workers sold their humanity for most of their waking hours simply in
order to subsist.
Marx further argued that this endless inhumane cycle trapped others as
well. The cycle also trapped the capitalists. The ideology of growth and
production prevented the capitalists from ever truly enjoying the fruits of
their enterprises. You may have known a few successful businessmen to whom the
following quotation from Marx applies.
"The less you eat, drink, and read
books; the less you go to the theater, the dance hall, the public house; the
less you think, love, theorize, sing, paint, fence, and so on, the more you
SAVE‑‑the greater becomes your treasure which neither moths nor
dust will devour‑‑your CAPITAL. The less you ARE; the more you
HAVE. ... All passions and all activity
must therefore be submerged in GREED."
(emphasis added)
These are powerful and appealing ideas that many social scientists have
found useful in understanding human behavior. By themselves they represent a
major contribution from Marx. They can also be useful to you in thinking about
the kind of job you want for yourself. They suggest several questions you
should ask yourself and prospective employers when you are looking for a job.
Perhaps these ideas suggest a difference between a job and a career. Think
about it!
d) class consciousness
The net result of all these problems was that the proletariat would
eventually become self‑aware of their problems and status as a group.
They would blame the system and those who run it. Marx saw his job as one of
promoting this self‑consciousness and awareness. Although he saw societal
evolution to the next stage as inevitable, he wanted to hurry the next stage
along as much as possible because of the inhumanity of the capitalist stage.
This desire and his ethical disapproval of capitalism and approval of the next
stages are what make him a normative theorist. The change would come about
through a worker's revolution and the SYNTHESIS would be the next stage,
socialism.
I need to add one point here. Although Marx thought that this revolution
would likely be a violent one, he also felt that nonviolent means could
possibly bring about this change in nations such as Great
Britain and the U.S. In these nations workers
could effectively use the ballot box to bring about change.
5) Socialism‑‑the "dictatorship of the
proletariat"
Here is where Marx really begins to become vague. Once the workers have
successfully taken over, the process of dialectics comes to an end because
there are no more internal contradictions. This is because of two factors.
First, the stage of capitalism solved the problem of scarcity. Means are
available to produce sufficient goods for everyone. Of course, that is one
reason why capitalism was such a necessary stage from Marx's point of view.
Second, after people are forced to share for a while, their consciousness
changes. They no longer are greedy and selfish. They begin to use only what
they need. They more fully enjoy what they have. People produce for creative
reasons rather than for acquisitive reasons. Everyone must do some time on the
assembly line, but the burden is shared so no one minds too much.
6) Communism ‑‑ the "state withers away"
After this new consciousness has been created, no one needs to force
anyone to do anything anymore‑‑thus the state that began the
process and enforced the new rules "withers away." Politics is
replaced by routine administration. In this utopian state that Marx saw as
inevitable, man would work in the factory in the morning, hunt and fish in the
afternoon, and discuss philosophy or art or literature at night. Sounds nice!
d. Evaluation
1) Where Marx was correct
Marx deserves a great deal of credit for what he accomplished.
Specifically, I would credit him as being correct in several ways.
* He identified a number of important variables that can be used to understand
political behavior, e.g. alienation, economics, and consciousness.
* He gave us a fairly reasonable descriptive theory about PAST stages of
political history, although many would debate him on specific points and
details.
* He identified and explained several of the problems that did and still
in fact do exist in capitalist systems‑‑problems that are great
enough to lead to political upheavals if not solved or reduced‑‑boom
and bust cycles, for example.
* He was correct in some of his
predictions about what would happen in western democratic capitalist nations.
He said they would adopt programs to help those who were temporarily unemployed‑‑unemployment
compensation. He said they would help workers who were hurt on the job. We do.
So we have worker's compensation. He said they would care for those who were
too old to work. We have social security.
2) Where Marx was incorrect
Despite these correct predictions and valuable contributions, he was
also wrong in a number of important ways.
* Socialist revolutions did not
take place in capitalist nations, but rather in feudal nations (Russia and China). Of course, Marx might argue
that these were not really socialist revolutions. But he was long dead when
these events took place.
* His prediction that the family as a social unit would disappear.
Perhaps the family is weaker than it once was and different kinds of families
are being created. But the family certainly still exists in both capitalist
nations that have adopted some socialist measures voluntarily and in those
nations that underwent socialist revolutions.
* He underestimated the flexibility of capitalism to make concessions to
workers and their organizations (unions) without destroying the principle of
private ownership. Roosevelt's New Deal
policies that resulted in a mixed economy may have saved capitalism from the
revolution (whether violent or nonviolent) that Marx had predicted.
* He failed to appreciate that technology could be used to create new
and more meaningful jobs that could replace the alienation of the assembly
line. These changes have created new problems as well as new opportunities. We
must be careful that we don't simply replace blue collar sweatshops with white
collar sweatshops in our new service oriented economy. But regardless of our
own wisdom, this is not a situation that Marx foresaw.
3) A mixture of normative and
empirical theory
As you can see from this discussion, Marx can be seen as both an
empirical theorist and as a normative theorist. I would argue that the balance
is more in the normative direction. In fact, his empirical approach may even be
seen as a political tactic that aided him in his normative goals.
"Beneath
his veneer of scientific detachment ‑‑ a thick veneer and useful‑‑we
find a deep, bitter, and possible confused moral indignation that human beings
were being used in the industrial process as mere economic commodities (Lee McDonald,
Western
Political Theory, p.51)."
B. Herbert Marcuse
Marcuse is another German emigre, but this time one who came to the United States.
Marcuse was considered very influential during the 1960s and early 70s. He is a
more perfect example of a normative theorist than Marx. However, as we shall
see, some of his insights are of an empirical nature. He was greatly influenced
by Marx's ideas on how our consciousness is formed by society. He applied these
ideas to the modern technological society in which he lived.
1. Reality and artificiality
Marcuse looked around him and saw many people spending their lives in
meaningless ways pursuing unfulfilling goals that were never truly satisfying
even if achieved. As a result of this partially empirical observation,
Marcuse's principal concern was to decide what things are truly important
in our lives. The terms employed in this statement‑‑"truly"
and "important"‑‑obviously take us to normative concerns
that cannot be fully empirically tested.
He decided that a useful distinction to make in dealing with this
problem was to determine those things that were "real" and those
things that were "artificial." For Marcuse, real things were those
things and ideas that would exist whether or not society existed to create them.
Examples of such real things are feelings like love, compassion, and loyalty,
objects of beauty, notions of truth, and activities that involve creation. He
felt we were missing too much of these kinds of things in our lives. On the
other hand, the overemphasis of the artificial creations of society was
making us miserable and unfulfilled.
2. Ideology and the creation of artificial things
The principal mechanism that created these artificial things in any
society was its ideology. Marcuse felt that any ideology created categories
or classifications to which are attached positive and negative evaluations and
that society then uses these categories to manipulate and control our behavior.
The end result is that we end up pursuing goals that are more in the interest
of the society than in our own self‑interest. We are turned into
"one‑dimensional" people (to use his terminology), who deny
ourselves the real pleasures of life in order to pursue membership into
meaningless artificial categories. (By
the way, if some of this sounds similar to "generic politics," I am
pleased, because that means that you are beginning to relate and compare the
ideas I am introducing to you.)
Let me illustrate with a brief example that may help you to understand
what Marcuse was talking about. The grades I and other professors will give you
are artificial categories that obviously have positive and negative values
attached to them. You struggled to get into the artificial category of student
(high school grades, SAT ordeals, scraping together tuition) so that you could
struggle for membership into other artificial categories (good student with
good grades, sophomore, junior, senior, graduation with honors). Waiting on the
other side of that longed for college degree are other new artificial
categories that will occupy your time and energy (graduate school, law school,
medical school, professional licenses, job titles, promotions). The struggle
ends when you have a heart attack at the ripe old age of 45 or 50. If you
survive all of that, eventually society forces you into another artificial
category--retired. "Retired" signifies such negative things as worn
out, useless, waiting to die, can't keep up anymore. You no longer are supposed
to use those skills you have spent a lifetime in acquiring. In some cases you
are even forced to sign an agreement to refrain from being a professional
anymore in order to get the retirement benefits you have already earned. I have
a relative who had to agree not to do any further accounting work as a
condition of his retirement from a large CPA firm. Relatively few people are
able to overcome these negative images. We admire those who do as making the
most of their "golden years." Those who do not overcome these insults
usually decline in health and morale and die.
What gets lost in this ongoing struggle (sometimes called the "rat race")? You lose truth and
knowledge when you get into the grade struggle. You may lose your family and
kinship ties when you get out of school and get into the corporate struggle.
Ultimately, you lose your life and the most important pleasures of life.
Marcuse said that we continually sacrifice the "pleasure principle"
for the more artificial goals society places in front of us. If this seems sad
and depressing to you, then you get Marcuse's point.
3. Normative stance‑‑rejection of artificial things
So what should we do about all of this? If you consider much of the
above as empirical observations about the condition of life in modern society,
then here is where Marcuse really gets normative. He tells us what we SHOULD
do. His prescription is remarkably simple. Yet, at the same time it is remarkably
difficult because of all the disapproval you would get from parents, relatives,
friends, and even from professors like me if you really followed his
advice. Marcuse advocates that you
"negate" all of these
artificial things by refusing to pursue them anymore. In short, he wants us
to have a revolution by dropping out. He suggests that the most revolutionary
thing you can do is to say "NO!"
His was one of the first "just say NO," campaigns, but it was
not aimed at drugs. It was aimed at the artificial demands of society.
Some years ago I had a student who read some Marcuse after hearing me
talk about him and took all of this to heart. He decided to not turn in the
final couple of papers that were required, and consequently flunked the course
when he had an "A" up to that point.
Although I was sorry to flunk him, I admired his sense of integrity and
felt that to give him anything else other than an F would be an insult to his
sincerity. He was certainly the best F student I have ever had‑‑I
certainly hope he has found real happiness.
4. Technological Society‑‑the villain
According to Marcuse, the villain in our lives is technological society and
the ideology created to fuel the continuation of that society. If we all didn't
struggle to obtain the material signs of praised categories, we wouldn't have
sufficient demand for the products we spend our lives struggling to produce in
mass quantities. Marcuse suggests that we could do without many of the things
we think we need. Moreover, he argues that we would be better off without them.
5. Prescription‑‑"negation"‑‑revolution
by dropping out
The revolution of negation and dropping out was very much in vogue among
those in the 1960's generation when they were going through their formative
years. Some dropped out seriously and started utopian communities that provided
fulfillment. Only a very few of these communities have survived. Unfortunately,
at least for Marcuse, many drop-outs were more superficial. They dropped out in
an unthinking way. They dropped out as a lark in part because it was the
"in" thing to do. Others did it simply as a cop‑out for their
inability to compete and win in the "rat race." If you read between
the lines of the comic strip "Doonesbury" or talk to a few people who
are now in their 40s and 50s, you can pick up the strains of these ideas and
feelings. Perhaps the best popular movie to capture the feelings of Marcuse was
"The Graduate," starring Dustin Hoffman.
6. Evaluation‑‑more pure normative theory
Marcuse was important to my generation‑‑perhaps that is why
I included him in this discussion. He still lends some insight into the lifelong
struggles to which society asks you to commit yourself. Many of his
observations are empirical in nature. We can observe and measure
dissatisfaction with modern life. However, his prescriptions are clearly
normative. Unlike Marx, he does not see his revolution of negation as
inevitable. We must make it happen in our own individual lives. This lack of
predictive theory places him in a more purely normative category than Marx.
C. Other examples
Many political philosophers fall into the normative category. We
mentioned several of them in the first module in which we discussed the history
and evolution of political science: Aristotle, St. Augustine, and the contract theorists
(Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau). If you take a course in classical political
theory, you will learn about many more‑‑some of whom may speak to
problems and concerns in your own life and perhaps even suggest new paths to
explore.
IV. Examples of Empirical Theory
In this section, we will focus on the first really great empirical
political scientist, Machiavelli. You already met him in the first module
because he played such an important role in the development of political
science. Now we will look at a number of his ideas. They are important because
they constitute excellent advice on how to effectively play the game of
politics we all must play. In a sense, he advises us all on how we can be
successful "princes" in whatever parts of our lives involve power. We
shall also briefly look at a few other examples. As you read, keep in mind that
the goal of empirical theory is to describe, explain, and predict actual
political behavior, not tell us how we SHOULD behave.
A. Machiavelli‑‑the
first empirical political scientist
You met Machiavelli in the first module on the history and evolution of
political science. The work for which we know him best is called The Prince. It concerns his observations
about the realities of politics and political behavior and the keys to
successful political behavior. Many people have negative interpretations of
Machiavelli which typically charge that he cares only about what works‑‑that
the end justifies the means.
However, a more unusual interpretation rests on positive normative values
underlying his empirical observations: a commitment to peace and prosperity and
preference of means that minimize violence. That is the interpretation we shall
use here. It probably does not matter which interpretation is correct in the
sense of what Machiavelli intended to mean. This second interpretation, whether
historically correct or not, is more useful to us today. It gives us good
advice on how to act in a way that is consistent with our cultural values.
Nevertheless, Machiavelli's concerns are primarily empirical in nature. Even
his defense of these values is an empirical one: success is more likely for
those princes that promote peace and prosperity and minimize violence in
pursuing those goals.
How important is Machiavelli? Perhaps the best testimony comes from the
same Lord Acton who worried about the corrupting effects of power. "The
authentic interpreter of Machiavelli is the whole of later history."
1. Machiavelli's world (1469‑1527)
We don't know much about Machiavelli's early life, except that he was
born in 1469 in a middle class family and had a pretty good education for that
time. He was well read in the Greek classics and in history, if we judge by
references in his writings.
a. The Renaissance
He lived during the birth of the Renaissance, a time in which new ideas
and new worlds were discovered and explored. People were beginning to question
absolute rule and absolute truths. His inquisitive mind and keen sense of
observation might have been wasted had he been born a hundred years earlier.
Unfortunately for him, his skills might have been better used had he been born
a hundred years later when the Renaissance was in full bloom.
b. Florence
He was born in the city state of Florence
during a time of extreme political unrest. The political control of the
Catholic Church was under challenge, and political alliances among the city
states were changing at a fast pace. Florence
itself was a center of political activity and intellectual ferment. It was
called the second Athens
in that it was home to many giants such as Dante, Michelangelo, and Leonardo da
Vinci.
c. Professional career‑‑diplomat and writer
Machiavelli got his start in politics as a matter of luck. One of this
former professors at the University
of Florence had become a
chancellor in the republican government that was formed after the fall of the
Medici family who had ruled the city state. He was hired as a diplomat. He
traveled on horseback, often over 30 miles a day, meeting with other diplomats,
negotiating, and writing reports to his superiors back in Florence. Estimates are that during this time
he traveled over 30,000 miles on these missions. Not only did he witness plots,
intrigue, revolts, and wars, he himself was often threatened. He went beyond
simply reporting what happened, but also evaluated the personal strengths and
weaknesses of those he observed. During this period he became a keen and
insightful judge of political skill and character.
Machiavelli's luck ran out when the Florentine Republic
fell and the Medici family came back to power. The new rulers fired him, then
arrested and tortured him after accusing him of being part of a plot against
the Medici family. He survived and was freed under an amnesty. He spent the
next several years trying to get back into government service. This required
that he gain the favor of the Medici family. He wrote letters, asked friends to
intervene on his behalf, and even sent a bound copy of The Prince to Lorenzo de Medici.
Machiavelli's efforts were to no avail. He lived the rest of his life as
a political outcast. He spent his days tending to his small farm outside Florence, writing about
the world of politics in which he wished to live, and spent his evenings with
his favorite prostitutes. Although he was not lucky, we are lucky from his ill
fortune. This involuntary early retirement allowed him the time to write the
works that we find so useful.
2. Forces at work in the world
During his career Machiavelli observed the nature of the world of
politics. The patterns he saw seemed to be the result of certain forces at work
in the world.
a. Chaos
He saw change all around him. Institutions and arrangements that many
thought to be permanent rarely lasted very long. In other words, the political
world is filled with chaos, with constant change, with constant rise and fall.
b. Fortuna
The force of luck seemed to play a great role in political life.
"I'd rather be lucky than good" seemed to be a reasonable explanation
for what happened to political leaders. Too many things were outside of
anyone's control to always be successful. You have certainly seen this factor
at work in your own life. It can cut both ways. A test gets canceled that you
were not ready for. If fortuna works the other way, you have a household crisis
on the evening you were going to study for that big test.
c. Entropy‑‑things
tend to come apart
This may be the most powerful force in the universe. No matter how hard
you try, things deteriorate to a state of randomness. This applies to the socks
in your dresser drawer and to your business files or school notes. It takes all
our energy to keep things in order, and the moment we turn our energies to
something else, they come apart again.
I took a semester away from a small research organization I had spent
years creating here on campus. When I returned, I found the group was in debt
and files and records in chaos. The next year of effort finally got the
organization back to where we had been 3 years earlier. Just when I had all my
players on my youth soccer team working together in positions in which they
were comfortable, a key player missed three weeks. This forced changes that
hurt team performance. A few years later the two best returning players from a
team that seemed destined to win the championship moved away. If you get uncomfortable
when things are really going well‑‑too well‑‑you know
something of the force of entropy. Can you think of examples from your own
life?
One is reminded in looking at the presidential election of 1992 of the
role of chaos, fortune, and entropy in modern political life. What looked like
a sure victory for President Bush after the military victory over Iraq in the winter of 1990 and after the breakup
of the USSR
looked much less certain in the fall of 1992. The new world order that Bush
took credit for was much more disorderly as new states fell into civil wars
fighting over ancient grievances. Things were coming apart. The economy that
appeared to be on the way to recovery in 1991 staggered and remained flat
during the summer and fall of 1992. Luck seemed against him. The recovery he
counted on did not take place.
Perhaps the most recent and relevant example today is our efforts to
combat the forces of entropy in Iraq.
The initial military victory seems to have been the easy part!
3. What can people do?
Does this mean that all is hopeless? Does this mean that trying is
pointless? Can we do nothing to help? Machiavelli, despite his own ultimate
failure, does not throw up his hands in despair. He just wants us to be fully
aware of what we are up against in politics and in life.
a. Develop the "virtu" to know the right "occasione"
to do what is "necessita" to bring about "ordini"
In this brief prescription are four important ideas. Virtu is the skill and intelligence to
figure out what should be done when. It does not come naturally, but comes
through study and discipline and courage. Occasione
is good timing. You must know when is the right time to do things. Doing the
right thing at the wrong time is as bad as doing the wrong thing. Machiavelli
was aware that recognizing when opportunity knocks is an important political
skill. Necessita is whatever must be
done in order to succeed. This is not the place for the faint hearted, because
sometimes necessary measures are painful. They can be painful to oneself and to
others. Finally, the skilled politician must know what measures will bring
about ordini, or peace and
prosperity. These are the normative goals that Machiavelli ultimately stands for.
b. Learn the rules of power
In order to succeed, one must learn about power, not shrink from power.
This is where many people fail, especially in the American culture where we
distrust power so much, fearing its corrupting influences.
1) How to get power
A variety of ways exist to obtain political power. They include intrigue
and plots, force and the use of arms, elections and campaigns. Each of these
means have certain risks and require certain skills. We will touch on a number
of these when we turn to the specific advice that Machiavelli gave.
2) How to most effectively use
power
The problem after winning power then becomes what to do with it. Many
more rulers and business leaders fail than succeed. In fact, it may be easier
to win power than to effectively use that power. In the movie, "The
Candidate," Robert Redford spends all of his energies winning political
office running against an entrenched incumbent. At his victory celebration, he
suddenly realizes that he does not know what to do with the victory. The movie
ends with him saying the words, "Now what?" Again, much of
Machiavelli's advice is an attempt to answer that question.
3) How to keep power
If knowing how to use power is difficult, knowing how to keep it in a
world that is filled with chaos, the winds of fortune, and the power of entropy
is even a greater problem. How many politicians fell just when they seemed to
have it made? Lyndon Johnson had one of the greatest election victories of all
time in 1964. Yet by 1968 he was so unpopular that he was forced to announce
that he was not running again. Richard Nixon had an equally great victory in
1972, and resigned in disgrace two years later. Many reasons explain these
falls. The explanations apply to nations just as to individuals. The U.S. won the
Cold War, yet we are talking about the decline of our power in the world and
our inability to solve problems at home. Machiavelli had much to say about how
to avoid falls from power.
c. Act‑‑where most people fail
Perhaps this is the greatest difference between those who are princes
and the rest of the people. Most people are content to sit passively by and
wait for others to take charge. Most are unwilling to use power even if it is
handed to them. This gives those who are willing to act a great advantage. They
will have little competition, and most opponents will be incompetent because
few know how to combine action and thought.
4. Rules for effectiveness
Now let us turn to some of the rules that Machiavelli left us in his
empirical observation of the political world. They are useful in understanding
the politicians we will always have around us. They are also useful in gaining,
using, and keeping power in our day‑to‑day lives.
a. Economize violence
"Yet
it certainly cannot be called virtu to murder his fellow citizens, betray his enemies,
to be devoid of truth, pity, or religion; a man may get power by these means,
but not glory." (Machiavelli)
If you use power, you will on occasion hurt someone. Teachers give low
grades. Supervisors give negative evaluations of employees. Bosses fire and
fail to hire in exercising the power to choose. Parents deprive children of
what they want and sometimes spank. You turn down people who ask you for social
engagements. Sports teams beat other teams. Governments imprison people and
fight wars. If the goal‑‑whether it be winning a game or making a
profit or protecting vital interests of a nation‑‑is worth
accomplishing, you must be willing to hurt someone in the process. If you are
not willing to confront that reality, you will be hurt, your business will go
bust, all employees will lose their livelihoods, none of your students will
learn, your children will not learn self‑control, or your nation will
suffer and perhaps fall. So if hurt is necessary, how much hurt?
Machiavelli believed that one should do as little harm as possible in
order to achieve your goal. Some is necessary, but to be "devoid" of
moral concern means you will fall short of "glory." The term
"glory" is normative in nature. It is a goal. It tells us what we
should do. An oriental proverb advises that if you cut off a dog's tail, you
should not cut it off an inch at a time. This is what Machiavelli tells us.
Hurt if you must, but minimize it. Don't rub defeat in the other team's face.
Be careful not to let corporal punishment of children become child abuse. Never
use more violence than necessary to achieve your goals.
Another reason exists to economize violence, a practical reason.
Economized violence works better. It does not create enemies seeking revenge.
It creates a reputation for moderation and self‑control. After all, the
team you embarrassed may get a second shot at you at some later date.
"What comes around goes around."
b. Engage in logical thinking
Most people find politics confusing. Most people throw up their hands in
despair and give up. Machiavelli taught that if we engage in clear logical
thinking we can understand what is going on, at least for short periods of
time. The fact that conditions are constantly changing (or as Machiavelli said,
"human affairs are always in motion") means that we must be
continually updating our analysis to stay on top of things.
This involves what is called reflective
thought. Reflective thought has three elements. First, it is active and
well-structured, not just idle speculation. That is, it takes great effort.
Second, it requires persistence. You doggedly pursue a solution until
you have it. You don't give up easily. Third, it requires that you gather as
much information as possible to bring to bear upon the problem. You need
facts.
For example, how much thought have you given to your choice of careers?
Do you know what beginning salaries are likely to be? Do you know about the
opportunities for advancement? Have you interviewed people who have been in
those kinds of careers for a long time?
Logical thinking is hard work. But it is necessary for success. No
wonder so few are successful in politics.
c. Seek and gain power
Because most people fear power and distrust it and because of our belief
in individual equality, an important popular cultural trait in American society
is to express disdain for power. Few people say they want power. And even if
they do, they pretend that they are not interested in power. Yet someone must
have it if anything is to be accomplished. Assuming you graduate from college
(a little over half of all high school grads attempt college, but only a little
less than a third actually complete college), chances are that you will have a
position of power over others at some point in your career. Even if you never
have any supervisory authority, you may be a parent, which gives you authority
over any children you may have. If you want to be part of a successful
enterprise or want to have a successful family, you must welcome authority and
the power that comes with it. Because without power you lose all control over
the destiny of your enterprise, whether it is a family or business or nation.
1) power over oneself
In order to be successful in exercising power over others, you must
first gain power over yourself. You must learn self‑discipline. You must
learn to defer gratification. You must learn to control your emotions. That comes
down to really simple things like not telling your spouse or friend "I
told you so," when they go against your advice and things go badly. It
comes down to not yelling at your kids when they really make you angry. It
means asking yourself whether what you say or do is constructive or whether it
is merely a way of bolstering your ego. Few succeed in this critical area.
2) two interpretations of
"might makes right"
You probably have heard this phrase. It is quite close to the argument
that we examined in the first module in which Thrasymachous argued with
Socrates that justice is defined by the stronger. Those who have power can tell
you what is right whether it really is or not. They can force you to act as
though you accept it, whether you really do or not. When a parent has no good
reason for what they want you to do, their explanation is "because I said
so." I have been guilty of this a number of times myself. Sometimes I say
it because I am simply too tired to argue with kids who have more energy to
argue, no matter how illogical their arguments. But sometimes I say it for
reasons that are much less defensible. I do not always exercise power over
myself.
Forcing people to accept your decision whether it is right or not is a clear
example of abuse of power. However, we can interpret the phrase a second way.
This second interpretation is consistent with the interpretation of Machiavelli
we have been using. It answers the question of why we should seek power. We
should seek power because having the might that power brings gives us the
ability to make things right. Power gives us the ability to solve problems,
to correct injustices, to reduce suffering. To use Machiavelli's words, power allows us to bring
about "ordini," to create peace and prosperity. Power is not good for
its own sake. Rather it is good for what it can accomplish. Those who seek
power for its own sake are those who are most likely to abuse it.
d. Study history and politics to avoid others' mistakes
History is filled with the wreckage of empires and failed leaders. You
can learn much from studying where others went wrong. If you are going into
business, you will want to understand what has happened to other similar
businesses. You will want to interview those who have both succeeded and those
who have failed. If you are going into politics, you need to study failed
politicians as well as successful ones. For example, Michael Dukakis's failed
presidential campaign of 1988 turned on several tragic mistakes. He allowed
charges and attacks to go unanswered. He allowed the Bush campaign to define
him in a negative way. He placed too much confidence in early polls that showed
him to be far ahead. He underestimated the ability of his opponent to come
back. He lost badly.
e. Be realistic about ones own strengths and weaknesses
This is a very tough piece of advice because it requires you to be
brutally frank with yourself. A number of interpersonal skills are important in
politics and in many occupations. Are you poised and self‑confident? Do
you make a good first impression? Can you think on your feet? Are you good in
debate formats when someone is trying to make you look bad? Can you give a good
speech? What kind of impression do you make in how you dress? Are you good at
remembering names? Can you make small talk? Are you friendly, or do you seem
aloof and seem to have a chip on your shoulder? Do you give the impression that
you are superior to others? Can you write clearly and persuasively? Are you
well organized? Do you think before you speak? Are you willing to admit that
you don't know something when you don't know it? The list could go on.
Two points are important here. First, you must ask yourself these kind
of questions and give yourself straight answers. Second, once you identify
weaknesses, work on them. A really great professional golfer said that he makes
it a point to practice the part of his game that is the weakest. He tries to
turn weakness into strength. Winston Churchill, who is remembered as a great
speaker, had to overcome a stuttering problem and a congenital lisp. He would
rewrite important speeches literally dozens of times and practice them many
times prior to delivery. I have found that one of the most painful things to do
is to watch or listen to a tape of myself speaking. Yet, even though it is
painful, it is always useful in that I learn how to improve the next time or
for the real performance.
f. Control your emotions
This goes along with the idea of exercising power over oneself. But
control is so important that it merits special mention. We have already spoken
of the emotion of anger. Most people understand the importance of controlling
anger. Controlling the opposite emotion of love is also important. Fewer people
understand this, and controlling love is much harder to do. Deciding not to
hurt ones enemy is easier to do than deciding to hurt ones friend. Hurting ones
friend is clearly immoral from the dominant western value system. But politics
has its own necessities.
Perhaps the politician who said this most clearly was Charles de
Tallyrand, who is best known for his long political survival. Tallyrand began
his career as an advisor to Louis XVI, survived the French Revolution and
worked in that government, served as the foreign minister to Napoleon and to
the restored King Louis XVIII who replaced the overthrown Napoleon, and
participated in the Revolution of 1830. His first loyalty was to the well-being
of France,
not to any one ruler. When Tallyrand saw a ruler failing, he would abandon
them. Tallyrand advised that "(I)n politics as elsewhere one must not love
too much; it confuses; it lessens the clarity of ones view‑‑and it
is not always counted to ones credit." He did not see political events in
moral terms, but rather in terms of what worked to bring about peace and
prosperity. When Napoleon had a political opponent executed, Tallyrand's
response revealed his priorities. "It is more than a crime; it is a
mistake." For Tallyrand, stability came first: "Stability frequently
adds something to perfection, (but) perfection itself cannot add anything to
stability."
Does this mean that you should turn against your friends? For
Machiavelli, the answer depends on what is at stake. He advises us to
"look to the end" in making decisions in the political world. Do not
mistake a friendly political relationship with a friendship.
"In the actions of all men, and especially
of princes who are not subject to a court of appeal, we must always look to the
end." (Machiavelli)
g. Understand that sometimes good can come from evil
"It
seldom happens that men rise from low conditions to high rank without employing
either force or fraud." (Machiavelli)
This may be the most difficult piece of advice of all. The process of
gaining power and using it to make right often means that people get hurt in
the process. We have already talked about this in discussing economizing
violence. This advice poses a classical dilemma much discussed by novelists.
For example, in what is perhaps the greatest of all American and Southern
political novels, William Penn Warren's All
the King's Men, the reader is faced with the question of whether good can
come out of evil. The main character, roughly based on Louisiana's Huey Long, uses all manner of
anti‑democratic means to wrest power away from the small selfish elite
who are running the state. He creates economic opportunity to the poor farmers
of the state. The price is corruption, payoffs, bribes, and in the novel, the
corruption of the leader. In real life, Long explained his tactics in terms of
fighting fire with fire. He felt he had no choice if he were to have any chance
of success. Ultimately, he paid a great price, his life. But that is another
lesson to which we shall turn shortly. Was it worth it?
Winston Churchill faced the same kind of dilemma in the tough decision
he had to make at Coventry
during World War II. The British had broken the German code. Churchill knew a
German bombing raid was scheduled on Coventry.
He knew he could save the lives of many innocent people if they evacuated. But
to do so would let the Germans know that the code was broken. Other valuable
military information might be lost, information that could be important in
winning the war. Churchill allowed the raid to take place and lives were lost.
Did he make the right decision? Can good come out of evil?
"For
it is the man who uses violence to spoil things, not the man who uses it to
mend them, who is blameworthy" (Machiavelli)
h. Understand the limits of power
Although power is a central tool of politics, power is far from perfect.
It has limits and dangers to those who are brave enough to use it. Let us look
at some of these limits and dangers.
1) excessive violence
You have already learned that excessive violence is to be avoided
because it is dysfunctional and because it violates the one norm that
Machiavelli does stand for, ordini, or peace and prosperity. However, using
violence has a second danger. Violence does damage to oneself. Every time we
use it we brutalize our own character a bit more. Excessive use turns us from
disciplinarians into child abusers. It turns us from strategic liars into
compulsive liars. Excessive violence corrupts our own characters.
2) excessive deception
"Thus a prudent prince cannot and should not keep his
word when to do so would go against his interest, or when reasons that made him
pledge it no longer apply" (Machiavelli)
At this point you should clearly see that Machiavelli, in talking about
violence, includes violence to the truth. Yet here as well, going too far can
extract a very heavy price. Credibility is one of the greatest assets any
politician, leader, businessperson, or parent can have. Once credibility is
lost, it cannot easily be regained. Witness the difficulty of President Bush
regaining his credibility in the 1992 presidential campaign after breaking his
famous "Read my lips‑‑no new taxes" pledge on 1988.
Witness the fall of Lyndon Johnson who lost his credibility on the Vietnam War
in the mid 1960s.
How far can you go? The Germans during World War II stretched lying to
its limits and beyond. Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's propaganda minister said that
"Truth is what I make it." However, objective reality eventually
caught up with him and Hitler. Continuing to convince the German people that
they were winning the war became difficult when bombs came raining down on them
in greater and greater numbers. Convincing the American people that we were
about to turn the corner in Vietnam and that we could see "light at the
end of the tunnel" became more difficult as more and more American
soldiers came home in body bags. Even the Soviet Union could not maintain the
lie that they were winning in Afghanistan
against the evidence of dead and wounded soldiers. This takes us to the next
point regarding power.
3) reputation
"It is good to appear merciful, truthful, humane,
sincere, and religious." (Machiavelli)
When you lie too much and cannot defend that lie to your people when
found out, or when you engage in gratuitous physical violence, your reputation
is damaged. Reputation is extremely important in politics.
Richard Neustadt, who wrote a famous book entitled Presidential Power, argued that a president has two reputations he
must guard most carefully. First, he must build and maintain a public
reputation. Second, he must worry about his reputation with other political
professionals. Why? Both of these reputations enable him to maximize the most
important power a president has, the power to persuade. He felt that the
power to persuade was really much more important than the power to command.
Think about it. Is this true in the business world as well? Is it true in your
family?
4) danger of Totalitarian power
"Yet it certainly cannot be called virtu to murder his
fellow citizens, betray his enemies, to be devoid of truth, pity, or religion;
a man may get power by means like these, but not glory" (Machiavelli)
In a totalitarian system the government exercises not only control over
actions, but also thought control. You not only have to obey, you have to like
it. Because totalitarian systems have no limits on what authorities can do,
authorities are more likely to feel the full corrupting effect of absolute power.
They are likely to engage in excessive use of physical violence and violence to
the truth. Peace and prosperity as goals become lost to the goal of maximizing
control. How can you be sure you have maximum control? By testing the
willingness of every subject to endure the worst--and liking it. No novel
captures this idea better than George Orwell's 1984. The book is based on Russia under Stalin. Power is taken
to its logical end of absolute corruption. In Oceania,
"Progress...will be progress towards more pain...If you want to see a
picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face‑‑forever."
5) the "paradox of means"
You may only be able to win a conflict by employing more ruthless
methods than you are currently using. But by doing so you challenge the other
side to also employ such methods. If they do, you may still lose, and the loss
will be much more damaging to you. Are you willing to endure such a loss? You
had better consider it BEFORE you escalate! So if you choose to distort and lie
about your opponent, consider that she or he may do the same to you. The nature
of the paradox is doing what is necessary to improve your chances of winning
may increase the costs of a loss.
i. Learn the values of your followers
"Ascertain what the people really
desire." (Machiavelli)
If you are to lead, you need to know what your potential followers care
about. You must pay honor to the values they have. You must get them to identify
with you. Therefore, you need to know their traditions, customs, fears, loves,
and hates. For example, Catherine the Great, one of the greatest rulers of Russia, was
German. She was chosen for political reasons as wife to the heir to the throne.
She learned the language, studied the culture, and even changed religions in
order to enable the people to identify with her. Getting the people to identify
with you is even more important in a democratic system, because people will
rarely vote for someone who doesn't seem to understand their lives and
problems. Thus, every candidate, not matter how wealthy, stresses humble
origins. Teachers who are successful in building popularity stress their
memories of being a student to their students.
j. Understand that few perfect answers exist
"No leader should ever suppose that he can invariably
take the safe course, since all choices involve risks. In the nature of things,
you can never try to escape one danger without encountering another; but
prudence consists of knowing how to recognize the nature of the different
dangers and in accepting the least bad as good." (Machiavelli)
If you spend your life looking for the perfect answer, the perfect job,
the perfect investment opportunity, the perfect car, or the perfect spouse, you
will inevitably be disappointed. You will be in danger of never taking action.
You will allow opportunities to pass you by. You may have heard the saying that
“the perfect is the enemy of the good.” That is what this is all about.
k. Be willing to confront when necessary.
"You should never let things get out of hand in order
to avoid a war. You don't avoid a war, you merely postpone it, to your own
disadvantage." (Machiavelli)
Someone who always avoids confrontations is sure to be in a worse
situation when the problem is no longer avoidable. This applies to many areas
of life: paying bills, telling the truth to ones friends or spouse; confronting
a bully; or dropping a course one is failing. Don't let things get out of hand.
Nixon let Watergate get out of hand. In 1992 Ross Perot may have been right in
saying that other political candidates were letting the budget deficit get out
of hand. This idea could be seen as a justification of the Iraq War – or for any
pre-emptive war – if you wait your enemy may develop weapons that could make a
war more costly later. Of course, that
danger must be balanced with other dangers, which are discussed below.
l. Be creative
"Men almost always prefer to walk in paths marked out
by others and pattern their thoughts through imitation."
(Machiavelli)
Though you can learn from others, the truly great leaders recognize and
adapt to changing times and take original courses of action. A good example
here are the "founding fathers," those who wrote the U.S.
Constitution in the summer of 1787. They borrowed what they could from other
nations, but they went beyond what had ever existed before. They created new
form of government, a federal system that was a compromise between a unitary
government with all of the power at the center, and a confederal system with
the power held by the states. New businesses that rest on creative ideas have
more potential than those that are mere copies of existing formats. Sam
Walton's Wal-Mart chain is a good example here. He created a new model.
m. Understand the difficulty of change
"Nothing is harder to manage, more risky in the
undertaking, or more doubtful of success than to set up as the introducer of a
new order...(because) such an innovator has as enemies all the people who were
doing well under the old order, and only halfhearted defenders in those who
hope to profit from the new." (Machiavelli)
One of the most difficult things to do in any organization is introduce
change. Suppose you are the new boss of a business that has not been making
sufficient profit, or one that has been under‑performing. No matter what
changes you introduce, you will make enemies because people feel threatened by
change. Unless you can produce quick positive results which benefit a
substantial number of your employees, you will certainly have more enemies than
supporters. Quick benefits are not always easy to produce.
A good example of this in politics is the relatively short rule of
Gorbachev in the USSR.
He introduced more change into that system than had taken place since the
Revolution of 1917. Yet despite that fact that he ended unpopular rule by the
communist party and opened up the system to competitive elections, the people
did not love him. He was hated by all those who had power and privilege under
the old system, and not trusted by those who hoped to do well under the new
system. Thus he found himself out of power soon after democratic forces foiled
a plot against him and the changes he had initiated.
A similar analysis can be made of President Clinton's efforts to create
a new health care system. Look back at the opening quotation in this section
and see how it applies to Clinton's
struggle. All those who opposed part of his plan joined together and the plan
died the death of a thousand cuts.
How about our efforts to create new orders in Afghanistan
and in Iraq? We certainly face enemies from the old order.
And how much can we count on the support of those who expect to profit from the
new one?
So what can you do? Part of the answer is in the next piece of advice.
n. Prosperity
"Keep the aristocracy from desperation and satisfy the
populace by making them happy." (Machiavelli)
"It is essential for a prince to be on friendly footing
with his people, since, otherwise, he will have no resource in adversity."
(Machiavelli)
To keep power, you must bring prosperity to both the few who are
important in any organization and to the many who might rebel rather than
follow. The key is that you need both. For sometimes others who are part of the
ruling class will challenge you, and that is when you need the support of the
many to win.
When you first take over a new organization, you need to find some
things you can do quickly to give the members of that organization a stake in
your success. You need some quick victories to demonstrate that your ideas will
be in their self‑interest, even if these are only small things. Perhaps
you can eliminate some paperwork that employees have always resented. Perhaps
you can give them more freedom to make some choices in how to do certain tasks.
Perhaps you can just show that you want to listen and value their opinions.
Sometimes listening can be more important than talking.
o. Beware of participating in plots
"Experience teaches that, of many conspiracies
attempted, few turn out successfully, because a man who conspires can hardly do
so alone." "The less one
trusts to chance, the better one's hopes of holding on." (Machiavelli)
Plots are dangerous because few turn out well. If you do engage in
plotting, leave nothing to chance and be careful of who you plot with. Why? You
are asking people in positions of trust to break their trust. If they agree to
do so they are demonstrating that they are untrustworthy. If they are
untrustworthy to those who placed them in positions of power, what is to
guarantee that you can trust them. This is why plots are so frequently foiled
by someone who double crosses the plotters. This is also why successful plots
frequently are followed by new plots among the winners. So even if you have
every detail worked out, great risks
still exist. You may find that you were better off before the plot took
place.
Office gossip and rumors might be seen as a kind of plot. The best thing
you can do here is to keep your own counsel. Keep your thoughts to yourself. Do
not trust those with your secrets when they reveal other's secrets to you.
Listen, but do not pass on any information except that which you want to be
heard. Any time you pass on a rumor, consider what you will say when and if the
object of that rumor finds out what you said. The best reputation you can have
is one who can be trusted with secrets. Many will talk to you and few will
blame you for secrets revealed.
p. Have clear priorities
"Nothing gives a prince more prestige than undertaking
great enterprises and setting a splendid example for his people."
(Machiavelli)
No one can do everything. Trying to do everything is a sure way to fail.
Decide what is important to you and what is important to those whose support
you need and pursue those things. And make sure you get off to a strong start.
For example, when Franklin Roosevelt came into power after defeating Herbert
Hoover in 1933, he knew that the one major problem was the economy. He placed
all his attention on that problem. With great drama, he introduced a package of
legislation that all focused on the economy just after moving into the White
House. He got much of it passed in his first 100 days in office. That
legislation we remember today as the New Deal.
q. Good help
"Choosing his ministers is a matter of no small
importance to a prince, since they will be good or bad, depending on his
judgment...when they are able and loyal, you may be sure that he is wise,
because he knew enough to recognize their ability and command their
loyalty." "A prince who is not
shrewd himself cannot get good counseling, unless he just happens to put
himself in the hands of a single man who makes all the decisions and is very knowing."
(Machiavelli)
Because you can not do everything yourself, few things are more
important than getting good and loyal help when you need it. This also assumes
that you are smart enough to know when you need it. But that is another point.
Failing to get help when you need it and failing to get good help can destroy
you.
Ronald Reagan’s two presidential terms illustrate the importance of
having good help and the consequences of bad help. In his first term Reagan had
an excellent chief of staff in James Baker. Even those who disagree with what
President Reagan did agree that Baker was quite successful in getting Reagan's
program passed and in exercising control over the executive branch. By
comparison, the second term was a disaster. James Baker became Secretary of the
Treasury and Don Regan took over as Chief of Staff. Regan alienated Congress
and allowed underlings to run amuck. The result was a series of scandals that
lasted through the Bush administration and a foreign policy disaster called
Iran‑Contragate, the plot to supply anti‑communist rebels in Nicaragua with profits from weapons sold to Iran, all of
which was a violation of law. Of course, President Reagan, even if he was
unaware of the plot as he maintains, must bear some responsibility. His
disengaged management style always depended on the quality of his subordinates.
He must bear responsibility for the misdeeds of those to whom he delegated
power.
Furthermore, you should understand that your help can harm you in many
ways. Even though helpers are necessary, they can hurt you in more ways than
they can help you. They can give bad advice. They can plot against you. They
can perform their jobs poorly. They can hurt your reputation among the public.
What can you do about this?
First, you must stay on top of what they are doing. You must
gather information in ways that bypass the usual upward chain of command. John
Kennedy was known for what was called the "end run." He would contact
lower level bureaucrats himself and find out what they thought rather than
depend on what their superiors wanted him to know. George Reedy, press
secretary during the Johnson administration, worried about the tendency of
advisors to only say those things that would please the president. He worried
that the president would never get good advice because no one whose career
depended on the president's good will would ever tell him bad news. No one
would ever criticize his thoughts or ideas, even if they were half‑baked.
Reedy worried about the tendency of leaders to surround themselves with
"yes men." Consequently, he
advised presidents to build outside sources of advice and information from
those who had no self‑interest in pleasing him. Reedy argued that the
press was one of the best sources of information a president could have. They
stayed in business by telling about what was wrong. Reedy said that a president
does not have press problems. He has political problems. He just thinks they
are press problems because of the tendency to blame the messenger for the bad
news.
Second, understand that your
relationship with advisors is a political relationship. This means that
when they begin to harm you or when they are a liability, you should get rid of
them. Failing to do so can bring your enterprise to ruin. Many leaders get
trapped by notions of loyalty and keep bad employees much longer than they
should. Presidents fail to fire advisors who are hurting their administration.
For example, Jimmy Carter kept his friend Bert Lance as an advisor much longer
than he should after Lance became a political liability. His failure to fire
him prolonged a crisis and made him appear to be a weak and indecisive leader.
Your advisors should understand that their relationship to you is a
political one as well. They should understand that their loyalty must be first
of all to you. They must understand that it is their job to let you know about
small problems before they become big crises. They are not helpful to you if
they never give you bad news. You must make this clear.
If you are an advisor, as most of you will be at least in the kinds of
entry level positions you will have after first leaving college, you need to know
several things to be a good advisor. (Of course, this is much easier if you
have a good leader who follows the advice we have just discussed.) You should stay
on top of things and make yourself indispensable as a source of information.
You should never presume to tell them what to do. Rather, you should make
suggestions that they may "wish to consider," but which they
should "feel free to reject because you know so much more than I do about
the larger picture." Moreover, as an advisor, you should never presume
familiarity. You should use a title in addressing your superior unless
specifically told to do otherwise. Using a title is a sign of polite deference
that reduces fear of political challenge.
r. Know how to manipulate symbols
"Everyone sees what you seem to be, few know what you
really are." (Machiavelli)
All great leaders know how to manipulate symbols in order to build
support. Of course, first you must know what symbols are important to people.
This goes back to an earlier piece of advice.
American political elections almost always provide excellent examples of
symbol manipulation. In 1992 the Bush campaign, knowing that arguing about the
economy would not help them, consciously sought to make the election turn on
symbols of traditional family values, thereby attempting to label the Clinton campaign as anti‑family.
Not to be outdone, the Clinton
campaign spent a lot of time talking about close family relationships and
especially about the near tragedy that running mate Al Gore had with his son in
an auto accident. In the 1988 campaign, Bush had successfully applied the
negative symbol of big-spending, over‑regulating, weak-on-crime and
defense, bleeding-heart-liberal on Dukakis.
What bearing does all of this have on issues. A little perhaps, but
issues are too complicated for most people to understand. It's easier to use
symbols as short hand simplifications for issues. Of course, that is precisely
the problem. They are simplifications, usually oversimplifications that do
little justice to the truth.
Nevertheless, whether you are in business or in politics or even in
academia, you need to know what symbols people value and what ones they hate
and know how to couch your arguments in terms of those symbols. In business,
advertising is little more than associating your product with valued symbols:
good looks, good times, success, sexiness, friendship, family, and so on. In
academia, if you want to get the attention of your colleagues, talk about how
your position supports such valued symbols as academic freedom. Think about the
profession in which you are interested. What symbols are important? How can you
use them to your advantage?
s. Build institutions with deep support
"States that spring up suddenly, like everything else
in nature which springs up in a day, cannot have a network of roots and
branches; they are destroyed by the first storm that strikes."
(Machiavelli)
If you want permanence to whatever you undertake, you must carefully
build institutions with deep support that cannot be easily destroyed. The
alternative is a highly personalized organization that will fall apart once the
leader leaves. To avoid this, you must build support for the institution and
set up written rules and regulations that keep it going.
A good comparison in business is the corporation versus the personal
business. Corporations have a much better chance of surviving than personal
businesses, even though the founders may be terribly important to the success
of the corporation. Contracts are all enforceable after the founder passes on.
So long as she or he created an organization with set procedures so that
decisions can be made by capable people, the business can survive.
In politics, one of the best examples is the social security system. It
was bureaucratic in nature, so it did have written rules and regulations and
people running it who were chosen on the basis of expertise so that they could
be replaced when they left. But that is not the main point. When Roosevelt designed it, he wanted it to outlast him and
later politicians who might be tempted to dismantle it in the name of economy
or whatever. He insisted that everyone pay into it, regardless of income. He
rejected calls to make it progressive so that the wealthy paid more and
received fewer benefits. In fact, the wealthy pay a lower percentage of their
income and receive far more benefits than the poor. Because they have little
else, the poor regard it as their best protection against poverty in old age.
The wealthy regard it as a pretty good deal (even though they could probably do
better if they invested the same amount of money privately over the years).
Therefore, the American people, regardless of income, regard Social Security as
THEIR program and they don't want any politician messing around with it. It is
the only government program for which a clear majority is willing to pay higher
taxes to maintain benefits. Roosevelt built an
institution with deep roots that long outlived him.
What the U.S. is
trying to do in Iraq and Afghanistan is
another obvious example. What can we do there to create deep roots?
t. Be careful not to overextend yourself
"But the ambition of men is such that, to gratify a present
desire, they think not of the evils which in a short time will result from
it." (Machiavelli)
This problem flows from the sin of "hubris," or pride and love of oneself. If you have confidence
in yourself, the temptation is to do more and more until you fail, to stretch
yourself beyond reasonable limits. In college I occasionally see students who
begin the semester thinking that they can work a 40 hour/week third shift job,
take a full load of courses, and even maintain a family life. Inevitably they
fail. Their performance on the job suffers, their grades definitely suffer, and
I have little doubt that their family suffers. How many people take on debts
that they cannot possibly pay in order to satisfy some short term desire‑‑a
car they really don't need or a power boat, or even clothes.
The same is true of nations. Nations, as an expression of pride, take on
obligations they can't maintain. In some cases, their pride can even lead them
to conquer other nations thinking that they are doing the natives a favor.
During the Vietnam War some very foolish Americans argued that in a few years
Saigon would be no different than Kansas
City. Our hubris led us to think that we had unlimited
power and that everyone would welcome our culture. We were wrong on both
counts. We have not been the first nation to make that mistake. Nor will we be
the last. Are we remaking that mistake again in Iraq?
u. Renewal
"If these bodies are not renewed, they will not
last." "But as all human things are kept in perpetual motion, and can
never remain stable, states naturally rise and decline." (Machiavelli)
Seek ways to renew your spirit and strength, and that of those around
you. But even with your best efforts, you will probably fail in the long run,
as do all nations throughout history. Rome
had many reforms that delayed its fall from power. Augustus was able to use
public works, defensive borders, and games and sports to keep the people
distracted. But his reforms did not restore vitality. The people were not
willing to make sacrifices for the state. They grew more and more lazy. Leaders
who followed Augustus were not nearly as skillful. Rome went into decline and ultimately fell.
Renewal is different from reform. Reforms only paper over problems in
temporary ways. It does not solve the problems. Renewal of a nation requires
that citizens assume responsibility for their actions and be willing to make
sacrifices. Are we in the U.S.
willing to cut many of the programs that benefit us in order to solve the
deficit problem? Or do we want to place the burden of sacrifice on others? Are
we willing to pay higher energy prices and drive smaller cars to address the
issue of climate change, or do we go on our merry way burning fossil fuels from
other nations to whom we send trillions of our dollars even if it means the end
of the earth for a future generation?
Just as overextension applies to both individuals and nations, so does
renewal. Some find renewal in religious experiences. Others may return to
school after years in a dead-end job that has dulled both mind and body. Others
may make mid life career changes. None of these are easy. They all take
discipline and a willingness to accept responsibility for ones own life.
Difficult as it is, renewal for individuals is easier than for a nation.
As I hope you can see, Machiavelli's observations have much value for us
today. He had insights that apply to nations and to our daily lives. Though you
may reject much of his advice as immoral, you may find other parts useful.
B. Democratic Pluralism
This second example is one of the more controversial theories to come
along in political science in quite a few years. It gets all wrapped up in the
ongoing and unfinished struggle between the behavioralists and their critics
that I talked about in the first lecture. It also rather neatly illustrates the
strengths and weaknesses of both sides of the argument. It is also important to
us as American systems because democratic pluralism presumes to be the best
empirical theory explaining the workings of American democracy.
1. Developed by a number of behavioralist political scientists
Democratic Pluralism cannot be associated with any one political
scientist as can many other theories. It was developed and promoted by a number
of political scientists who were the really big names in the discipline in the
1950s and 60s: Robert Dahl, E. E. Schattschneider, Gabriel Almond, Sidney
Verba, Charles Lindbloom, and Lester Milbrath. Unless you major in political
science or go to graduate school in the area, you'll probably never see these
names again, so I don't really care that you memorize them. What is worth
knowing are the central ideas of this theory, because it partially explains the
political society in which you live.
2. Central ideas and relationships
What follows are five central ideas to the theory of democratic
pluralism. Some of those who are credited with the development of this theory
concentrate on only one or two ideas.
Others would disagree with some of them or add different ones. So if you
were to ask another political scientist what the central ideas of democratic pluralism
are, you would no doubt get a somewhat different answer.
a. Distribution of influence relatively equal
Although a few may hold most of the formal political power in a
pluralist democracy, influence is seen as spread rather evenly throughout the
society. Influence is defined a little differently than we have defined it thus
far. Rather than emphasizing actual persuasion, the emphasis here is on potential
persuasion. People are seen as free to form groups that may then exercise
influence. Because those with political
power know this (or at least believe this to be true‑‑some argue
that it is a myth), they exercise power differently than they would
otherwise. This implication may be seen
as a separate but related point (see d. below).
b. Specialization of interest groups and spheres of influence
Another important characteristic of pluralist democracy is the existence
of many competing interest groups. However, they do not compete in all areas.
In fact, the competition is limited by the fact that each group specializes in
some area of concern that is peculiar to them (automobiles, textiles, civil
rights, tobacco, and so on). People are seen as most likely to organize when
they do have some concern that is vital to them. That means that in those
limited areas the amount of organized opposition they will encounter is fairly
limited. The end result is that they can exercise a significant amount of
influence and control over these areas of special concern. To look at it the other way,
suppose everyone was organized and
active in all areas. If this were the case, stalemate would result. No one
could be able to protect or further their vital interests. If people can't protect
their vital concerns, they may have little reason to remain in a nation.
c. Moderate levels of political participation
Average citizens in a pluralist democracy are seen as having relatively
little interest in politics. Therefore, they spend relatively little time and
energy in political activities. Few go beyond the simple act of voting and many
do not even go that far. This limited
political participation along with interest group specialization in effect creates
a political vacuum that allows those who are organized to successfully protect
their vital concerns. The more people who are successful in protecting
their vital concerns, the more who feel the political system is legitimate. You
should remember from David Easton's "systems theory" that every
political system needs support in order to persist. A widespread sense of
legitimacy is an important kind of support.
d. Law of anticipated reaction
limits elite control
This characteristic follows almost directly form the first characteristic.
If those who do have political power think that everyone else can get
organized if they feel threatened, then the powerful will restrain themselves
from taking actions that will threaten all those currently powerless people.
To put this another way, political elites restrain themselves from abusing the
masses because of their anticipation that if they do, the masses can and will
retaliate. What is important here is the belief that the masses can
organize, not the reality. Many pluralist theorists argued that in reality the
masses were for the most part ill equipped to effectively organize, but as long
as elites believed this myth, elites would restrain themselves. This
characteristic has been labeled as the "law of anticipated reaction."
This tendency to limit the use of power along with the previous two
characteristics lead to political stability and moderation (perhaps what
Machiavelli would call "ordini," or the stability of good order).
e. Competition among and rotation of political elites
Because few people follow politics very closely, most elections are not
really popular decisions about the best policies to follow. Political science
has pretty well established that most people do not base their votes on
specific issue positions‑‑most don't know much about what the
issues are, let alone the details of often vague differences on the positions
that candidates take (or avoid). Rather, most votes are personal choices about
whether or not the incumbent has done a good job and whether or not the
challenger is an acceptable alternative. Even in times of crisis (remember
critical elections?) when issues become relatively more important, the emphasis
is more on results and hopes created than on details of programs and political
philosophies. The result is that those who compete for political office compete
in ways that create constant (even if sometimes slow) rotation. Machiavelli
might say that the tides of "fortuna" make it unlikely that anyone
will be successful too long. The tendency to "throw the bums out"
will sooner or later catch up with them. The bottom line on this characteristic
is that no one is in office long enough to accumulate enough power to become
tyrannical. This also reinforces the tendency for pluralist democracies to have
moderate politics.
3. Evaluation
The theory of democratic pluralism has both strengths and
weaknesses. As I noted earlier, these
strengths and weaknesses reflect the differences between the behavioralists and
their critics within the discipline of political science. Democratic pluralism
was the theory developed by many behavioralists that claimed to describe the
way in which American democracy worked.
So to attack this theory, how it was established, and how it was used,
was also an attack upon the methods of the behavioralists.
a. Strengths
1) Focuses on actual behavior
This theory of democratic pluralism was NOT intended to tell us how
democracy SHOULD work. Rather, it
was intended to be an explanation of how the democracy that exists in the U.S. actually
did work. It was less concerned with the ideal than with the real. To
the extent that the theory focuses our attention on actual political behavior,
it accomplished what any good empirical theory should. (Do you remember the
definition of theory?) This observation leads to a closely related second
strength.
2) Realistic‑‑significant
empirical content
As you might have guessed from reading (and hopefully thinking about)
the above description of the theory of democratic pluralism, the theory was based
on empirical observations of how American democracy worked in the period in
which the theory was developed, the 1950s and early 60s. Those whom we earlier
called behavioralists looked at the actual behavior of Americans in terms of
how they made voting decisions, how they thought about politics, how elites
perceived average citizens, and such other important behavior as interest group
organization and effectiveness. Certainly, the theory does in fact describe
many aspects of how American democracy did work during this period‑‑moderation
in politics, low participation, and so on.
b. Weaknesses
Despite these strengths, the theory has significant weaknesses, some of
which will plague nearly any empirical theory.
1) Hidden normative element‑‑supports
status quo
Although the theory was designed to be neutral and unbiased, it contained
inherent biases. The reasoning behind the theory could be described something
like this. Researchers wanted to find out how a democracy worked. They looked
at American democracy and systematically observed a lot of things that were
going on and then put them together in a general explanation called a theory.
The result was a theory that described, explained and predicted political
behavior in American democracy. Sounds simple, right? Well, its not quite so
simple. Three major objections arise to this approach, some of which you will
probably not find so terrible.
First, the pattern of reasoning here is circular in nature. In
order to find out how a democracy works, the researchers looked at American
democracy. Then when they finished in laying out their general theory, they
looked back at American democracy and saw that it fit the workings of American
democracy and therefore proved that America did indeed have a
democracy. Big surprise, right? You see, that's where they got the theory in
the first place. A hidden value also sneaks in here. Because the idea of
democracy is so positive to most of us, to prove that America has an
ideal democracy is in effect to give one's blessing to the system.
The second problem is really part of the first. When
researchers began with the idea of "democracy" and then
began to look at American democracy (or any other democracy for that
matter‑‑some did look at a number of nations that are regarded to
be democracies), they assumed without argument that America has a
democracy. Now this may seem obvious to you, but the match was not quite so
obvious to many other people who were not quite as comfortable as you are. They
would include disenfranchised blacks, women with very unequal legal rights,
migrant workers who were not provided any of the public services that we all
take for granted, kids who were drafted to fight in a war that was not declared
by politicians they were not old enough to vote for or against‑‑you
get the idea. Remember that this is the
1950s we are talking about. Having arrived at a theory that described how
American democracy works, the researcher then concluded that this is how any
democracy works. The problems here are both the usually unspoken
assumption that was made and the failure to consider alternatives
that might not presently exist.
If these two problems are unclear to you, let me try to give you an analogy.
You want to know how an airplane flies. Someone tells you that this Piper Cub
over here is an airplane, or perhaps you think it is obvious that it is an
airplane and find it convenient to study because you don't have any others to
look at. You make as many empirical observations as you can and develop a
theory of airplanes and conclude that this is how airplanes work. Then you look
back at the same Piper Cub again, find that the theory works for it, and
declare it to be an airplane. Well, in this case you are lucky because you do
have a theory that does at least describe one working airplane, but it is
obviously limited in that it tells us little about the working details of an F‑15
(although some general principles hold). But suppose you had been directed to a
helicopter, or a rocket? You really should have worried a little more about the
starting definition before you began your study. A theory of American democracy
does not tell us how democracy CAN or MIGHT work, just as a theory of a Piper
Cub does not tell us how other planes can work. It only tells us how American
democracy DOES work, assuming at the beginning that we are looking at a
democracy in the first place. Suppose instead of looking at a Piper Cub you had
decided to look at a BMW?
The third problem is a result of
how the theory was used after it was created. Because this was how that kind
of government they called American democracy did work then, any proposed
changes were often seen as threats to the workings of democracy. Those who
enjoyed advantages from the workings of democratic pluralism found support in
the theories developed by political scientists in resisting changes. Plans and
programs to enhance political participation by average people were opposed as
threatening the stability and moderation that were a hallmark of democratic
pluralism. In short, the theory was used to defend the status quo. The fact that this theory had the backing of
"scientists" made it a powerful political weapon.
2) Ignores "nonissues"‑‑the
second face of power
A second kind of problem results from the fact that while empirical
political scientists are good at looking at political events that do actually
take place, they are not very adept at observing things that are NOT happening.
If you recall from our earlier discussion of the definition of political power,
this means that they are in danger of missing what we called the "second
face of power." Because blacks were not in open revolt in the 1950s,
because women were not pressing in massive numbers for legal equality, because
no campus protests and demonstrations against the Vietnam War took place when
only professional soldiers or poor working class kids were dying, behavioralist
political scientists saw nothing threatening the stability of the system and
pronounced the system healthy. In all of these cases, we could argue that a
great deal of exploitation and repression had been going on for a long time‑‑it
simply was not readily observable. To get at this, one had to first ask questions
about the nature of a just democratic system, and empirical scientists were
simply not inclined to ask these kinds of questions. Such questions were
more in the realm of normative theory.
C. Other examples
We could examine many other empirical theories. The theories we
presented to illustrate the scopes of theories (macro, middle range, and micro,
remember?) could all be used as examples of empirical theories. Balance of
power theory describes how nations actually create alliances when faced with
threats from more powerful nations. Critical election theory describes how
people actually do vote and adopt party identifications rather than how they
should vote and why they should identify with parties. Role theory is a result
of observing how people actually do encounter political stress and how they
attempt to reduce that stress. Systems
theory describes how governments actually do attempt to maintain themselves.
V. Summary: Normative versus Empirical
Theory
Both kinds of theory we have looked at have strengths and weaknesses.
Their respective proponents have made arguments against the other side and
defenses of the logic of their own approach. To summarize this discussion, we
shall review them.
A. Arguments in favor of
Normative theory
1. Empirical theory is really normative
This is perhaps the most powerful argument made against the empirically
oriented behavioralists. Although they pretended to be objective, neutral, and
value free, their work was fraught with hidden value positions and assumptions.
Even Machiavelli's seemingly cold empirical advice rests on the norms of peace
and prosperity. From the point of choosing a problem for research to the point
of how the theory is used after it is developed, value decisions and positions
are involved. Even deciding what scientific method is the best way to establish
truth is making a value decision. The point is that empirical theorists are
acting as normative theorists whether they like it or not.
2. Normative theory necessary to choose problems
If normative theory is inevitably involved, is it not better to be open
and honest about it rather than to pretend that we are being neutral. The first
step in research is to choose a problem to research. Because an infinity of
problems exist, we need help in deciding which are worthy of our efforts.
Normative theory can be very helpful here in making a choice. Too many
empirical political scientists choose on the basis of readily available
quantifiable data. They ignore important questions for which nice clean data
might not exist. If you were to go to a political science convention, you would
see a lot of papers with a lot of equations and nearly perfect data in them
about trivial subjects. One of the greatest political scientists of all times, V.O. Key, Jr., gave some good advice
here‑‑advice I have tried to follow in doing my own research. He
suggested that you first figure out what the important questions are, and then
do the best you can to find every scrap of information available that can help
you to answer those questions. To do this, you need normative theory to help
you know what is important.
I know some of this is pretty abstract to you, but you might understand
if you think about an analogy and possible lesson here for the beginning
college student‑‑as many of you are. The choice of a major and a
career is in many ways just like the choice of a problem to study. You need to
first figure out what is important to you‑‑what is valuable to you.
Unfortunately, many of you will make this choice blindly, on the basis of what
someone told you to do (friends or parents perhaps?) or on the basis of
popularity or ready availability. To compound this unfortunate situation, colleges
encourage you to choose majors early in your college careers before you have
really had time to explore the possibilities and find out about the values (or
norms) that can help you decide. You get caught up in the problems of daily
classes and never really take the time to ask yourself why you are going in
this direction. If you don't, you may someday find that you have spent a great
portion of your life doing unimportant things.
3. Empirical theory biased toward the status quo
To put this simply, all empirical theories are limited by definition to
look at what actually is rather than what can be or might be or should be. We
need normative theory to get us to consider what might be some desirable
alternative to the status quo.
4. Empirical theory tends to be self‑fulfilling
Because people use and act upon empirical theories that are developed,
they often tend to be self‑fulfilling. When professional campaign
organizations learn that people vote more in terms of vague images of
candidates than on detailed issue positions, they advise their candidates to
avoid taking detailed issue positions and emphasize the projection of a
positive image. The result is that later studies confirm that few vote on the
basis of issues. How could they if candidates do not provide the information
necessary to make voting decisions on issues? Thus the tendency to vote on
image is reinforced by the actions taken by candidates as a result of the
advice given by supposedly neutral studies.
5. Normative questions define us as human beings
Perhaps the most powerful argument that can be made in favor of
normative theory is that it defines us as human. To worry about values and
motives is a large part of what it is to be human. Not only does this define us
as a species, it also defines us as individual human beings. What makes a
friend different from an acquaintance? What do you do in a dating situation
when you want to get to know the other person? Until you get to the other
person=s norms and
values, you have only had a superficial relationship. If no well developed
norms and values exist, you may likely come to regard that person as a poor
candidate for a friend because he or she lacks personality or is too superficial.
B. Arguments in favor of
Empirical theory
1. Normative theory often openly biased and selective
Those normative theorists who get committed to their theories and cross
over the fine line between theory and ideology are often biased and selective
in their observations and perceptions. When Lenin saw that Marx's theory did
not apply to what was happening in the Russian revolution, he modified the
theory to fit the facts. If you study the propaganda used by totalitarian
governments, you see that facts can be interpreted and even changed to fit
existing ideology. Every normative theorist runs the risk of seeing the world
as he would like it to be rather than as it really is.
2. Normative theory tends to mix values and facts
Because normative theorists are often not very careful to separate facts
from their values, the distinction often gets blurred. For example, Marcuse
described the "fact" of how technological society manipulates and
separates us from our most important feelings and experiences. Implicit in that
description are both facts (our behavior and perceptions are affected by
society) and values ("manipulation" has negative value connotations
and "important" is an evaluative term). Marcuse and other normative
theorists don't worry much about making a distinct separation here. This kind
of distinction is useful in sorting out and understanding the claims and
arguments that are made.
3. Normative theories can never be fully tested
This limitation is very similar to the problem we discussed when we
talked about the distinction between facts and values. No matter how hard we
try, we can probably never fully test the truth of a value to the satisfaction
of everyone (even assuming that everyone is rational). This means that at some
point we must assume or trust or tentatively accept value positions. Of course,
we do this all the time in our daily lives. For example, I assume that teaching
is important. You assume that learning is important. Or at least you assume
that passing this course is important!
4. Empirical theory never claimed to fully describe reality
Here the empirical theorists argue that their normative opponents were
unfair in their attacks. Those who developed systems theory and democratic
pluralism argue that they never really claimed to have a theory that fully
described all possible political behavior in a political system or in a
democracy. The empirical theories they develop are scientific and therefore
open to change as new evidence appears. Today they are worrying more about
accounting for the "second face of power"--events that don't happen,
nonevents. They admit that values do occasionally creep into their work and
that perhaps this is inevitable. But at least they ATTEMPT to make a separation
where normative theorists rarely worry about this at all.
C. Evaluation
1.The battle between behavioralists and post‑behavioralists on a
theoretical level
If this summary sounds familiar to you, it shows that you remember the
part of the first lecture when we discussed the struggle over behavioralism in
the late 1960s in the context of the history of political science. You might
think about this as the same battle on a more theoretical level where they
argue over the methods by which truth is to be established.
2. Lessons
I think that both sides can and have learned much from each other. If
nothing else, we should have learned that both kinds of theory are necessary
and should be accounted for in trying to understand political behavior. I would
argue that when you either read or are doing research, you should look for or
attempt to follow some guidelines.
a. Clearly lay out values at the outset
This is somewhat risky, because people may accuse you of not being
objective. But you will be charged with lack of objectivity anyhow by those who
disagree with you. So at least you can counter that you were being
intellectually honest. Of course, if you are in a clear political situation as
opposed to a research situation, this may not be very good political advice‑‑remember
Machiavelli!
b. Understand the limitations of our findings
We should all be aware that our findings may be true only for the time
period in which the studies were made, or for the particular society in which
the study was done. We would all like to develop theories that are as broad as
possible, but that is a slow process. It is good advice not to claim too much
and to be tentative and patient. Normative theorists should be sensitive to the
fact that the problems they are concerned with as important and the answers
they arrive at may be a passing product of history. The world may change to
remove problems and create new ones as well as new possibilities. Remember how
technology may have changed Marx's observations about assembly line work
alienation and created new possibilities for richer and more creative lives.
c. Sensitivity to the implications of our results
We should all remember that our work is not done in a vacuum and that it
will be read and used and sometimes abused by people other than political
scientists. We should be sensitive to the politics of scientific research. How
should we deal with findings that have grave and potentially dangerous
political implications? Are we bound to publish them because of our commitment
to the expansion of knowledge? Is the danger of censorship, even if it is self‑imposed,
a greater danger? To what extent are we responsible when politicians use our
findings to fool voters, or to expand their powers over our daily lives? Of
course, our responsibilities and obligations are an important topic for
normative theory‑‑a part that, even if we can never fully agree
upon, will have an impact on the rest of the world. Without going into this
very complicated subject (which is a topic for other courses), let me end by
stating that we should be aware of and sensitive to this possibility when doing
and publishing our research. Thus we end on a normative statement.
KEY TERMS
theory
oligarchy
political theory
goals of political theory
scopes of political theories
macro-level theories
systems theory
David Easton
apartheid
middle range theories
organizational theory
critical election theory
normal elections
critical elections
political socialization
dealigning elections
deviating elections
micro-level theories
role theory
role expectations
role resources
role stress
normative theory
empirical theory
fact and value statements
intersubjective
transmissibility
ideology
end of ideology debate
Karl Marx
economic determinism
dialectics
theses/antithesis/synthesis
stages of history
seeds of destruction
primitive agrarian economy
slave economy
feudal economy
bourgeoise
capitalism
exploitation and surplus value
boom and bust cycles
proletariat
alienation
class consciousness
socialism
communism
where Marx right and wrong
Herbert Marcuse
negate/negation
Machiavelli
chaos
entropy
virtu
occasione
necessita
ordini
ways to be effective in
politics (you should have more than a
dozen ideas here)
reflective thought
paradox of means
democratic pluralism
law of anticipated reaction
problems with democratic
pluralism
arguments for normative
theory
V.O. Key
arguments for empirical theory
