1 / 10

POL 1000 – Lecture 2: Contending Approaches

POL 1000 – Lecture 2: Contending Approaches. Sean Clark Lecturer, Memorial University Doctoral Fellow, CFPS Winter Session, 2011. Lecture Arc. 1. Formal/legal-Institutionalism. 2. Systems Analysis. 3. Structural-Functionalism. 4. Political Culture. 5. Rational Choice.

sylvia
Télécharger la présentation

POL 1000 – Lecture 2: Contending Approaches

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. POL 1000 – Lecture 2: Contending Approaches Sean Clark Lecturer, Memorial University Doctoral Fellow, CFPS Winter Session, 2011

  2. Lecture Arc • 1. Formal/legal-Institutionalism. • 2. Systems Analysis. • 3. Structural-Functionalism. • 4. Political Culture. • 5. Rational Choice. • 6. Neo-Institutionalism. • 7. Critical Scholarship.

  3. The Battle of Approaches • Poli scis rarely start from the same point. • Begin w different assumptions, questions, concepts, & methods. • Lesson? There are different ways to conceptualize political life. • Classical concern was w formal institutional arrangements (legal structure of power). • Who has what power, & thru what legal channels is it exercised (i.e. Bagehot in 1867, 1872)? • How does the system work? What do the blueprints of power look like? • 1950s: we need to make poli sci a real ‘science.’ • Classicals care about description, not why things happen. • Is atheoretical (focus on specific cases, not general theory). • Focus on instxns = miss other political actors. • What about historical practice (i.e. PM started as unwritten)? • Instxns don’t always work as written or designed. • ‘Tell me the 14 powers of the queen.’ • Too parochial (concerned only w W). • Thus, Behaviouralism arrives by 1960s. • Is acceleration of sci ambition (use scientific method to search for causal relations) of post-Adam Smith era. • Aims to develop general theories thru systematic, often large-scale, comparisons & the use of quantitative methods. • Take large amounts of data, then tease out general laws. • Focus on behaviour, as action seen to reveal preferences (better than words or blueprints).

  4. Systems Analysis • Easton’s ‘systems theory’ was 1st behavioural effort. Unique bc: • Focused on political actors. • Offered general (applicable everywhere) & simplified (boiled to basic parts) theory of politics. • Saw politics as mechanisms regulating a series of demands & resources (‘inputs’) into ‘outputs’. • Politics can change from exogenous shocks or endogenous ‘feedback.’ • Inputs & outputs balance until reach equilibrium. • (essentially saw polities as work of machines). • Problems: • Mechanisms largely seen as impenetrable ‘black boxes,’ so how advance our understanding of decisions? • Actors appear equal in power, but surely this cannot be. • Is biased towards equilib. Govts can, after all, fall apart. • Why do mechanisms emerge in the first place?

  5. Structural-Functionalism • Almond incorporates Parsons, Merton, & Durkheim’s thoughts on social functions. • Argmt: structures of politics (i.e. instxns, rules) exist bc they are necessary. • Polities evolve like biological creatures. Each organ is vital to survival. • Every political system has 7 core functions: • political socialization, interest articulation, interest aggregation, political communication, rule making, rule application, & rule adjudication. • Virtue: same function can be seen in different cultural contexts. • Problem: is circular argmt (fxn drives instxn). • Instead, some fxns arrive simply by historical accident (i.e. countries created on basis of map lines). • Plus, not all societies have the same functions. • I.e. Japan & US stress election campaigns. Singapore & China do not.

  6. Political Culture • Almond & Verba: political systems can be explained by culture. • Values & beliefs towards politics (themselves the consequence of historical events) will shape how that polity operates. • US: founded by immigrants distrustful of govt = legacy today. • Pre-1960 French Canada: endurance of conservative values as settled-then-separated before liberal ideas swept Europe post Napoleon. • Question inspired by potential for democratization during post-decolonization. • What regions are prepped for democ? Which not? • Problems: • How operationalize culture? How place it on a graph? • They try, i.e. Putnam, but is very difficult & uncertain task. • How avoid relativity (preference of one cult over another)? • How does cultural change occur? • How important is culture, since different cults can end up with same political stability (i.e. US, Japan, Botswana).

  7. Rational Choice • Develop theories from economics-like deductive laws. • 1. Assume actors maximize their interests. • Are ‘rational’ egoists. • Behave strategically (weigh costs & benefits). • 2. Deduce consequential behaviour. • Society is aggregation of individual choices. • Groups thus reflect sum of strategic calculations. • Concerned with incentives & corresponding behaviour. • 3. Compare against empirical record. • I.e. Downs’ (‘57) theory of democracy, Riker’s (‘62) theory of coalitions. • Made simple logic model, compared it to evidence, & found it demonstrated profound congruence. • Virtues: uncovers underlying motivations, & is widely generalizable (acultural). • Vices: • Overplay ‘strategic’ decisions given info is so limited. • Assumes preferences are given. Why can’t they change? • Are humans really ‘rational’? Can they calculate w/o bias?

  8. Neo-Institutionalism • Must not privilege individual actors over instxns (have their own causal weight). • Different instxns = different outcomes. • Navigate politics differently in US (presidential system) than in Canada (parliamentary system)—i.e., President is much weaker than PM. • I.e. Skocpol (‘79): need to bring ‘state back in.’ • Instxns provide incentives, thus condition behaviour. • Focus not on legal framework, but how instxn actually operates (i.e. diff from classicals). • Recognize influence of structural conditions, but also allows for agency and change. • Problem: again, what about change? • Someone creates them, runs them. So what about these actors, these individuals? • JS Mill (of constxns): “men did not wake up on a summer morning and find them all sprung up.” • Plus, concern w focus on historical context, rather than generalizable findings. • How learn if only concerned with one point in time & space?

  9. Critical Scholarship • ‘Critical’ bc unhappy w mainstream theory. • Argue it is not neutral & value free, as mainstream claims. • This is not actually a ‘scientific’ enterprise. • Cox: ‘all theory is for someone.’ • I.e. realist power theories are merely to privilege the powerful. • Feminism: gender analysis missing in traditional literature. • Must understand women do not start in same place as men (patriarchy). • Often suffer differently (i.e. rape in war, wage gap, etc). • Suffrage has not ended male occupation of most high offices. • Contention: how different are women from men (a spirited debate even w/in feminism itself). • Postmodernism: pretensions of ‘science’ is a sham. • Humans are too complicated to be studied like atoms. • Foucault: is no political ‘reality. Instead, just discourse (language & exchange of ideas). • Need to unlock origins of these ideas (‘deconstruction’; who are they benefiting?), & trace their impact—is only way to achieve social equality. • Of course, if can’t accumulate knowledge (is no reality), what is point of research?

More Related