Social Theory and
Comparative Politics (CP)
Mark Lichbach
Introduction
- Author seeks to address the state of theory in
comparative politics today because he
doesn’t believe it’s taken seriously anymore
- Unfortunately today CP focuses on solving real-world
questions and is driven by problems
“One
can’t begin inquiry with evidence derived from and used to test theory; one must
begin with theoretically embedded observations.”
- author seeks to advance theory in CP in the following 3
ways:
1.
Recognize 3 ideal-type research traditions: rationalists, culturalist,
structuralist
2. Set dialogue among schools within
historical context of social theory’s development
3.
Set dialogue among schools within historical situation seen by comparativists today
-“We cannot remain theoretically challenged . . . and
actually solve substantive problems” (241)
- Ultimately the author seeks a balance between between
those asking the questions and those appreciating the answers
Section 1: Three Exemplars
*Bates, Scott and Skocpol are 3 examples of specific
research schools:
Bates:
Rational/social choice study of
how interests produce the dialectic of reason and rationality in
Kenya’s political economy
Scott:
Culturalists/interpretivist of how communities and identities make up
the dialectic in Malaysia’s class relations
Skocpol:
Structuralist/institutionalist of how social forces drive dialectic in
the French/Russian/Chinese revolutions
*These 3 school can
not only coexist, but the debate between the three can lead to better research
and “inquiry”
Section 2: The Three Research Schools
*Good Table
comparing the 3 on p. 245
Ontology (what is
assumed about the nature of existence with regards to entities and and their
properties):
Rationalist- how actors employ reason to satisfy their
interests
Culturalist- what are the rules that make up individual and
group identities
Structuralist- what are the relations between actors in
context of institutions
Methodology:
Rationalist- comparative static experiments that link
structure to action
Culturalist- gaining interpretive understanding through case
studies (mostly)
Structuralist- study historical dynamics of real social
types
Comparison
Rationalist- Generalize
Culturalist: Particularize
Structuralist: Typologize through classification, morphology
and dynamics
Lacunae (addressing
missing gaps and understanding cultural differences)
Rationalist: sacrifice the subject and surrender the self,
undoing the community and unmasking the collectivity (materialism)
Culturalist: do not try to separate the material from the
ideal because they assume that material must always be interpreted in terms of
the ideal (idealism)
Structuralist:
structure is fate, leading to historical fatalism and determinism
Subtraditions
Rationalists:
Thin:
pure intentionalists—reason is cause of action; human nature rationalists
Thick: more structured—conditions are both
causes and effects;social situation rationalists
Culturalists:
Thin:
Survey researchers; actors make culturally informed choices
Thick:
examine the decision rules behind choice and how actors are formed by culture
Structuralists:
Thin:
Materialists; actors aren’t as important and don’t have much freedom to choose;
substructure drives superstructure
Thick:
examine materially driven dynamics of structures of collective action and social
norms
Section 3: The Social Embedded Unit Act
- How do you marry
these three schools? How’s it been
attempted historically
- All three approaches can be linked back to Parson’s “unit
act” and Weber’s “paradox of modernity”
- All acts are social embedded
- three layers follow:
*See figure 1 on
page 262 for an illustration
Inner of Individual Layer
- desires and beliefs direct action
The Middle or Collective Layer
- cultural norms and environmental conditions affect social
action
The Outside or Research Community Layer
- Experts in:
Action (rationalists): individual choice and social action
Norms (culturalists): individual desires and cultural norms
Conditions (Structuralists): individual beliefs and
environmental conditions
The Connection Among the Layers
- The value in combining all three approaches is that they
can address gaps in each other
- looking at these connections forces comparativists to
confront the nature of the competing paradigms and the structure-action, social
order-social change, and nominalism-realsim debates.
- Socially embedded unit act helps clarify these enduring
issues
Section 4: Max Weber, Modernity, and Comparative Politics
Today
- Modernity involved the growth of reason that culminated in
a series of macro changes involving the rationalization of social structure
-Weber (as a rationalist): warns of the political
consequences of this modernity.
Examines status groups and social classes with material interests to
explore unintended negative consequences of reason
- Weber (as a culturalist) explores paradox of modern
rationality’s origins: irrational quest for meaning and salvation helped create
rational individuals and institutions of modern world. Examines religious ethics and normative
orders to explore the irrationality that drove the rationality that turned
irrational (wow, what an awful writer)
- Weber (as a structuralist): studies the way institutional
dynamics of state and society cage individuals in the dialectic of reason and irrationality. Examines patterns of stratification and
systems of domination to explore institutional logics of the forces that
operate behind the backs of reasoning and nonrational individuals.
* All three schools offer a critical look at the central problem
of modernity
Section 5: Conclusion
Author’s 4-part thesis on improving State of Theory in
Comparative Politics (273-4)
1.
Theory in this field is more than a “messy center”
2.
Embrace “creative confrontations” in the defined research communities; this will
yield deepened theoretical understanding
3.
Contemporary comparativists must appreciate the historical context of social theory’s
development
4. Critical thought on the challenges of
modernity show significance of rationalist,
culturalist and structuralist thought.
Why are democratic regimes as weak as they are?
- Presidents are self interested (individual)
- why are there so many of them in Africa compared to
Europe; so what are the conditions that cause these?
- What kinds of factors seem to matter, and how do they
matter in relation to each other.
DISCUSSION NOTES:
Triangle:
- professors are often thick structuralist while Military is
culturalist
Cultural approach- big in 50/60’s and is now coming back in
vogue. Not as cultural anymore;
focus on social capital.
Structuralist- structure of the state and its impact on the
individual. SO what’s the best
strategy for individuals to maximize power
Example:
Culturalist would say we need to understand Afghan culture to understand
the individual and their decisions
*So questions is what do they two have to do with each
other? A communal culture will
resist government actions and influence into their personal life. It will also place an
emphasis on investment in community around themselves. Ultimately, institutions will be
affected to conform to culture.
*Question comes down to where do you start—with the institutions or the
culture? The stronger corner will
affect the other one more.
*Weakness of culturalist approach is that it’s not
quantifiable or provable?
- Whether or not you are culturalist or structuralist, you
are eventually going to get pulled down to the rationalist corner of the
individual’s desire for security.
Critics:
- Rationalist camp is typically called “rational
choice” (Rat choice: people treated
like rats in a maze)
- Structuralist say that people don’t matter (there’s no
personal decision-making)
Nice
ReplyDelete