Department of Applied Social StudiesCity University of Hong Kong　　Introduction to Political Sociology(Semester B, 1999/2000)　　Course Notes　　Prepared by: Dr. K.K. Leung & Dr. Raymond Chan　　January 2000　　　Content　Chapter Page1. Introduction 3　 1.1 Politics and Sociology 　　 1.2 Methodology 　　 　 　2. Concept and Theory 5　 2.1 Power and Authority 　　 2.2 Elitism and Pluralism 　　 2.3 State and Society 　　 　 　3. Political Behaviour 11　 3.1 Political Culture and Socialization 　　 3.2 Political Participation and Voting Behavior 　　 3.3 Political Communication and Public Opinion 　　 　 　4. Political and Social Change 19　 4.1 Nationalism 　　 4.2 Development and Underdevelopment 　　 4.3 Revolution 　　　　1.  Introduction 1.1 Politics and Sociology

growth of modern political sociology: the behavioral approach to the study of social phenomena; the study of the politics of the Third World

sociology: the study of human behavior within a societal context politics: the resolution of human conflict; the process by which society

authoritatively allocates resources and values; the study of the function of government in society

society: “groups are formed as ‘constellations of interests’, in which the parties act together voluntarily for what they feel is their mutual benefit”

state: “coordination is based on dominance, in which one individual or group is placed in a position to enforce his will on others”

“political”: concentration on “constitutional issues and on the technical aspects of voting and other forms of political behavior, studied in relative isolation from wider social processes”; the study of government and the state

“sociology”: concern in essence with “the social structural determinants of that behavior, notably with the effects of class and social mobility on voting and other forms of political participation”

political sociology: the links between politics and society; to place politics within its societal context by analyzing the relationship between social structures and political structures and between social behavior and political behavior; “an interdisciplinary hybrid that combines both political and social variables in explaining political behavior and conditions”　

1.2 Methodology philosophy: what ought to be science: what it is traditional approaches: historical, legalistic and institutional historical: “history is the root of politics; politics is the fruit of history”;

description of events legalistic: the study of constitutions and legal codes institutional: legislature, executive and judiciary behavioral approaches: concentration on the behavior of political actors; the

scientific study of politics – qualification and value-free science psychological approaches: learning theory (“behavior is the result of

conditioning”), socialization theory (“the learning of social an political values”), cognitive dissonance theory (“individuals adjust their value systems to make them consistent”), personality theory (“the set of deep-seated dispositions which are supposedly the main cause of human behavior”)

systems theory: interest articulation (pressure groups) – interest aggregation (political parties) – input (demand and supply)– conversion process – output – environment – feedback

communications theory: how information is received and processed conventional and post-behavioral (insistence upon emphasizing substance over

method) approaches　　

2. Concept and Theory2.1 Power and Authority

political sociology: “the study of political processes and structures of power” (G.A. Kourvetaris)

Max Weber: “Power is the probability that one actor within a social relationship will be in a position to carry out his own will despite resistance, regardless of the basis on which this probability exists.”

three fundamental questions: (1) who: elitist, Marxist, pluralist; (2) how: the bases on which power rests; (3) why: for what purpose?

J.A. Hall: three types of power – (1) political power; (2) economic power; (3) ideological power

Steven Lukes: three dimensional views of power (1) decisionalism: “A gets B to do something he would not otherwise do”; power

used to deal with issues that are observable or overt (2) non-decisionalsim: “the importance of issues not discussed within the

political arena”; “two faces of power”; “mobilization of bias”; “voiceless power” (3) radical approach: “the very absence of conflict may reveal the most

thoroughgoing use of power in which potential grievances are prevented through the shaping of individual perceptions and wants”

subjective interests: “what someone thinks they want” objective interests: “what someone would want if they could experience the

results or be made aware of alternative courses of action” Antonio Gramsci: “the bourgeoisie dominated society less by force and more by

eliciting consent through using cultural institutions to ensure that its view of the world prevailed”(hegemony)

Nicos Poulantzas: power as “the capacity of a social class to realize its specific objective interests”

Louis Althusser: ideological domination to the state through “ideological state apparatuses”

authority: legitimate power Rousseau: “The strongest man is never strong enough to be always master unless

he transforms his power into right and obedience into duty” Weber: three ideal type bases for legitimacy (1) traditional legitimacy: “an established belief in the sanctity of immemorial

traditions and the legitimacy of the status of those exercising authority under them”

(2) charismatic legitimacy: “devotion to the specific and exceptional sanctity, heroism or exemplary character of an individual person, and of the normative patterns of order revealed or ordained by him”

(3) rational-legal legitimacy: “ a belief in the ‘legality’ of patterns of normative rules and the right those elevated to authority under such rules to issue commands”

John Day: “those who obey voluntarily the laws of a government are accepting its authority; those who disobey or obey only through fear of punishment are responding to the government’s coercive power, not its authority”

summary: (1) power is the probability that men will act as another man wishes; (2) the distinction between authority and power is legitimacy; (3) authority as compulsive power when authority loses its legitimacy; (4) authority is the most secure and stable form of power

2.2 Elitism and Pluralism2.2.1 Elitism

elite: a superior group in terms of ability or privilege1. Gaetano Mosca (1858-1941), Italian political scientist: The Ruling Class, 1896

[trans. 1939] ruling elite – sub-elite (intellectuals, technocrats, civil servants, managers and

organizational specialists) – masses an organizational approach: “In all societies … two classes of people appear – a

class that rules and a class that is ruled.” typology:

Recruitment TendencyAristocratic DemocraticAuthority Autocratic Hereditary Monarchy Merit SystemPrinciple Liberal Elected Aristocracy Representative DemocracyRobert Michels (1876-1936), German sociologist and economist: Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy, 1911 [1915]

“iron law of oligarchy” – “Who says organization, says oligarchy.” a psychological assumption: man’s inherent nature to crave power, once having

attained it, to seek its perpetuation; majority apathetic towards public affairs technical incompetence: direct involvement impossible; division of labor leaders and followers: “Leaders never give up their power to the ‘mass’ but only

to other, new leaders.”　　Vilfredo Pareto (1848-1927), Italian economist and sociologist: The Mind and Society, 1916 [1935]

elite: “those who, regardless of ability, in fact occupy the leading positions”; governing elite and non-governing elite – non-elite (masses)

a psychological approach: Fox (Class I residues) – men of intelligence and cunning, and Lion (Class II residues) – men of strength, stability and integrity

ideal typology and mixed type summary: (1) Mosca’s ruling class: overgeneralization of one single law;

permitting the abler elements of the governed classes to enter the ruling class (Elements of Political Science, 1923); (2) Michels’ iron law of oligarchy: the emergence of number of rival parties; (3) Pareto’s typology: not much explanatory power as differences between the two types not striking

2.2.2 Pluralism

pluralism: power dispersed among many competing interest groups (1) David Riesman, The Lonely Crowd (1950): “veto group” – a plurality of

interest groups maintaining a balance of power; (2) William Kornhauser, Politics of Mass Society (1960):“mass society” – pluralism, the best safeguard against authoritarian intrusion by the masses into the political arena;

(3) Robert Dahl, Who Governs? (1961), based on the town of New Haven: polyarchy – the rule of the many; decisions determined by different mutually exclusive groups; no single elite existed; a plurality of interests; (4) Nelson Polsby, Community Power and Political Theory (1963): “anti-stratification thesis” – no single group dominating the community

interest group theory and “the end of ideology” summary: limited meaning of “political” – decisions made by “political

officials”; ignorant of the cumulative resources; issue-oriented method; passivity not equal to satisfaction and interests not protected; a spectrum analysis: elitism – pluralism continuum

2.3 The State and Society

Bendix and Lipset: “… political science starts with the state and examines how it affects society, while political sociology starts with society and examines how it affects the distribution and exercise of power.”

no distinction between the idea of a society and that of the state a new conception of the relations between state and society based on the idea of

the “social contract” Hobbes: individuals as self-sufficient, possessive and self-interested units in

a “state of nature” before the formation of the state; the state as a social contract between consenting individuals

Locke: individuals born “free and equal”, governed by “reason” and endowed with certain inalienable rights and liberties

Bentham: “the greatest happiness of the greatest number” – utilitarianism Mill: individuals as capable of self-development, of being educated and civilized,

and thus of achieving an autonomy of action and judgement Rousseau: direct or “participatory” democracy on the basis of a collective

sovereign political or “general” will Hegel: a gap between the family and civil society – the state; relationship between

civil society and the state necessarily symbiotic Marx: no separation between the state and civil society; the state as a product

alienated from the society; the class struggle; the socialist revolution; the dictatorship of the proletariat; the abolition of all classes; the withering away of the proletarian state; a classless society

Lenin: the vanguard of the proletariat Marxist: society in terms of social and economic class relations, not individuals;

class formations ultimately determining the character and function of the state post-Marxist: the state as possessing the ability to sustain important civil and

political liberties within both capitalist and future socialist society relations between state and civil society: the state shaped by social relations,

and at the same time, state as an organized power separate to act shape society in its turn

definition of civil society: “all forms of social intercourse or voluntary association, whether economic or not, provided only that they are not funded or controlled directly by the state” (Hall)

a conceptual framework:

　(for the figure, please refer to the download note)　　　　　3. Political Behavior3.1 Political Culture and Socialization　

political socialization: “the developmental process from which people acquire their political orientations and patterns of behavior” (Ranney)

typology:1. consciousness (socialized vs. socializer): manifest, e.g., civic education and party

propaganda; latent, e.g., family and religion2. planning: planned => manifest, e.g., communism; unplanned => latent, e.g.,

authoritarian family and liberal society3. relationship between socialized and socializer: inter-generational => vertical;

intra-generational => horizontal agents:1. family: the most powerful single socializing agent; formative years from birth to

age 5 or 62. school: public schools as the government’s most effective direct channel for

shaping citizens’ political attitudes and behavior; “sponsored mobility” in which elites are selected by the established elites or their agents; civic education; Gramsci’s hegemony

3. peer group: “people outside family who are approximately the same age and share similar statuses, problems and concerns”, e.g., schoolmates, work associates, etc.

4. mass media: direct and indirect roles through “opinion leaders” in shaping basic and specific orientations of most people; the best tool for regimes to change citizens’ traditional orientations and behavior

a model of political socialization　 a theory of political socialization (Rush):1. What is learned?: recognition of (a) individual authority, (b) a distinction

between internal and external authority, (c) impersonal political authority, and (d) a distinction between institutions and the individuals associated with them

2. When is learned?: (a) childhood, (b) adolescence, and (c) adulthood; “generational socialization” (the conscious or sub-conscious socialization of children by adults); “resocialization”(“revolutionary phase” and “continuum phase”)

3. How is learned?: agents and mechanisms – imitation (copying of the behavior of other individuals and groups); instruction (intended learning of appropriate behavior through formal education and informal activities), and motivation (the learning of appropriate behavior by experience)

agencies of political socialization and political change (Kuroda):

1. hypothesis 1 – “The more stable the polity the more specified the major agencies of political socialization will be.”

2. hypothesis 2 – “The greater the degree of change in a non-totalitarian polity, the more diffused the major agencies of political socialization will be.”

3. hypothesis 3 – “The more basic the degree of revolution in a polity, the more specified the major agencies of political socialization will be.”

Specified　　　(for the figure, please refer to the download note)　　　　3.2 Political Participation and Voting Behavior3.2.1 Political Participation

political participation: “those voluntary activities by which members of a society share in the selection of rulers, and directly or indirectly, in the formation of public policy”

political mobilization forms of political participation: a hierarchy of political participation:1. Milbrath (1965) gladiatorial activities: holding public and party office, being a candidate for

office, soliciting party funds, attending a caucus or strategy meeting, contributing time in a campaign

transitional activities: attending a political meeting or rally, making a monetary contribution, contacting a public official or leader

spectator activities: wearing a button or showing a sticker, attempting to influence another into voting in a certain way, initiating a political discussion; voting, exposing oneself to political stimuli　

2. Verba and Nie (1972 & 1978) total activists (18%) campaigners (15%) parochials (4%) localists (20%) voters (21%) totally passive (22%)3. Rush (1992) holding political or administrative office seeking political or administrative office active membership of a political organization active membership of a quasi-political organization participation in public meetings, demonstrations, etc passive membership of a political organization passive membership of a quasi-political organization participation in informal political discussion

general interest in politics voting total apathy　 political non-participation:1. political apathy: passivity or abstention from political activity2. cynicism: distaste and disenchantment for politics and politicians3. alienation: actual hostility; estrangement or divorce from society4. anomie: “a sense of value loss and lack of direction”; bewilderment reasons for non-participation:a. perceived consequence

o threato alienationo disturbance

a. political activity as futileo unable to influenceo beyond controlo foregone conclusiono uselesso a gulf between ideals and reality

a. absence of political stimulio not interestingo personal rather than politicalo little or no immediate satisfaction and few direct result　　　

social correlates of political participation (Milbrath and Goel, 1977)Higher Levels of Participation Lower Levels of ParticipationMore education, especially higher education

Less education, especially only secondary. or primary

Middle class Working or lower classMen WomenOlder, specially middle-aged Younger and elderlyMarried SingleUrban residents Rural residentsLonger residence Shorter residenceSocial involvement and membership of groups or organizations

Less social involvement and/or conflicting group membership

White Non-whiteEthnic majorities Ethnic minorities　

a model of political participation (Rush, 1992) political participation in Hong Kong separation of economics from politics absence of effective political parties

lack of sharing of value3.2.2 Voting Behavior

vote: the basic unit of power dimensions:1. horizontal – the degree of approval or disapproval2. vertical –voting or non-voting; voter’s activities, (organization activists,

organization contributors, opinion leaders, voters, nonvoters and apoliticals) intervening variables (Ranney 1996):1. party identification – “the sense of attachment a person feels to a political party”2. issue orientation – a political issue, “a disputed question about what government

should or should not do”; cognition (aware of its existence), intensity (deciding how to vote) and preference (similar position of a particular party/candidate)

3. candidate orientation – “voters’ opinions of candidates’ personal qualities considered apart from their party affiliations or stands on issues

voting patterns:1. correlates of preference – social status, region, and religion2. social correlates of voting and nonvoting – social status, sex and age　

3.3 Political Communication and Public Opinion3.3.1 Political Communication

meaning: “the transmission of meaning through the use of symbols”; the process by which “a person or group tries to make another person or group aware of its feeling about a particular matter”

elements:1. the communicator – who consciously tries to influence government policy

(political parties and pressure groups)2. the message – a series of communications intended to induce others to adopt

opinions favorable to one’s goals3. transmitters, receivers and responses – a simple communication model

source message channels audiencefeedback

the media:(a) mass media

1. newspaper – consumerism vs. indoctrination2. television and radio – public vs. private3. motion picture4. the minor media – magazines, books, pamphlets, billboards and posters

(b) face-to-face media1. peers2. opinion leaders – two-step flow (mass media => opinion leaders =>

personal conversation)　 effects:1. kind of communication – reportorial (effective) vs. editorial (attentive); face-to-

face (non-purposive, flexible, immediate reward/punishment, and trustworthy) vs. non face-to-face

2. kind of issue – effective in new and unstructured issues3. kind of people – effective in weakly predisposed people4. conditions – monopoly of the mass media5. effects – significant in long-range effects; short-range effects (conversion,

initiation, reinforcement and activation)　3.3.2 Public Opinion

definition: “the sum of all private opinions of which government officials in some measure are aware and that they take into account in determining their official actions”

abstraction: (1) individual – lest offence even supported by a minority, (2) majority ignorance, (3) inconsistent and short-range

dimensions: direction (for or against) vs. intensity (strong or weak) characteristics: (1) consensus and conflict, (2) little information, (3) involvement

and sense of efficacy, (4) stability and change, (5) latency – the law of anticipated reactions

sources: official agents, surveys, discussion programmes, advisory meetings, personal representations and complaints, reports, and radical movements, etc.

public opinion polls and opinion measurement: (1) reliability of attitude measure, (2) validity of attitude measure, (3) degree of conformity between attitude and behavior

public opinion and public interest: “Public opinion cannot be the only determinant of government policy; the public interest must be considered too” (Haddon-Cave, 1981); general interest vs. majority interest; agreement over ends and means; conciliation and accommodation of competing interests; “consensus” policy – a process of rationalization; self-interest of the government　

　　4. Political and Social Change

change: an observed difference from antecedent states of a role or a structure　4.1 Nationalism

nation and state: one nation with one ethnic group, e.g., Japan; one nation with several ethnic groups, e.g., Chinese, Malay, and Indian in Singapore; one ethnic group in different nations, e.g., Chinese in the China and Singapore; one nation without state, e.g., Jews in the past; a nation evolving into a state, e.g., the American nation founded on the state itself

nation: a social concept; a union of people based on similarities in history, language, ethnicity, culture or geographic proximity (symbols of national identity)

state: a political concept including four elements – people, territory, sovereignty and government

nation-state: “nation” symbolizing the social unity of the people and “state” politicizing that union

theories of state formation1. the divine theory – some seen themselves as chosen above all others in the sight

of God; divine selection as self-recognized rather than approved by the masses; supreme status gained by force

2. the natural theory – a result of people’s natural inclinations to interact; outside the state, either a “god or a beast”, a human being only within the state => the organic theory, an entity with a life, rights and obligations greater than any single person or any group

3. the social contract theory – an agreement between the state created by the people and the sovereign people themselves => fundamental to nationalism

4. the conflict theory – states developed as a consequence of clashes between individuals or groups of individuals (intra-societal conflict => contract theory), or between societies (inter-societal conflict)

5. the integrative theory – integration resulting from the circumscription of society and integration bringing organizational benefits

nationalism: in the name of the state; an abstract concept, an ideology (to identify the interests of the state with those of the nation) and a theory of the modern nation-state; “we” (我) group vs. “they” (他) group

“old nationalism” of Europe: “nation seeking boundaries” “new nationalism” of the Third World: “boundaries seeking nations” “economic nationalism” of the Third World – “acting in a way that will benefit

one’s own national economy with little concern for the impact on others”1. the “oppressed” applying the law of supply and demand to the “oppressors” in

order to control the market;2. some Third World countries converting their newfound economic advantage into

political power;3. some Third World countries taking advantage of natural shortages to raise prices

and achieve political goals nationalism as a force for socio-political change:1. a self-strengthening movement during process of independence,2. mobilization of the human resources during the course of nation-building, and3. no clear tendency for nationalism given to have one or another form of

government4.2 Development and Underdevelopment

development: a form of stage-by-stage social progress 1950s – 1960s: regional studies in Latin America, Middle East, Southeast Asia,

West Africa and Mediterranean => modernization theory late 1960s – 1970s: theories of underdevelopment, dependency and world system 1980s – 1990s: modernization and democratization => “postmodern

politics” (Griffin & Falk: “a new world order based on wholeness which includes both humankind and the life of the planet as a whole”)　

(a) modernization theory Lerner (1958/1968): democracy = urbanization + modernization + education +

mass media exposure + political and economic participation

Huntington (1968): high institutionalization => civic politics (either democratic or non-democratic); low institutionalization => political decay => “praetorean politics”=> revolution

criticism:a. unilinear view of development – a simple transfer from traditional to modern;

non-Western => Western (ethnocentrism and teleology); ignoring historical and cultural factors

b. endogenous view of development – a function of internal factors to a particular society => exogenous influence

(b) theories of underdevelopment, dependency and world system Frank (1969): “The now developed countries were never underdeveloped, though

they may have been undeveloped.” obstacle to development: dependency of the less developed on the more

developed undeveloped: => resources of underdeveloped => a chain of satellite-metropolis

relations => “trickle-down” Wallerstein’s world division of labor (1979): a tripartite division of the world

into core, semi-periphery, and periphery dependency (Gilbert & Munoz, 1992):

1. underdeveloped economies largely dependent on their positions within the world division of labor and their economic links with the advanced capitalist economies

2. no dynamic economic independence3. unable to promote independent national development4. growing only in a distorted way

criticism:a. externalism: underemphasizing the internal forces that resist dominationb. “dependent development” (Evans): e.g., South Korea, Taiwan, Singapore

© democratization Lipset (1981): democracy = wealth + industrialization + education + urbanization Lopez & Stohl (1989): development and modernization at the expense of

democracy, human rights, and freedom (authoritarian and socialist regimes) Kurzman (1993): authoritarian regimes not associated with economic growth and

development; democracy positively correlated to economic development Lipset (1994): new democracy/semi-democracy = political + cultural +

institutional + civic + economic conditions　　　4.3 Revolution definition (Rush, 1992): “the overthrow of a regime as a result of violence, the

threat or perceived threat of violence, leading to or followed by significant changes in or the transformation or a society socially, economically and politically”

non-Marxist: the fundamental transformation of society involving a change of ideology, political regime, and socio-economic structures

Marxist: the inevitable consequence of the conflict between different modes of production and the classes produced by them; the greater the level of industrialization, the greater the level of exploitation, the greater the level of working-class alienation; class-in-itself; class-for-itself => middle class ?

characteristics Cohan (1975):1. the alteration of values or myths of the society2. the alteration of the social structure3. the alteration of institutions4. changes in the leadership formation5. non-legal or illegal transfer of power6. the presence or dominance of violent behavior in the events leading to the

regime collapse causes (Rush, 1992)

1. general causesa. economic – a shift in economic power leading to economic dissatisfactionb. socio-cultural – dissatisfaction on ethnic, linguistic, religious, or regional

groundsc. ideological – the prevailing ideology is challenged and undermined and

rival ideological emerged. political – loss of efficiency, control and legitimacy by the regime

2. specific causesa. persistent demands by a well-organized sector of society that a

significant sector of the ruling elite is unwilling to meetb. visible dissension within the ruling elite between those favoring

resistance and those favoring concessionsc. the credibility of the regime’s ideology is undermined by its performance

in the face of demandsd. widespread loss of legitimacy by the ruling elitee. widespread loss of political control by the regime

theory of relative deprivation (see Figure) stages (Krejci, 1983): morphological analysis – recurrence of some stages,

prolonging the revolutionary process over a considerable period of time1. onset – “a prolonged period of innovative, reformist moves within part of the

society’s cultural elite” => reformist rather than revolutionary2. institutionalization – “capturing some of the existing social and political

structures to provide a power base for bringing about reform” => if satisfactory, revolutionary process aborted

3. compression – if reformist institutionalization stopped by the existing regime4. explosion – violent upheaval => immediate overthrow of the regime5. oscillation – struggle for power between different ideological groups6. interception – power seized by one of the competing revolutionary groups7. tightening – fortification usually through a revolutionary dictatorship8. expansion – use of terror => defended by exporting revolution abroad9. reversal – expansion => more domestic mobilization => limited retreat from

revolutionary ideals10. restoration compromise – partial restoration of the pre-revolutionary regime

11. restoration pressure – resulted from further concessions demanded by counter-revolutionaries

12. consolidation – changes confirmed with a clear shift in ideology, society, politics and economy

13. consolidation overthrow – counter-revolutionary forces ousted