State, Power and Conflict PDF

STATE, POWER AND CONFLICT 6 EC (168h - 28h lect., 118h lit, 22h prep.), Jongen and Lutz — Written exam (25 oct, 6:45) consisting of 40 multiple choice questions (100%) Textbooks: -politics, heywood -The making of global international relations, acharya and buzan -understandi...

STATE, POWER AND CONFLICT 6 EC (168h - 28h lect., 118h lit, 22h prep.), Jongen and Lutz — Written exam (25 oct, 6:45) consisting of 40 multiple choice questions (100%) Textbooks: -politics, heywood -The making of global international relations, acharya and buzan -understanding global con ict and cooperation, nye jr e welch I part, 6 lectures: -intro to key concepts -overview main perspective on con ict and cooperation II part, 6 lectures: -intro to contemporary world politics -overview of int pol history from the 17th cent until the present GENERAL AIMS: - General introduction to major concepts and key approaches in political science: - 1st part —> a critical overview is given of several key concepts and their position within political science + contending perspectives on con ict and cooperation within modern political systems + contemporary political phenomena … SO : concepts and topics related to the sub-discipline of Comparative Politics - 2nd part —> contemporary world politics and the main concepts and theories in the sub-discipline of International Relations (overview of international political history from the 17th century to the present + identifying recurrent patterns of cooperation and con ict between and within states, looking at the role of both state and non-state actors + concluded with a discussion of several key features of and developments in contemporary global politics) - familiarize students with key concepts and approaches in political science and how to apply these in order to gain a better understanding of the recent history of, and contemporary issues in, world politics. Knowledge and understanding: (1) different approaches to studying politics, democracy, power and in uence; (2) what ‘states’ and ‘nations’ are and how the modern nation state (system) came into being; (3) key approaches in political science and an overview of the discipline and major sub-disciplines; (4) the different ways in which power can be institutionalized and legitimized; (5) the main developments in the history of world politics from the Peace of Westphalia to the Iraq War, and the current era of globalization and the power shift to Asia; (6) the main patterns of cooperation and con ict among states as well as non-state actors. Skills: (7) apply the key political science concepts and approaches within the sub-discipline of Comparative Politics and the sub-discipline of International Relations in an analysis of (contemporary) political issues Lecture 1: Politics and Ideology Heywood, Chapter 1: What is Politics? “Man is by nature a political animal.” ARISTOTLE, Politics (We engage politics as human, it’s part of our nature. We’re social, we don’t live alone, we need company for survive, but we have di erent ideas —> how should we organise ourselves in society?) The disagree between people it’s what makes politics the “master science” for Aristotle. - it’s a (social) ACTIVITY though which human beings attempt to improve their lives and create the Good Society (through dialogue —> disagreement on the nature of the subject + how it should be studied + what it is that makes social interaction ‘political’, whether it is where it takes place or the kind of activity it involves = theoretical approaches) 1  fl fl ff fl fl fl fl  - globalizing tendencies have encouraged some to speculate that the disciplinary divide between politics and international relations has now become redundant KEY ISSUES What are the de ning features of politics as an activity? How has ‘politics’ been understood by various thinkers and traditions? What are the main approaches to the study of politics as an academic discipline? Can the study of politics be scienti c? What roles do concepts, models and theories play in political analysis? How have globalizing trends a ected the relationship between politics and international relations? DEFINING POLITICS Politics, in its broadest sense, is the activity through which people make, preserve and amend the general rules under which they live. —> politics is also an academic subject = study of this activity Politics is thus inextricably linked to the phenomena of con ict and cooperation. On the one hand, the existence of rival opinions, di erent wants, competing needs, and opposing interests guarantees disagreement about the rules under which people live. On the other hand, people recognize that, in order to in uence these rules or ensure that they are upheld, they must work with others (H. Arendt’s, p. 7 de nition of political power as ‘acting in concert’). This is why the heart of politics is often portrayed as a process of con ict resolution, in which rival views or competing interests are reconciled with one another. However, politics in this broad sense is better thought of as a search for con ict resolution than as its achievement, as not all con icts are, or can be, resolved. Nevertheless, the inescapable presence of diversity (we are not all alike) and scarcity (there is never enough to go around) ensures that politics is an inevitable feature of the human condition. Any attempt to clarify the meaning of ‘politics’ must nevertheless address two major problems. 1st: mass of associations that the word has —> politics is a ‘loaded’ term, full of preconceptions and usually thought of as a dirty word (trouble, disruption, violence, manipulation and lies) 1775: S. Johnson dismissed politics as ‘nothing more than a means of rising in the world’, while in the nineteenth century the US historian Henry Adams summed up politics as ‘the systematic organization of hatreds’. 2nd: even respected authorities cannot agree what the subject is about P. is de ned in such di erent ways (exercise of power, science of government, making of collective decisions, …). The de nition ‘the making, preserving and amending of general social rules’ is su ciently broad to encompass most, if not all, of the competing de nitions. However, problems arise when the de nition is unpacked, or when the meaning is re ned (=> does ‘politics’ refer to a particular way in which rules are made, preserved or amended, or to all such processes? Is politics practised in all social contexts and institutions, or only in certain ones?). So, politics may be treated as an ‘essentially contested’ concept (the term has a number of acceptable or legitimate meanings). On the other hand, these di erent views may simply consist of contrasting conceptions of the same, if necessarily vague, concept. Whether we are dealing with rival concepts or alternative conceptions, it is helpful to distinguish between two broad approaches to de ning politics. 1st: politics is associated with an arena or location, in which case behaviour becomes ‘political’ because of where it takes place. 2nd: politics is viewed as a process or mechanism, in which case ‘political’ behaviour is behaviour that exhibits distinctive characteristics or qualities, and so can take place in any social contexts. Each of these broad approaches has spawned alternative de nitions of politics, and, as discussed later in the chapter, helped to shape di erent schools of political analysis. 2  fi fi fi fi fi ff ff fl fi ff ff fl fi fl fi fi ff fi fl fl ffi  Where do we draw the lines? How can we understand? POLITICS AS THE ART OF GOVERNMENT ‘Politics is not a science but an art’, Chancellor Bismarck The art Bismarck had in mind was the art of government, the exercise of control —> classical de nition of politics, developed from the original meaning of the term in Ancient Greece. The word ‘politics’ is derived from polis, meaning literally ‘city-state’. Ancient Greek society was divided into a collection of independent city-states, each of which possessed its own system of government (Athens: largest and most in uential, often portrayed as the cradle of democratic government). Nowadays, it’s not as it used to be because poor were excluded from the business of the government. In this light, politics can be understood to refer to the a airs of the polis – in e ect, ‘what concerns the polis’ (now: state). In many ways, the notion that politics amounts to ‘what concerns the state’ is the traditional view of the discipline, re ected in the tendency for academic study to focus on the personnel and machinery of government. To study politics is: to study government, or to study the exercise of authority. This view is advanced in the writings of the in uential US political scientist D. Easton, who de ned politics as the ‘authoritative allocation of values’( = politics encompasses the various processes through which government responds to pressures from the larger society, in particular by allocating bene ts, rewards or penalties). ‘Authoritative values’ are therefore those that are widely accepted in society, and are considered binding by the mass of citizens. In this view, politics is associated with ‘policy’: it establish a plan of action for the community. Authority: can most simply be de ned as ‘legitimate power’. Whereas power is the ability to in uence the behaviour of others, authority is the right to do so. Authority is therefore based on an acknowledged duty to obey. Weber distinguished between three kinds of authority, based on the di erent grounds on which obedience can be established: traditional authority is rooted in history; charismatic authority stems from personality; and legal–rational authority is grounded in a set of impersonal rules. However, what is striking about this de nition is that it o ers a highly restricted view of politics. Politics is what takes place within a polity, a system of social organization centred on the machinery of government —> therefore is practised in cabinet rooms, legislative chambers, government departments and the like; and it is engaged in by a limited and speci c group of people, notably politicians, civil servants and lobbyists. This means that most people, most institutions and most social activities can be regarded as being ‘outside’ politics, because they are not engaged in ‘running the country’. (+ to portray politics as an essentially state-bound activity is to ignore the increasingly important international or global in uences on modern life). Polity: A society organized through the exercise of political authority; for Aristotle, rule by the many in the interests of all. The realm of ‘the political’ is restricted to those state actors who are consciously motivated by ideological beliefs, and who seek to advance them through membership of a formal organization such as a political party. Civil servants are seen as ‘non-political’, as long as they act in a neutral 3  fl fi ff fl fi fi fi fl ff ff fl fl ff fi fi  and professional fashion (ex: judges, but they may be accused of being ‘political’ if their judgement is in uenced by personal preferences or some other form of bias). The link between politics and the a airs of the state also helps to explain why negative or pejorative images have so often been attached to politics. This is because, in the popular mind, politics is closely associated with the activities of politicians (they’re often seen as power-seeking hypocrites who conceal personal ambition behind the rhetoric of public service and ideological conviction) —> the perception of the state as politics as a self-serving, two-faced and unprincipled activity has become more common in the modern period, as intensi ed media exposure has more e ectively brought to light examples of corruption and dishonesty, giving rise to the phenomenon of anti-politics. Such an image of politics is sometimes traced back to the writings of Niccolò Machiavelli, who, in The Prince ( 1961), developed a strictly realistic account of politics that drew attention to the use by political leaders of cunning, cruelty and manipulation. Anti-politics: Disillusionment with formal or established political processes, re ected in non-participation, support for anti-system parties, or the use of direct action. Such a negative view of politics re ects the essentially liberal perception that, as individuals are self-interested, political power is corrupting, because it encourages those ‘in power’ to exploit their position for personal advantage and at the expense of others. Lord Acton’s (1834–1902) aphorism: ‘power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely’. Nevertheless, few who view politics in this way doubt that political activity is an inevitable and permanent feature of social existence. However venal politicians may be, there is a general, if grudging, acceptance that they are always with us. Without some kind of mechanism for allocating authoritative values, society would simply disintegrate into a civil war of each against all, as the early social-contract theorists argued. The task is therefore not to abolish politicians and bring politics to an end but, rather, to ensure that politics is conducted within a framework of checks and constraints that guarantee that governmental power is not abused. Power: in its broadest sense, is the ability to achieve a desired outcome, sometimes seen as the ‘power to’ do something. This includes everything from the ability to keep oneself alive to the ability of government to promote economic growth. In politics, however, power is usually thought of as a relationship; that is, as the ability to in uence the behaviour of others in a manner not of their choosing. This implies having ‘power over’ people. More narrowly, power may be associated with the ability to punish or reward, bringing it close to force or manipulation, in contrast to ‘in uence’. POLITICS AS PUBLIC AFFAIRS A second and broader conception of politics is the distinction between ‘the political’ and ‘the non-political’ coincides with the division between an essentially public sphere of life and what can be thought of as a private sphere. Such a view of politics is often traced back to the work of the famous Greek philosopher Aristotle. In Politics, Aristotle declared that ‘man is by nature a political animal’, by which he meant that it is only within a political community that human beings can live the ‘good life’. From this viewpoint, then, politics is an ethical activity concerned with creating a ‘just society’; it is what Aristotle called the ‘master science’. However, where should the line between ‘public’ life and ‘private’ life be drawn? The institutions of the state (the apparatus of government, the courts, the police, the army, the social security system, and so forth) can be regarded as ‘public’ in the sense that they are responsible for the collective organization of community life. Moreover, they are funded at the public’s expense, out of taxation. In contrast, civil society consists of what E. Burke called the ‘little platoons’, institutions such as the family and kinship groups, private businesses, trade unions, clubs, community groups and so on, that are ‘private’ in the sense that they are set up and funded by individual citizens to satisfy their own interests, rather than those of the larger society. Those areas of life that individuals can and do manage for themselves (the economic, social, domestic, personal, cultural and artistic spheres, and so on) are therefore clearly ‘non-political’. 4  fl fl ff fl ff fl fl fi  Civil society: originally meant a ‘political community’. The term is now more commonly distinguished from the state, and is used to describe institutions that are ‘private’, in that they are independent from government and organized by individuals in pursuit of their own ends. Civil society therefore refers to a realm of autonomous groups and associations: businesses, interest groups, clubs, families and so on. The term ‘global civil society’ has become fashionable as a means of referring to non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and transnational social movements. An alternative ‘public/private’ divide is sometimes de ned in terms of a further and more subtle distinction; namely, that between ‘the political’ and ‘the personal’. Although civil society can be distinguished from the state, it nevertheless contains a range of institutions that are thought of as ‘public’ in the wider sense that they are open institutions, operating in public, to which the public has access. One of the crucial implications of this is that it broadens our notion of the political, transferring the economy, in particular, from the private to the public realm. (A form of politics can thus be found in the workplace.) Nevertheless, although this view regards institutions such as businesses, community groups, clubs and trade unions as ‘public’, it remains a restricted view of politics. According to this perspective, politics does not, and should not, infringe on ‘personal’ a airs and institutions. The notion that politics should exclude ‘the personal’ has nevertheless been challenged by feminist thinkers. From the feminist perspective, gender inequality has been preserved precisely because the sexual division of labour that runs through society has traditionally been thought of as ‘natural’ rather than ‘political’. The public sphere of life, encompassing politics, work, art and literature, has historically been the preserve of men, while women have been con ned to an essentially private existence, centred on the family and domestic responsibilities. If politics takes place only within the public sphere, the role of women and the question of gender equality are issues of little or no political importance. Not only does this in e ect exclude women from politics, but, as radical feminists in particular argue, it excludes from political analysis the core processes through which male domination and female subordination are brought about. These include conditioning within the family (the process through which boys and girls are encouraged to conform to contrasting stereotypes of ‘masculinity’ and ‘femininity’), the distribution of housework and other domestic responsibilities, and the politics of personal and sexual conduct. The view of politics as an essentially ‘public’ activity has generated both positive and negative images. In a tradition dating back to Aristotle, politics has been seen as a noble and enlightened activity precisely because of its ‘public’ character. This position was rmly endorsed by Hannah Arendt, who argued in The Human Condition (1958) that politics is the most important form of human activity because it involves interaction amongst free and equal citizens. It thus gives meaning to life and a rms the uniqueness of each individual. Theorists such as J.-J. Rousseau and J. S. Mill who portrayed political participation as a good in itself have drawn similar conclusions. Rousseau argued that only through the direct and continuous participation of all citizens in political life can the state be bound to the common good (or ‘general will’). In Mill’s view, involvement in ‘public’ a airs is educational, in that it promotes the personal, moral and intellectual development of the individual. In sharp contrast, however, politics as public activity has also been portrayed as a form of unwanted interference. Liberal theorists, in particular, have exhibited a preference for civil society over the state, on the grounds that ‘private’ life is a realm of choice, personal freedom and individual responsibility —> the wish to ‘keep politics out of’ private activities such as business, sport and family life. Consensus: means agreement, but it refers to an agreement of a particular kind. It implies the acceptance by a wide range of individuals or groups + an agreement about fundamental or underlying principles, as opposed to a precise or exact agreement. —> a consensus permits disagreement on matters of emphasis or detail ?? 5  fi ff ffi fi fi ff ff  A procedural consensus is a willingness to make decisions through a process of consultation and bargaining. A substantive consensus is an overlap of ideological positions that re ect agreement about broad policy goals. POLITICS AS COMPROMISE AND CONSENSUS The third conception of politics relates not to the arena within which politics is conducted but to the way in which decisions are made. —> politics is seen as a particular means of resolving con ict: that is, by compromise, conciliation and negotiation, rather than through force and naked power (‘the art of the possible’). Once again, this view of politics has been traced back to the writings of Aristotle and, in particular, to his belief that what he called ‘polity’ is the ideal system of government, as it is ‘mixed’, in the sense that it combines both aristocratic and democratic features. One of the leading modern exponents of this view is Bernard Crick and he o ered the following de nition: Politics [is] the activity by which di ering interests within a given unit of rule are conciliated by giving them a share in power in proportion to their importance to the welfare and the survival of the whole community. In this view, the key to politics is therefore a wide dispersal of power. Accepting that con ict is inevitable, Crick argued that when social groups and interests possess power they must be conciliated; they cannot merely be crushed. This is why he portrayed politics as ‘that solution to the problem of order which chooses conciliation rather than violence and coercion’. Such a view of politics re ects a deep commitment to liberal–rationalist principles. It is based on resolute faith in the e cacy of debate and discussion, as well as on the belief that society is characterised by consensus, rather than by irreconcilable con ict. Critics, however, point out that Crick’s conception of politics is heavily biased towards the form of politics that takes place in Western pluralist democracies: in e ect, he equated politics with electoral choice and party competition. As a result, his model has little to tell us about, say, one-party states or military regimes. This view of politics has an unmistakably positive character. Politics is certainly no utopian solution (compromise means that concessions are made by all sides, leaving no one perfectly satis ed), but it is undoubtedly preferable to the alternatives: bloodshed and brutality. In this sense, politics can be seen as a civilized and civilizing force. People should be encouraged to respect politics as an activity, and should be prepared to engage in the political life of their own community. Nevertheless, a failure to understand that politics as a process of compromise and reconciliation is necessarily frustrating and di cult (in part, because it involves listening carefully to the opinions of others) may have contributed to a growing popular disenchantment with democratic politics across much of the developed world. This has been expressed in the rise of populism and in the emergence of a style of politics that disdains compromise and consensus and places much more emphasis on con ict. The election of Donald Trump as US president has often been said to illustrate this trend. POLITICS AS POWER The fourth de nition of politics is both the broadest and the most radical. Rather than con ning politics to a particular sphere (the government, the state or the ‘public’ realm), this view sees politics at work in all social activities and in every corner of human existence. As A. Leftwich proclaimed, ‘politics is at the heart of all collective social activity, formal and informal, public and private, in all human groups, institutions and societies’. —> politics takes place at every level of social interaction; it can be found within families and amongst small groups of friends just as much as amongst nations and on the global stage. 6  fl fi fi fi fl fl ffi fi ffi ff fl ff ff fl fl  However, what is it that is distinctive about political activity? What marks o politics from any other form of social behaviour? ‘FACES’ OF POWER Power can be said to be exercised whenever A gets B to do something that B would not otherwise have done. However, A can in uence B in various ways. This allows us to distinguish between di erent dimensions or ‘faces’ of power: Power as decision-making: This face of power consists of conscious actions that in some way in uence the content of decisions. —> Robert Dahl’s: made judgements about who had power by analysing decisions in the light of the known preferences of the actors involved. Such decisions can nevertheless be in uenced in a variety of ways. —> Keith Boulding: distinguished between the use of force or intimidation (the stick), productive exchanges involving mutual gain (the deal), and the creation of obligations, loyalty and commitment (the kiss). Power as agenda setting: The second face of power, as suggested by Bachrach and Baratz, is the ability to prevent decisions being made: that is, in e ect, ‘non-decision- making’ —> is the ability to set or control the political agenda, thereby preventing issues or proposals from being aired in the rst place. (private businesses may exert power both by campaigning to defeat proposed consumer-protection legislation ( rst face), and by lobbying parties and politicians to prevent the question of consumer rights being publicly discussed (second face)) Power as thought control: The third face of power is the ability to in uence another by shaping what he or she thinks, wants or needs. This is power expressed as ideological indoctrination or psychological control. This is what Lukes (2004) called the ‘radical’ view of power, and it overlaps with the notion of ‘soft’ power. At its broadest, politics concerns the production, distribution, and use of resources in the course of social existence. Politics is the power or ability to achieve a desired outcome, through whatever means. H. Lasswell (book: who gets what, when, how, 1950),: politics is about diversity and con ict, but the essential ingredient is the existence of scarcity: the simple fact that, while human needs and desires are in nite, the resources available to satisfy them are always limited. Politics can therefore be seen as a struggle over scarce resources, and power can be seen as the means through which this struggle is conducted. Advocates of the view of politics as power include feminists and Marxists. The rise of the women’s liberation movement in the 1960s and 1970s stimulated more radical thinking about the nature of ‘the political’. Not only have modern feminists sought to expand the arenas in which politics can be seen to take place, a notion most boldly asserted through the radical feminist slogan ‘the personal is the political’, but they have also tended to view politics as a process, speci cally one related to the exercise of power over others. —> K. Millett de ned politics as ‘power-structured relationships, arrangements whereby one group of persons is controlled by another’. Marxists, for their part, have used the term ‘politics’ in two senses. 1st: Marx used ‘politics’ in a conventional sense to refer to the apparatus of the state. In the Communist Manifesto, he (and Engels) thus referred to political power as ‘merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another’. —> politics, together with law and culture, are part of a ‘superstructure’ that is distinct from the economic ‘base’ = real foundation of social life. However, he did not see the economic ‘base’ and the legal and political ‘superstructure’ as entirely separate. He believed that the ‘superstructure’ arose out of, and re ected, the economic ‘base’. At a deeper level, political power is therefore rooted in the class system; as Lenin put it, ‘politics is the most concentrated form of economics’. As opposed to believing that politics can be con ned to the state and a narrow public sphere, Marxists can be said to 7  fl fl fi fi fi ff fi fl fi ff fi fl ff fl fl  believe that ‘the economic is political’. From this perspective, civil society is the very heart of politics. —> which people, institutions and social activities are political? And which are non-political? Should we think of politics as an arena, a process or output? Or all together? Politics...... results from disagreement among people.... is the resolution of con icts... sets the rules of society —> no anarchy, discourage some undesirable behaviour, in order to mitigate some con icts, the state needs to exercise some power... is the exercise of power... is the public allocation of goods/values —> who gets what, what’s good and what’s right, human rights... is the competition (winner and losers) and cooperation (address some problems that we share) among individuals, groups, or states pursuing their interests. There are di erent de nition that stress di erent matters: People have di erent ideas of what is private and what’s the public matter. Views such as these portray politics in largely negative terms. Politics is, quite simply, about oppression and subjugation. Radical feminists hold that society is patriarchal, in that women are systematically subordinated and subjected to male power. Marxists traditionally argued that politics in a capitalist society is characterized by the exploitation of the proletariat by the bourgeoisie. On the other hand, these negative implications are balanced against the fact that politics is also seen as an emancipating force, a means through which injustice and domination can be challenged. Marx, for instance, predicted that class exploitation would be overthrown by a proletarian revolution, and radical feminists proclaim the need for gender relations to be reordered through a sexual revolution. However, it is also clear that when politics is portrayed as power and domination it need not be seen as an inevitable feature of social existence. TRUMP’S TRIUMPH: POLITICS AS POLARIZATION AND ANGER? Events: In the presidential election (2016), Trump triumphed over Hillary Clinton, the Democratic Party nominee, who had been widely expected to win. Although Clinton took the popular vote by a margin of nearly three million votes, Trump won the crucial Electoral College vote by 306 to 232. In doing so, he became the rst US president to take o ce without having previously stood for election or having served in a military or government post. Signi cance: Donald Trump’s victory was a surprise because (despite his personal wealth and celebrity status) he was an archetypal political outsider, lacking in conventional political experience + in his personality, temperament and political style, Trump di ered markedly from 8  fi ff ff fl fi fl fi ff ffi ff  most presidential candidates (EX: his campaign rhetoric was, by turn, boastful, abrasive and, in the view of some, deeply o ensive). Indeed, Trump’s candidacy exempli ed a form of politics that was distinctively polarized and polarizing; it seemed to relish division and attack and disdained compromise and consensus- building —> tendency of both the Democrats and the Republicans to embrace a more ideological stance on matters related to family and lifestyle questions. The emergence of Trump nevertheless gave renewed impetus to the politics of polarization, especially in view of Trump’s tendency, typical of populist politicians, to see the world in terms of con ict between light and darkness, or good and evil. On the other hand, the people whose concerns Trump was most keen to articulate – the white, predominantly male working class, who were believed to be angry as a result of stagnant or falling living standards, job insecurity, and the rise of women’s and minority groups – were portrayed as the ‘real people’. This suggested that they were the only group with legitimate political interests, all other groups being somehow inauthentic and therefore lacking in moral worth. Science: is a eld of study that aims to develop reliable explanations of phenomena through repeatable experiments, observation and deduction. The ‘scienti c method’, by which hypotheses are veri ed (proved true) by testing them against the available evidence, is therefore seen as a means of disclosing value-free and objective truth. Karl Popper, however, suggested that science can only falsify hypotheses, since ‘facts’ may always be disproved by later experiments. Political science is often understood as the science of government, as a airs of the state. But... The state is rooted in society The state maintains a particular social order Politics outside the state is also important. Interactions between the state and society are at the core of politics. Hence, to scienti cally understand politics, one has to examine the entire fabric of social relations of cooperation and con ict between individuals, groups, and classes. STUDYING POLITICS Approaches to the study of politics Disagreement about the nature of political activity is matched by controversy about the nature of politics as an academic discipline. One of the most ancient spheres of intellectual enquiry, politics was originally seen as an arm of philosophy, history or law. Its central purpose was to uncover the principles on which human society should be based. From the late nineteenth century onwards, however, this philosophical emphasis was gradually displaced by an attempt to turn politics into a scienti c discipline. The high point of this development was reached in the 1950s and 1960s with an open rejection of the earlier tradition as meaningless metaphysics. Since then, however, enthusiasm for a strict science of politics has waned, and there has been a renewed recognition of the enduring importance of political values and normative theories. The resulting discipline is more fertile and more exciting, precisely because it embraces a range of theoretical approaches and a variety of schools of analysis. THE PHILOSOPHICAL TRADITION The origins of political analysis date back to Ancient Greece and a tradition usually referred to as ‘political philosophy’. This involved a preoccupation with essentially ethical, prescriptive or normative questions, re ecting a concern with what ‘should’, ‘ought’ or ‘must’ be brought about, rather than with what ‘is’. 9  fl fi fi fi fi fl ff fl fi fi ff  Plato and Aristotle are usually identi ed as the founding fathers of this tradition. The central theme of Plato’s work, for instance, was an attempt to describe the nature of the ideal society, which in his view took the form of a benign dictatorship dominated by a class of philosopher kings. = ‘traditional’ approach to politics —> it involves the analytical study of ideas and doctrines that have been central to political thought (literary analysis, thus examining what major thinkers said, how they developed or justi ed their views, and the intellectual context within which they worked). It cannot be objective in any scienti c sense, as it deals with normative questions such as ‘Why should I obey the state?’, ‘How should rewards be distributed?’, and ‘What should the limits of individual freedom be?’ Deals with normative question (i.e. is prescriptive) —> how SHOULD society/politics organised? Normative: The prescription of values and standards of conduct; what ‘should be’ rather than what ‘is’. Objective: External to the observer, demonstrable; untainted by feelings, values or bias. THE EMPIRICAL TRADITION A descriptive or empirical tradition can be traced back to the earliest days of political thought. It can be seen in Aristotle’s attempt to classify constitutions, in Machiavelli’s realistic account of statecraft, and in Montesquieu’s sociological theory of government and law. In many ways, such writings constitute the basis of what is now called ‘comparative government’, and they gave rise to an essentially institutional approach to the discipline. In the USA and the UK, in particular, this developed into the dominant tradition of analysis. The empirical descriptive approach to political analysis is characterized by the attempt to o er a dispassionate and impartial account of political reality ( —> analyse and explain) It acquired its philosophical underpinning from the doctrine of empiricism, which spread from the seventeenth century onwards through the work of theorists such as John Locke and David Hume. The normative approach is ‘prescriptive’( —> it makes judgements and o ers recommendations). Empirical: Based on observation and experiment; empirical knowledge is derived from sense data and experience. The doctrine advanced the belief that experience is the only basis of knowledge and that, therefore, all hypotheses and theories should be tested by a process of observation. By the nineteenth century, such ideas had developed into what became known as ‘positivism’, an intellectual movement particularly associated with the writings of Auguste Comte. —> the social sciences, and, for that matter, all forms of philosophical enquiry, should adhere strictly to the methods of the natural sciences. Once science was perceived to be the only reliable means of disclosing truth, the pressure to develop a science of politics became irresistible. Deals with descriptive and analytical questions —> how and why IS politics organised in a speci c way? BEHAVIOURALISM Enthusiasm for a science of politics peaked in the 1950s and 1960s with the emergence, most strongly in the USA, of a form of political analysis that drew heavily on behaviouralism. 10  ff fi fi fi fi ff  For the rst time, this gave politics reliably scienti c credentials, because it provided what had previously been lacking: objective and quanti able data against which hypotheses could be tested. Political analysts such as D. Easton proclaimed that politics could adopt the methodology of the natural sciences, and this gave rise to a proliferation of studies in areas best suited to the use of quantitative research methods, such as voting behaviour, the behaviour of legislators, and the behaviour of municipal politicians and lobbyists. Attempts were also made to apply behaviouralism to international relations (IR), in the hope of developing objective ‘laws’ of international relations. Positivism: The theory that social, and indeed all forms of, enquiry should adhere strictly to the methods of the natural sciences. Behaviouralism: The belief that social theories should be constructed only on the basis of observable behaviour, providing quanti able data for research. Comparative politics: refers to both a disciplinary sub eld and a method of analysis. As a disciplinary sub eld, it is often taken to mean simply ‘the politics of foreign countries’. As a method of analysis, comparative politics involves identifying and exploring similarities and di erences between political units (usually states) in order to develop ‘grounded theories’, test hypotheses, infer causal relationships, and produce reliable generalizations. The comparative method is sometimes seen as the most feasible technique for developing scienti c knowledge of politics, in view of the practical di culties of applying experimental techniques. Behaviouralism, however, came under growing pressure from the 1960s onwards. 1 - behaviouralism had signi cantly constrained the scope of political analysis, preventing it from going beyond what was directly observable. Although behavioural analysis undoubtedly produced, and continues to produce, invaluable insights in elds such as voting studies, a narrow obsession with quanti able data threatens to reduce the discipline of politics to little else. 2 - it inclined a generation of political scientists to turn their backs on the entire tradition of normative political thought. Concepts such as ‘liberty’, ‘equality’, ‘justice’ and ‘rights’ were sometimes discarded as being meaningless because they were not empirically veri able entities. Dissatisfaction with behaviouralism has grown interest in normative questions since the 1970s, as re ected in the writings of theorists such as John Rawls and Robert Nozick. RATIONAL-CHOICE THEORY (it’s called ‘formal political theory’,‘rational-choice theory’, ‘public-choice theory’ and ‘political economy’) 11  ff fi fi fl fi fi fi fi fi fi fi fi ffi fi  This approach to analysis draws heavily on the example of economic theory in building up models based on procedural rules, usually about the rationally self-interested behaviour of the individuals involved. Most rmly established in the USA, formal political theory provides at least a useful analytical device, which may provide insights into the actions of voters, lobbyists, bureaucrats and politicians, as well as into the behaviour of states within the international system. This approach has had its broadest impact on political analysis in the form of what is called ‘institutional public-choice theory’. The approach has also been applied in the form of game theory: it entails the use of rst principles to analyse puzzles about individual behaviour. The best-known example in game theory is the ‘prisoners’ dilemma’. Game theory has been used by IR theorists to explain why states nd it di cult to prevent, for instance, the over shing of the seas, or the sale of arms to undesirable regimes. Game theory: A way of exploring problems of con ict or collaboration by explaining how one actor’s choice of strategy a ects another’s best choice and vice versa. By no means, however, has the rational-choice approach to political analysis been universally accepted. supporters: claim that it introduces greater rigour into the discussion of political phenomena critics: have questioned its basic assumptions —> it may overestimate human rationality in that it ignores the fact that people seldom possess a clear set of preferred goals and rarely make decisions in the light of full and accurate knowledge + rational-choice theory pays insu cient attention to social and historical factors, failing to recognize that human self-interestedness may be socially conditioned, and not merely innate. Constructivism (or social constructivism): is an approach to analysis that is based on the belief that there is no objective social or political reality independent of our understanding of it. —> it does not regard the social world as something ‘out there’, instead, it exists only ‘inside’, as a kind of inter-subjective awareness. In the nal analysis, people, whether acting as individuals or as social groups, ‘construct’ the world according to those constructions. NEW INSTITUTIONALISM Until the 1950s, the study of politics had largely involved the study of institutions. This ‘traditional’ or ‘old’ institutionalism focused on the rules, procedures and formal organization of government, and employed methods akin to those used in the study of law and history. The advent of the ‘behavioural revolution’, combined with growing concerns about its unre ective and essentially descriptive methods, led to institutionalism being marginalized during the 1960s and 1970s. However, interest in it was revived from the 1980s onwards by the emergence of what was called ‘new institutionalism’. While remaining faithful to the core institutionalist belief that ‘institutions matter’, in the sense that political structures are thought to shape political behaviour, new institutionalism has revised our understanding of what constitutes an ‘institution’ in a number of respects. Institution: A well-established body with a formal role and status; more broadly, a set of rules that ensure regular and predictable behaviour, the ‘rules of the game’. Political institutions are thought as sets of ‘rules’, which guide or constrain the behaviour of individual actors. These rules are as likely to be informal as formal, policy- making processes, sometimes being shaped more by unwritten conventions or understandings than by formal arrangements. (—> why institutions are often di cult to reform, transform or replace) Finally, rather than viewing institutions as independent entities, new institutionalists emphasize that institutions are ‘embedded’ in a particular normative and historical 12  ffi fl fi fi ffi ff fi fl ffi fi fi  context. Thus the institution itself operates within a larger and more fundamental body of assumptions and practices. Nevertheless, despite these shifts, institutionalism has continued to attract criticism (it is sometimes accused of subscribing to a structuralist logic in which, to a greater or lesser extent, political actors are viewed as ‘prisoners’ of the institutional contexts in which they operate). CRITICAL APPROACHES Since the 1980s, the range of critical approaches to politics has expanded considerably. Until that point, Marxism had constituted the principal alternative to mainstream political science. Indeed, Karl Marx can be seen as the rst theorist to have attempted to describe politics in scienti c terms. Using his so-called ‘materialist conception of history’, Marx strove to uncover the driving force of historical development. This enabled him to make predictions about the future based on ‘laws’ that had the same status in terms of proof as laws in the natural sciences. However, modern political analysis has become both richer and more diverse as a result of the emergence of new critical perspectives, notable examples including feminism, critical theory, green ideology, constructivism, poststructuralism and postcolonialism. What do these new critical voices have in common, and in what sense are they ‘critical’? Postmodernism highlights the shift away from societies structured by industrialization and class solidarity to increasingly fragmented and pluralistic ‘information’ societies. In these, individuals are transformed from producers to consumers, and individualism replaces class, religious and ethnic loyalties. Postmodernists argue that there is no such thing as certainty; the idea of absolute and universal truth must be discarded as an arrogant pretence. Critical approaches exemplify two broad, and sometimes linked, characteristics. First: is that they are ‘critical’ in that, in their di erent ways, they seek to contest the political status quo, by (usually) aligning themselves with the interests of marginalized or oppressed groups. Each of them, thus, seeks to uncover inequalities and asymmetries that mainstream approaches tend to ignore (EX: feminism) Critical theory, which is rooted in the neo-Marxism of the Frankfurt School, has extended the notion of critique to all social practices, drawing on a wide range of in uences. (Green ideology has challenged the anthropocentric emphasis of established political and social theory, postcolonialism emphasizes the cultural dimension of colonial rule) Second: they have tried to go beyond the positivism of mainstream political science, emphasizing instead the role of consciousness in shaping social conduct and, therefore, the political world. These so-called post-positivist approaches are therefore ‘critical’, in that they not only take issue with the conclusions of mainstream approaches, but also subject these approaches themselves to critical scrutiny, exposing biases that operate within them and examining their implications. This can be seen, in particular, in relation to constructivism and poststructuralism. Post-positivism: An approach to knowledge that questions the idea of an ‘objective’ reality, emphasizing instead the extent to which people conceive, or ‘construct’, the world in which they live. Constructivism has had a signi cantly greater impact on IR than it has had on political science, with many now treating constructivism as a mainstream international relations theory. However, constructivism is not so much a substantive theory as an analytical tool. In arguing that people, in e ect, ‘construct’ the world in which they live, suggesting that the world operates through a kind of ‘inter-subjective’ awareness, constructivists have thrown mainstream political analysis’s claim to objectivity into question. For example, as subjective entities, political actors have no xed or objective interests or identities; rather, these are fashioned through the traditions, values and sentiments that prevail at any time. 13  fi ff fi ff fi fi fl  Poststructuralism emerged alongside postmodernism, the two terms sometimes being used interchangeably. Poststructuralism emphasizes that all ideas and concepts are expressed in language which itself is enmeshed in complex relations of power. In uenced M. Foucault, poststructuralists have drawn attention to the link between power and systems of thought using the idea of ‘discourses of power’. In crude terms, this implies that knowledge is power. However, in the absence of a universal frame of reference or overarching perspective, there exists only a series of competing perspectives, each of which represents a particular discourse of power. Although poststructuralism and postmodernism reject the idea of absolute and universal truth (foundationalism), poststructuralists argue that it is possible to expose hidden meanings in particular concepts, theories and interpretations through a process of deconstruction. Discourse: Human interaction, especially communication; discourse may disclose or illustrate power relations. Deconstruction: A close reading of philosophical or other texts with an eye to their various blind spots and/or contradictions. CONCEPTS, MODELS AND THEORIES Concepts, models and theories are the tools of political analysis. First, a concept is a general idea about something, usually expressed in a single word or a short phrase. There is, for example, a di erence between talking about a cat (a particular and unique cat) and having a concept of a ‘cat’ (the idea of a cat). The concept of a cat is an ‘idea’, an idea composed of the various attributes that give a cat its distinctive character: ‘a furry mammal’, ‘domesticated’, ‘catches rats and mice’… The concept of ‘equality’ is thus a principle or ideal. Ideal type: An ideal type (or ‘pure type’) is a mental construct in which an attempt is made to draw out meaning from an otherwise almost in nitely complex reality through the presentation of a logical extreme. Championed by Max Weber, ideal types are explanatory tools, not approximations of reality; they neither ‘exhaust reality’ nor o er an ethical ideal. Weberian examples include types of authority and bureaucracy. What, then, is the value of concepts? Concepts are the tools with which we think, criticize, argue, explain and analyse. - does not in itself give us knowledge about it - in order to make sense of the world we impose meaning on it - can also be slippery customers —> the political reality is constantly shifting and is highly complex + concepts such as ‘democracy’, ‘human rights’ and ‘capitalism’ will be more rounded and coherent than the unshapely realities they seek to describe. Max Weber tried to overcome this problem by recognizing particular concepts as ‘ideal types’ —> the concepts we use are constructed by singling out certain basic or central features of the phenomenon in question ( = other features are downgraded or ignored altogether). EX: concept of ‘revolution’: regarded as an ideal type —> it draws attention to a process of fundamental, and usually violent, political change. —> It highlights important parallels between di erent revolutions. —> it must be used with care —> it can also conceal vital di erences, and thereby distort understanding. - political concepts are often the subject of deep ideological controversy: Politics is a struggle over the legitimate meaning of terms and concepts —> some may argue, ght and even go to war, all claiming to be ‘defending freedom’ —> words such as ‘freedom’, ‘democracy’ and ‘justice’ have di erent meanings to di erent people. We can’t establish what is ‘true’ democracy, ‘true’ freedom or ‘true’ justice. Such concepts are ‘essentially contested’ concepts (Gallie, 1955/56) —> a single term can represent a number of rival concepts, none of which can be accepted as its ‘true’ meaning. 14  fl ff ff fi ff ff ff ff fi  Essentially contested concept: A concept about which controversy is so deep that no settled or neutral de nition can ever be developed. Models and theories are broader than concepts: - they comprise a range of ideas rather than a single idea —> conceptual models = analytical tools; their value is that they are devices through which meaning can be imposed on what would otherwise be a bewildering and disorganized collection of facts —> they must be interpreted, and organized. - Models assist in the accomplishment of this task because they include a network of relationships that highlight the meaning and signi cance of relevant empirical data. The best way of understanding this is through an example. One of the most in uential models in political analysis is the model of the political system developed by David Easton (1979, 1981). This ambitious model wants to explain the entire political process, as well as the function of major political actors, through the application of systems analysis. A system is an organised set of interrelated and interdependent parts that form a collective entity. —> a linkage exists between what Easton calls ‘inputs’ and ‘outputs’: Inputs = demands (EX: pressure for higher living standards, improved employment prospects, ecc..) and supports (ways in which the public contributes to the political system by paying taxes, o ering compliance, and being willing to participate in public life) from the general public. Outputs = decisions and actions of government (making of policy, the passing of laws, the imposition of taxes and the allocation of public funds). —> these outputs generate ‘feedback’ which, in turn, shapes further demands and supports. The key insight o ered by Easton’s model is that the political system tends towards long-term equilibrium or political stability, as its survival depends on outputs being brought into line with inputs. - The terms ‘theory’ and ‘model’ are often used interchangeably in politics. Theories and models are both conceptual constructs used as tools of political analysis. - But, a theory is a proposition. It o ers a systematic explanation of a body of empirical data. - A model is merely an explanatory device, a hypothesis that has yet to be tested. - While theories can be said to be more or less ‘true’, models can only be said to be more or less ‘useful’. - The two are often interlinked: broad political theories may be explained in terms of a series of models. Theory: A systematic explanation of empirical data, usually (unlike a hypothesis) presented as reliable knowledge. Model: A theoretical representation of empirical data that aims to advance understanding by highlighting signi cant relationships and interactions. 15  fi fi ff ff ff fi fl  A paradigm is, in a general sense, a pattern or model that highlights relevant features of a particular phenomenon. As used by Kuhn (1962), however, it refers to an intellectual framework comprising interrelated values, theories and assumptions, within which the search for knowledge is conducted. ‘Normal’ science is therefore conducted within the established paradigm, while ‘revolutionary’ science attempts to replace an old paradigm with a new one. The radical implication of this theory is that ‘truth’ and ‘falsehood’ are only provisional judgements. However, virtually all conceptual devices, theories and models contain hidden values or implicit assumptions. —> it is di cult to construct theories that are purely empirical; values and normative beliefs invariably intrude. Models, concepts and theories are ‘loaded’ in the sense that they contain a range of biases. It is di cult, for example, to accept the claim that rational-choice theories are value- neutral. As they are based on the assumption that human beings are basically egoistical and self-regarding, it is perhaps not surprising that they have often pointed to policy conclusions that are politically conservative. There is, therefore, a sense in which analytical devices, such as models and microtheories, are constructed on the basis of broader macrotheories. Many of these macrotheories re ect the assumptions and beliefs of the major ideological traditions—> these operate in a similar way to the ‘paradigms’ to which T. Kuhn refers in The Structure of Scienti c Revolutions = a paradigm constitutes the framework within which the search for knowledge is conducted. According to Kuhn, the natural sciences are dominated at any time by a single paradigm. Political and social enquiry is a battleground of contending and competing paradigms. These paradigms take the form of ‘political ideologies’: liberalism, conservatism, socialism, fascism, feminism, and so on. The various levels of conceptual analysis are shown diagrammatically in this gure: POLITICS IN A GLOBAL AGE Beyond the domestic/international divide? As an academic discipline, politics has conventionally focused on the state and particularly on its governmental apparatus. This state-based paradigm is one in which politics has a distinct spatial or territorial character —> borders and boundaries matter, especially in the case of the distinction between domestic politics, which is concerned with the state’s role in maintaining order and carrying out regulation within its own borders, and international politics, which is concerned with relations between or among states. In that sense, sovereignty, the supreme or unquestionable authority of the state, is a ‘hard shell’ that divides the ‘inside’ of politics from the ‘outside’. This domestic/international divide also separates two quite di erent spheres of political interaction. Whereas politics ‘inside’ has an regulated character to impose rule from above, 16   ffi ffi fl fi ff fi  politics in the ‘outside’ has an anarchic character, derived from the fact that there is no authority in the international sphere higher than the sovereign state. The spatial division that the state-based paradigm has inculcated is, furthermore, re ected in a traditional sub-disciplinary division of labour between ‘political science’ and ‘international relations’. While political science has tended to view states as macro-level actors within the political world, IR has typically treated states as micro-level actors within the larger international arena. The state-based paradigm of politics has nevertheless come under pressure as a result of recent trends and developments, not least those associated with globalization. In particular, there has been a substantial growth in cross-border, or transnational, ows and transactions. As state borders have become increasingly ‘porous’, the conventional domestic/international divide has become more di cult to sustain. This can be illustrated both by the greater vulnerability of domestic economies to events that take place elsewhere in the world (2007–9 global nancial crisis), and by the wider use of digital technologies that enable people to communicate with each other through means such as mobile phones and the internet that national governments nd very di cult to control. The increase in the scale, scope and nature of spatial interdependence has encouraged some to speculate that the disciplinary divide between political science and international relations should be dissolved (Hay, 2010). Transnational: Con guration, which may apply to events, people, groups or organizations, that takes little or no account of national governments or state borders. If political activity can no longer be seen to take place within discrete domestic and international spheres, politics is perhaps best understood in terms of overlaps and interrelationships between and amongst a number of spheres – the global, the regional, the national and the local. Nevertheless, it would be a mistake to portray such an approach to politics as entirely novel, as the domestic/international divide has usually been treated more as a way of prioritizing a particular sphere and set of interactions, rather than as a rigid doctrine. For instance, liberal IR theorists have long argued that the constitutional structure of the state in uences its external behaviour, while political scientists studying the causes of revolution have always accepted that war and invasion may sometimes be decisive factors in their outbreak. ???? One of the implications of accepting that politics takes place not only in global, regional, national and local spheres, but also through relationships between these various spheres, is that it so expands the parameters and complexity of politics that it becomes di cult, and maybe impossible, to make sense of it as a whole. 17  ffi fl fi ffi fi ffi fl fi fl  Although the domestic/international divide has undoubtedly been compromised by globalizing trends, it is di cult to argue that it has been rendered entirely meaningless. Only so-called ‘hyperglobalizers’, who subscribe to the fanciful idea that politics has been caught up in a swirl of interconnectedness fail to acknowledge that states continue to be the most signi cant actors in both the domestic and the international spheres. Sovereignty may no longer be a ‘hard shell’ that separates politics ‘inside’ from politics ‘outside’, but it remains at least a ‘soft shell’. QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION 1. If politics is essentially social, why is not all social activity political? 2. Should politics be thought of as an arena or a process? 3. What are the implications of viewing politics as a strictly ‘public’ activity? 4. How and why has there been debate about the parameters of the public/private divide? 5. Is compromise and consensus the very stu of politics, or a rejection of politics? 1) Why has power so often been thought of as the de ning feature of politics? 2) Why has the term ‘politics’ so often carried negative and associations? 3) On what grounds can politics be defended? 4) Is politics inevitable? Could politics ever be brought to an end? 5) What are the strengths and weaknesses of rational-choice theory? 6) How do mainstream and critical approaches to the study of politics di er? 7) Why and how have attempts been made to construct a science of politics? 8) Is it possible to study politics objectively and without bias? 9) Is the distinction between domestic and international realms of politics still sustainable? 18  fi ffi ff fi ff  Heywood, Chapter 2: Political Ideas and Ideologies ‘The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways: the point is to change it.’ K. MARX, Theses on Feuerbach (1845) All people are political thinkers —> people use political ideas and concepts whenever they express their opinions or speak their mind. Words such as conservative, liberal, fascist, socialist or feminist are regularly employed by people either to describe their own views, or those of others —> but, they are seldom used with any precision or a clear grasp of their meaning. What, for instance, is ‘equality’? What does it mean to say that all people are equal? Similarly, words such as communist or fascist are commonly misused. What does it mean to call someone a ‘fascist’? What values or beliefs do fascists hold, and why do they hold them? This chapter examines political ideas from the perspective of the key ideological traditions. Each ideological tradition constitutes a distinctive intellectual framework or paradigm, and so o ers a particular ‘lens’ on the political world. KEY ISSUES 1. What is political ideology? 2. Is politics intrinsically linked to ideology? Can ideology come to an end? 3. What are the key ideas and theories of the major ideological traditions? 4. What internal tensions do each of the major ideologies encompass? 5. How has ideological thought changed over time? 6. How can the rise and fall of ideologies be explained? WHAT IS POLITICAL IDEOLOGY? Ideology is one of the most controversial concepts encountered in political analysis. Although the term now tends to be used in a neutral sense, it has in the past had heavily negative or pejorative connotations. The concept of ideology has commonly been used as a political weapon to condemn or criticize rival creeds or doctrines. Ideology: is a more or less coherent set of ideas that provides a basis for organized political action, whether this is intended to preserve, modify or overthrow the existing system of power relationships. All ideologies therefore: (1) o er an account of the existing order, usually in the form of a ‘world-view’ (2) provide a model of a desired future, a vision of the Good Society, and (3) outline how political change can and should be brought about. Ideologies are uid sets of ideas that overlap with one another at a number of points. The term ‘ideology’ was coined in 1796 by Destutt de Tracy. He used it to refer to a new ‘science of ideas’ that set out to uncover the origins of conscious thought and ideas. However, an enduring meaning was assigned to the term in the nineteenth century in the writings of Karl Marx: ideology amounted to the ideas of the ‘ruling class’, ideas that therefore uphold the class system and perpetuate exploitation. In their early work, Marx and Engels wrote the following: “The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e. the class which is the ruling material force in society, is at the same time the ruling intellectual force. The class which has the means of mental production at its disposal, has control at the same time over the means of mental production.” The de ning feature of ideology in the Marxist sense is that it is false: it mysti es and confuses subordinate classes by concealing from them the contradictions on which all class societies are based. As far as capitalism is concerned, the ideology of the property- 19  ff ff fi fl fi  owning bourgeoisie fosters delusion or ‘false consciousness’ amongst the exploited proletariat, preventing them from recognizing the fact of their own exploitation. Nevertheless, Marx did not believe that all political views had an ideological character. He held that his own work was scienti c. In his view, a clear distinction could be drawn between science and ideology —> tended to be blurred in the writings of later Marxists such as Lenin and Gramsci. These referred not only to ‘bourgeois ideology’, but also to ‘socialist ideology’ or ‘proletarian ideology’, terms that Marx would have considered absurd. Alternative uses of the term have also been developed by liberals and conservatives. The emergence of totalitarian dictatorships in the interwar period encouraged writers such as Karl Popper, J. L. Talmon and Hannah Arendt to view ideology as an instrument of social control to ensure compliance and subordination. —> liberal use of the term: ideology = ‘closed’ system of thought, which refuses to tolerate opposing ideas and rival beliefs. These doctrines are ‘open’ in the sense that they permit, and even insist on, free debate, opposition and criticism. A distinctively conservative use of the term ‘ideology’ has been developed by thinkers such as Michael Oakeshott. —> political activity = ‘men sail a boundless and bottomless sea’=> ideologies are seen as abstract ‘systems of thought’. This is why conservatives have dismissed the notion that they subscribe to an ideology, preferring instead to describe conservatism as a disposition/‘attitude of mind’, and placing their faith in pragmatism, tradition and history. Rationalism: The belief that the world can be understood and explained through the exercise of human reason, based on assumptions about its rational structure. Pragmatism: A theory or practice that places primary emphasis on practical circumstances and goals; pragmatism implies a distrust of abstract ideas. The drawback of each of these usages, however, is that, as they are negative or pejorative, they restrict the application of the term. Certain political doctrines are excluded from the category of ‘ideologies’ (EX: Marx, conservatives, liberals). Moreover, each of these de nitions is loaded with the values and orientation of a particular political doctrine. An inclusive de nition of ‘ideology’ must therefore be neutral: it must reject the notion that ideologies are ‘good’ or ‘bad’, true or false, or liberating or oppressive. This is the virtue of the modern, social-scienti c meaning of the term, which treats ideology as an action-orientated belief system, an interrelated set of ideas that in some way guides or inspires political action. However, much of the debate about ideology since the mid-twentieth century has focused on predictions of its demise/fading relevance. This came to be known as the ‘end of ideology’ debate. It was initiated in the 1950s —> the US sociologist Daniel Bell declared that the stock of political ideas had been exhausted —> ethical and ideological questions had become irrelevant because in most Western societies parties competed for power simply by promising higher levels of economic growth and material a uence. Theorists, such as Fukuyama, who suggested that a single ideology, liberal democracy, had triumphed over all its rivals, and that this triumph was nal. At the heart of such debates lie questions about the relationship between politics and ideology, and speci cally about whether politics can exist without ideology. —> Francis Fukuyama’s argument: After the end of the Cold War and the fall of communism, liberal and capitalist values would be universally accepted. End of the ideological debate: Western liberal democracy has triumphed. “The universalization of Western liberal democracy as the nal form of human government.” 20  fi fi fi fi fi fi ffl fi  CLASSICAL IDEOLOGICAL TRADITIONS Political ideology arose out of the transition from feudalism to industrial capitalism. The earliest, or ‘classical’, ideologies (liberalism, conservatism and socialism) developed as contrasting attempts to shape emerging industrial society. —> the central theme in ideological debate and argument was the battle between two rival economic philosophies: capitalism and socialism = strong economic focus. The battle lines between capitalism and socialism were signi cantly sharpened by the 1917 Russian Revolution, which created the world’s rst socialist state. Indeed, from the outbreak of World War I to the fall of communism, 1989–91, and particularly during the Cold War period (1945–90), international politics was structured along ideological lines —> ideological debate has became richer and certainly progressively more diverse since the 1960s —> rise of so-called ‘new’ ideologies (feminism and green ideology) = classical ideologies have retained their central importance —> because of their capacity to reinvent themselves. In the process of doing so, the dividing lines between them have often been blurred. LIBERALISM Any account of political ideologies must start with liberalism —> liberalism is the ideology of the industrialized West, and is sometimes portrayed as a meta-ideology that is capable of embracing a broad range of rival values and beliefs. liberalism did not emerge as a developed political creed until the early nineteenth century liberal theories and principles had gradually been developed during the previous 300 years early liberalism: re ected the aspirations of a rising industrial middle class + liberalism and capitalism have been closely linked ever since In its earliest form, liberalism was a political doctrine (John Locke), it attacked absolutism and feudal privilege, instead advocating constitutional and representative government. early nineteenth century: extolled the virtues of laissez-faire and condemned all forms of government intervention = centrepiece of classical liberalism. From the late nineteenth century onwards, a form of social liberalism emerged that looked more favourably on welfare reform and economic intervention. Such an emphasis became the characteristic theme of modern, or twentieth-century, liberalism. Meta-ideology: A higher or second-order ideology that lays down the grounds on which ideological debate can take place. LIBERALISM Individualism: is the core principle of liberal ideology. - a belief in the supreme importance of the human individual as opposed to any social group or collective body. This implies both that they are of equal moral worth and that they possess separate and unique identities. - liberal goal: construct a society within which individuals can ourish and develop, each pursuing ‘the good’ to the best of his or her abilities—>liberalism is morally neutral, in the sense that it allow individuals to make their own moral decisions. Freedom: Individual freedom, or liberty, is the core value of liberalism; it is given priority over equality, justice or authority. This arises from a belief in the individual and the desire to ensure that each person is able to act as he or she pleases or chooses. —> liberals advocate ‘freedom under the law’, as they recognize that one person’s liberty may be a threat to the liberty of others. Reason: they believe that the world has a rational structure —> the