Book Review: Political Man - S. M. Lipset
Political Man: The Social Bases of Politics, authored by Seymour Martin Lipset, is a groundbreaking work of timeless significance and relevance for sociologists and political scientists, regardless of concentration or field of study. In a sentence, Political Man uncovers, through comparative analysis and systematic correlations of documented statistics, the social underpinnings of democratic governments. Specifically, these “underpinnings” are depicted as: the development of social systems, consensual conflict, legitimacy, institutions, class separation (whether it is economic, educational or ideological) and political parties.
Social Systems:
“The main problem with which this book deals is democracy as a characteristic of social systems.”(1) Notice the order of events in this quote. Social systems are created and nurtured before the development of democratic rule and government. This may seem like a tautology, however, it reveals the natural inclination of man to develop social systems before governmental institutions and control are recognized. This is contrary to Thomas Hobbes, which define relationships, in the state of nature, as harsh and unrelenting for everyone is in a “war of all against all”. Lipset perceives man as social and cooperative which helps foster the development of representative and democratic forms of government. In fact, social systems are a prerequisite for democracies. I find this to be a salient point; man is by nature a social being. Assumed by Lipset that democracy is ‘the best game in town’ for it suits our very nature. However, this nature is not without conflict and disputes. In situ, Lipset finds that this innate affliction of conflict has a symbiotic relationship with democracy, in the form of consensual conflict.
Consensual Conflict:
“A stable democracy requires the manifestation of conflict or cleavage so that there will be struggle over ruling positions, challenges to parties in power and shifts of parties in office.”(2)I agree, democracy harnesses the natural inclination of conflict and channels these passions into a viable, workable and flexible authority. The conflict becomes consensual for each party or group has the right to lose and not be subjugated by the majority. This critical point in democracy enables consensual conflict to perpetuate itself; causing governmental inertia and solidifies power shifts. In other words, power shifts (e.g. elections) from Group X to Group Y may be seen as viable, for it refreshes the democratic process. Basic conflict is needed to sustain a democracy. This establishes a horizontal matrix in democratic countries. In which, each person is equally and rightfully permitted access to political power. Lipset underscores this notion by pointing out the reverse situation. “Political systems which deny new strata access to power except by revolution also inhibit the growth of legitimacy by introducing millennial hopes into the political arena.”(3)Blocked access to power will erode governmental inertia and subsequently crack the foundation of democracy. However, “inherent in all democratic systems is the constant threat that the group conflicts which are democracies life-blood may solidify to the point where they threaten to disintegrate the society.”(4) This statement has merit. Tension and conflict may boil over and retard the growth of a vibrant democracy, however revolution is sometimes a necessary avenue of political discourse. (e.g. Thomas Jefferson) Yet the nylon safety lines which help countries parachute out of revolution stem from legitimacy.
Legitimacy:
“Legitimacy involves the capacity of the systems to engender and maintain the belief that the existing political institutions are the most appropriate ones for the society.”(5)The systems are social and this cohesion of ability or as Lipset reveals “capacity” can be considered the soul of democracy. Without the consciousness of legitimacy embedded within the social framework democracy is doomed. Moreover, social systems, consensual conflict and legitimacy create a ‘foundational tirade’ for democracy. Furthering this point, people throughout the world have built upon this tirade and the outcomes have become unique and intrinsically human, for all stand upon this ‘foundational tirade’(6) draped in natural inclinations and passions. Democracy provides the vehicle for discourse without abandoning our nature. A vehicle equipped with political parties and class separation, according to Lipset. Lipset conveys these universal truths through comparative analysis of countries throughout the globe and finds patterns of behavior in relation to governmental institutions.
Institutions: Political Parties and Social Classes
It is true that political parties have developed into institutions within democracies, however the same may not be said of social classes. Or can they? Lipset, a self-proclaimed former Marxist, finds that political parties and social classes are intimately related. For example, “lower-class way of life (economic indicators of class) produces individuals with rigid and intolerant approaches to politics.”(7) Additionally, “working- class life as a whole emphasizes the concrete and the immediate.”(8) The socio-economic position of individuals can accurately reflect their political connotations. The economic condition coupled with education will produce a crystal clear impression of the individual in political terms. In fact, education is the most significant indicator of political position and attitudes. What's more, each individual can be placed on a spectrum of political ideology. The weights, which balance the individual on a liner line of political ideology, are: education, socio-economic background and religion. “The democratic center is backed by the middle classes, especially small businessmen, white collar workers, and the anticlerical sections of the professional classes.”(9) To the left of center is, “Peronism, largely found in poorer underdeveloped countries, (which) appeal to the lower strata against the middle and upper classes.”(10) Finally, on the right are the conservative sectors of the country. Amazingly this situation can be found in democracies throughout the world. Finally, political parties represent a “democratic translation of the class struggle.”(11)
Conclusion:
This book was first written in the 1950’s and the data collected represents that time and global situation (e.g. Cold War politics), however the maxims of class struggle have manifested within political parties and are still quite relevant today. Furthermore, Lipset’s fully detailed account of American style democracy sheds light on a country, which is now fully involved in creating democracy throughout the world (e.g. Iraq). However, the essence of the book is man’s nature as a member of a social system and how democracy creates a reliable and functional apparatus for this system to operate.
In closing, Lipsets’ major contribution to political science and more specifically to American political science can be seen as the unearthing of trends within societies that adhere to democratic principles. One such trend must be mentioned to solidify this opinion. Lipset communicates a prominent distinction in American political spheres, the idea of economic liberalism and noneconomic liberalism and how different groups align themselves with this distinction. In fact, “noneconomic liberalism is positively associated with social status.”(12)Where a person of high social status would indicate ones inclination to support civil liberties, improvement of race relations and a liberal style of foreign policy. This correlation has developed into an axiom of political science in the United States. Moreover, we rely on his findings as starting points for other contemporary research. Consequently, Lipset’s Political Man is the litmus test for many political findings throughout academic research. In other words, Political Man is the Aristotelian Politics of our time.
1. Lipset, Seymour Martin. Political Man: The Social Bases of Politics. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press, 1981. p. VIII. (Note: all page numbers will be from this listed text)
2. P. 1
3. p. 67
4. p. 70-71
5. p. 64
6. See Diagram 1
7. p. 89
8. p. 109-110
9. p. 129
10. p. 130
11. p. 230
12. p. 318
Diagram 1:
Social Systems ----> Consensual Conflict----> Legitimacy----> Social Systems
Social Systems:
“The main problem with which this book deals is democracy as a characteristic of social systems.”(1) Notice the order of events in this quote. Social systems are created and nurtured before the development of democratic rule and government. This may seem like a tautology, however, it reveals the natural inclination of man to develop social systems before governmental institutions and control are recognized. This is contrary to Thomas Hobbes, which define relationships, in the state of nature, as harsh and unrelenting for everyone is in a “war of all against all”. Lipset perceives man as social and cooperative which helps foster the development of representative and democratic forms of government. In fact, social systems are a prerequisite for democracies. I find this to be a salient point; man is by nature a social being. Assumed by Lipset that democracy is ‘the best game in town’ for it suits our very nature. However, this nature is not without conflict and disputes. In situ, Lipset finds that this innate affliction of conflict has a symbiotic relationship with democracy, in the form of consensual conflict.
Consensual Conflict:
“A stable democracy requires the manifestation of conflict or cleavage so that there will be struggle over ruling positions, challenges to parties in power and shifts of parties in office.”(2)I agree, democracy harnesses the natural inclination of conflict and channels these passions into a viable, workable and flexible authority. The conflict becomes consensual for each party or group has the right to lose and not be subjugated by the majority. This critical point in democracy enables consensual conflict to perpetuate itself; causing governmental inertia and solidifies power shifts. In other words, power shifts (e.g. elections) from Group X to Group Y may be seen as viable, for it refreshes the democratic process. Basic conflict is needed to sustain a democracy. This establishes a horizontal matrix in democratic countries. In which, each person is equally and rightfully permitted access to political power. Lipset underscores this notion by pointing out the reverse situation. “Political systems which deny new strata access to power except by revolution also inhibit the growth of legitimacy by introducing millennial hopes into the political arena.”(3)Blocked access to power will erode governmental inertia and subsequently crack the foundation of democracy. However, “inherent in all democratic systems is the constant threat that the group conflicts which are democracies life-blood may solidify to the point where they threaten to disintegrate the society.”(4) This statement has merit. Tension and conflict may boil over and retard the growth of a vibrant democracy, however revolution is sometimes a necessary avenue of political discourse. (e.g. Thomas Jefferson) Yet the nylon safety lines which help countries parachute out of revolution stem from legitimacy.
Legitimacy:
“Legitimacy involves the capacity of the systems to engender and maintain the belief that the existing political institutions are the most appropriate ones for the society.”(5)The systems are social and this cohesion of ability or as Lipset reveals “capacity” can be considered the soul of democracy. Without the consciousness of legitimacy embedded within the social framework democracy is doomed. Moreover, social systems, consensual conflict and legitimacy create a ‘foundational tirade’ for democracy. Furthering this point, people throughout the world have built upon this tirade and the outcomes have become unique and intrinsically human, for all stand upon this ‘foundational tirade’(6) draped in natural inclinations and passions. Democracy provides the vehicle for discourse without abandoning our nature. A vehicle equipped with political parties and class separation, according to Lipset. Lipset conveys these universal truths through comparative analysis of countries throughout the globe and finds patterns of behavior in relation to governmental institutions.
Institutions: Political Parties and Social Classes
It is true that political parties have developed into institutions within democracies, however the same may not be said of social classes. Or can they? Lipset, a self-proclaimed former Marxist, finds that political parties and social classes are intimately related. For example, “lower-class way of life (economic indicators of class) produces individuals with rigid and intolerant approaches to politics.”(7) Additionally, “working- class life as a whole emphasizes the concrete and the immediate.”(8) The socio-economic position of individuals can accurately reflect their political connotations. The economic condition coupled with education will produce a crystal clear impression of the individual in political terms. In fact, education is the most significant indicator of political position and attitudes. What's more, each individual can be placed on a spectrum of political ideology. The weights, which balance the individual on a liner line of political ideology, are: education, socio-economic background and religion. “The democratic center is backed by the middle classes, especially small businessmen, white collar workers, and the anticlerical sections of the professional classes.”(9) To the left of center is, “Peronism, largely found in poorer underdeveloped countries, (which) appeal to the lower strata against the middle and upper classes.”(10) Finally, on the right are the conservative sectors of the country. Amazingly this situation can be found in democracies throughout the world. Finally, political parties represent a “democratic translation of the class struggle.”(11)
Conclusion:
This book was first written in the 1950’s and the data collected represents that time and global situation (e.g. Cold War politics), however the maxims of class struggle have manifested within political parties and are still quite relevant today. Furthermore, Lipset’s fully detailed account of American style democracy sheds light on a country, which is now fully involved in creating democracy throughout the world (e.g. Iraq). However, the essence of the book is man’s nature as a member of a social system and how democracy creates a reliable and functional apparatus for this system to operate.
In closing, Lipsets’ major contribution to political science and more specifically to American political science can be seen as the unearthing of trends within societies that adhere to democratic principles. One such trend must be mentioned to solidify this opinion. Lipset communicates a prominent distinction in American political spheres, the idea of economic liberalism and noneconomic liberalism and how different groups align themselves with this distinction. In fact, “noneconomic liberalism is positively associated with social status.”(12)Where a person of high social status would indicate ones inclination to support civil liberties, improvement of race relations and a liberal style of foreign policy. This correlation has developed into an axiom of political science in the United States. Moreover, we rely on his findings as starting points for other contemporary research. Consequently, Lipset’s Political Man is the litmus test for many political findings throughout academic research. In other words, Political Man is the Aristotelian Politics of our time.
1. Lipset, Seymour Martin. Political Man: The Social Bases of Politics. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press, 1981. p. VIII. (Note: all page numbers will be from this listed text)
2. P. 1
3. p. 67
4. p. 70-71
5. p. 64
6. See Diagram 1
7. p. 89
8. p. 109-110
9. p. 129
10. p. 130
11. p. 230
12. p. 318
Diagram 1:
Social Systems ----> Consensual Conflict----> Legitimacy----> Social Systems
posted by JDAvignon at 11:48 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home