Colegio de San Juan de Letran UNIT: INTRODUCTION TO POLITICAL SCIENCE OBJECTIVE: Learning Outcomes By the end of this chapter, you must be able to: define what Is political science; understanding politics, power; order, the state, government; authority, legitimacy and justice; competing vision of the public good; and groups, politics, social movements, and revolutions oy aweNE INTRODUCTION: This s an introductory course to the study of politics, and its accompanying institutions, the state and government. It attempts to build on the students’ prior knowledge and questions on politics, and then seeks to describe and explain them by providing real-life examples, Hence, the course offers thematic, problem-oriented ond learner-centered treatment of political science that seeks to educate to participate. (One way of defining politics emphasizes the process of choosing among different values, with the state and government as the structures by which polity works with or towards the chosen values. The features and characteristics of this process are important, affecting the types and magnitudes of issues that different societies face at the local, national, regional, and global levels. In this course, students shall be exposed to how political scientists attempt to systematically analyze various political phenomena Emphasis will be placed on equipping students with introductory theories, concepts, and approaches in political science and governance. The ultimate goal is to enable students to develop.a more informed and critical view of historical and contemporary socio-political issues in the Philippines, the region, and the world. ACTIVATING PRIOR KNOWLEDGE: The course is an introduction to the scope and methods of political science. It provides an understanding of the central concepts that deal with the nature of politics and parameters of political analysis, the various analytical and theoretical frameworks and approaches that deal with how politics is studied end how politics political understanding is acquired; the wide renge of methodologies used in the systematic analysis of polities; as well as the core theoretical and methodologies questions and issues in the disciplineColegio de San Juan de Letran This course covers the ideas, theories, history, school of thoughts, and existing practices of Political Science as a discipline at the national and international level where as a student of Political Science, this course is a comprehensive avenue to learn how concept and practices of political works. ACQUIRING NEW KNOWLEDGE: ‘THE STUDY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE Meaning of poli nce. Reduced to its simplest terms, political science is the systematic study of the state and government. The word “political” is derived from the Greek word polis, meaning a city, or what today would be the equivalent of a sovereign state. The word “science” comes from the Latin word “scire”, “to know”. 1. The science of politics. Therefore, has as its formal object, a basic knowledge and understanding ofthe state and of the principles and ideals which underlie its organization and activities 2. It is primarily concerned with the association of human beings into a “body politic’ or 2 political community (one organized under government and law). 3. As such, it deals with those relations among men and groups which are subject to control by the state, with the relation of men and groups to the sate itself, and with the relations of the state to other states. Scope of political science Political science is avery comprehensive field. its curriculum is almost certain to include courses in political theory, public law, and public administration as well asin various more specialized subjects. 1. Political theory- the entire body of doctrines relating to the origin, form, behavior, and purposes of the state are dealt with in the study of this subject. 2. Public law- the (2) organization of governments, (b) the limitations upon government, (c) the power and duties of government of government offices and officers, and (d) the obligation of one state to another are handled in the study of public law. In contradiction to the rules of private law is so specialized that separate courses are offered in each of its subdi constitutional law, admirative law, and international law. 3. Public Administration in the study of public administration, attention is focused upon the methods and techniques used in the actual management of the state affairs by executive, ion- legisiative, and judicial branches of government. As the complexity of government activities grows, the traditional distinctions among the powers of these branches become even less clear-cut.Colegio de San Juan de Letran Function and importance of political science 1. The function of political science is to discover the principles that should be adhered to in public affairsandto study the operation of government in order to demonstrate what is good, to criticize what is bad or inefficient, and to suggest improvements. 2. Its findings and conclusions may be or immense practical use to constitution-maker, legisiators, executives, and judges who need models or norms that can be applied to immediate situation. Again, they may be of immense practical use to individuals who seck to understand the state in which they live. 3. The study of political science deals also with problems of social welfare, government economic programs, international cooperation, and a wide range of other matter that are urgent concern to public officials, and to private citizens What is Politics Politics as an arena Politics as a process Definition of politics The art of government Public | Compromise and consensus Affairs Power and the distribution of ‘Approaches to the study of | Behavioralism Feminism politics Rational- choice theory Marxism Institutionalism Post-positivist Politics is associated with an arena or location, in which case behavior becomes “political” because of where ittakes place. n the second, politics is viewed 2s a process or mechanism, in which case ‘political’ behavior is behavior that exhibits distinctive characteristics or qualities, and so can take place in any, and perhaps all, social contexts. Each of these broad approaches has spawned alternative definitions of politics, and, as discussed later in the chapter, helped to shape different schools of political analysis. Indeed, the debate about “what is politics?” is worth pursuing precisely because it exposes some of the deepest intellectual and ideological disagreementin the academic study of the subject. Power is the capacity to influence or control the behavior of persons and institutions, whether by persuasion or coercion while Authority is the right to rule. Strictly, authority is the right to act, rather than the power to do so. However, authority creates its own power so longas people accept that the authority figure has the right to make decision According toMao Zedong, the late Chinese CommunistParty leader, “Political power flows from the barrel of agun.” Political power is clearly associated with the means of coercion (the regular police, secret police, and the army), but power can also flow from wealth, personal charisma, ideology, religion, and many other sources, including the moral standing of a particular individual or group in society. Authority, byColegio de San Juan de Letran definition, flows not only (or even mainly) from the barrel of a gun, but it also flows from norms that society accepts and even cherishes. These norms are moral, spiritual, and legal codes of behavior or good conduct. Thus, authority implies legitimacy a condition in which power is exercised through established institutions. Note this definition does not mean, nor Is it meant to imply, that democracy is the only legitimate form of government possible. Any government that enjoys the consent of the governed is legitimate including a monarchy, military dictatorship, or theocracy. Order Order exists on different levels. First, It denotes from the structures, rules, rituals, procedures, and practices that make up the political system embedded in every society. What exactly is society? society refers to aggregation of individuals who share a common identity. Usually that identity is at least partially defined by geography, because people who live in common community often know each other, enjoy shared experiences, speak the same language, and have similar values and interests. The process of instilling a sense of common purpose or creating a single poitical allegiance among diverse groups of people is complex and works better from the bottom up than from the top down. Society refers to aggregation of individuals who share a common identity. Usually, because people who live in close proximity often know each other, enjoy shared experiences, speak the same language, and have similar values and interests. “The idea that individuals become a cohesive community through an unwritten social contract has been fundamental to Western political thought since the seventeenth century. Basicto social contract theory is the notion that the right to rule is based on the consent of the governed. Civil liberties in this type of community area matter of natural law and natural rights that is, they do not depend on written laws but, rather, are inherent in Nature” Justice “we willingly accept the rule of the few over the many only if the public interest or ‘common good is significantly advanced in the process. The concept of justice is no less fundamental than power in politics, and it is essential to a stable order. Is power exercised fairly, in the interest of the ruled, or merely for the sake of the rulers? For more than 2,000 years, political observers have maintained the distinction between the public-spirited exercise of political power, on the one hand, and self-interested rule, on the other. This distinction attests to the importance of justice in political life. Not all states and regimes allow questions of justice to be raised; in fact, throughout history, most have not. Even today, some governments brutally and systematically repress political dissent because they fear the consequences. Often, citicism of how a government rulesimpiiitly or explicitly raises questions about its moral or legal right to rule. One of the most important measures of liberty is the right to question whether the government is acting justly. Questions about whether a particular ruler is legitimate or a given policy is desirable stem from human nature itself. The Greek philosopher Aristotle (384-322 BCE)Colegio de San Juan de Letran observed that human beings alone use reason and language “to declare what is advantageous and what is just and unjust.” Therefore, “it is the peculiarity of man, in ‘comparison with the rest of the animal world, that he alone possess 2 perception of {00d and evil, of the just and unjust.” The same human faculties that make moral judgment possible also make political Iteracy the ability to think and speak intelligently about politics necessary. In other words, moral judgment and political literacy are two sides of the same coin” Politics as the art of government “Politics is nota science ... butan art”. Chancellor Bismarck told the German parliament. He meant the art of government: The exercise of control within society through the making and enforcement of collective decisions. in this light, politics can be understood to refer to the affairs of the polis ~ or in its modern sense ‘what concerns the state’. To study politics is, then, in essence to study government, or, more broadly, to study the exercise of authority. This is the traditional view of the discipline, reflected in the tendency for academic study to focus on the personnel and machinery of government. In this view, politics is associated with policy: that is, with formal decisions that establish a plan of action for the ‘community. Politics is what takes place within 2 system of social organization centered upon the machinery of government. itis practiced in cabinet rooms, legislative chambers, government departments and the like, and it is engaged in by a limited and specific group of people, notably politicians, civil servants and lobbyists. Note that, this definition offers a “highly restricted” view of politics. This means that most people, most institutions and most social activities can be regardedas being ‘outside’ politics. Businesses, schools and other educational institutions, community groups, families and so on are in this sense ‘nonpolitical’, because they are not “engaged in running the country”. itis also important to note that portraying politics as an essentially state-bound activity is to ignore the increasingly important role of intemational and global influences upon modern life, such as the multinational corporations + private sector actors. The link between politics and the affairs of the state helps to explain why negative images have been attached to politics: This is because in the popular mind, politics is closely associated with the activities of politicians. Politicians are often seen as power-seeking hypocrites who conceal personal ambition behind the rhetoric of public service and ideological conviction Indeed, this perception has become more common in the modern period as intensified media exposure has more effectively brought to light examples of corruption and dishonesty, giving rise to the phenomenon of anti-politics. Concept: Anti-politics Disappointment with formal and established political processes, reflected innonparticipation, support for antl-system parties, or the use of direct action. Such an image of politics is sometimes traced back to the writings of Niccolé Machiavelli, who, in The Prince (1531), developed a strictly realistic account of politics that drew attention to the use by politicalColegio de San Juan de Letran leaders of cunning, cruelty and manipulation. Such negative opinions about politics reflects 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. Lord Acton (1834-1902) Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely’, All these may be true. However, the proponents of this view see political activity as an inevitable and permanent feature of social existence. Because without some kind of mechanism for allocating authoritative values, society would simply disintegrate into a civil war of each against all. 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 ensure that governmental power is not abused. Politics as Public Affairs This broader conception of politics moves it beyond the narrow realm of government. Here, the distinction between ‘the politica’ and ‘the nonpolitical’ coincides with the division between an essentially public sphere of life and what can be thought of asa private sphere. Such a view of politics is often traced backto Aristotle 1 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, polities is an ethical activity concerned with creating a ‘just society. Now, we have to define “public” and “private”. Traditional Distinction-The traditional distinction between the public realm and the private realm is in line with the division between the state and civil society. 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. + They are funded by taxes i.e. public. Civil society consists of what Edmund 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. 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 ‘nonpolitical’. Alternative Distinction-Although civil society can be distinguished from the state, it 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. Criticism! This, still, remains a restricted view of politics because according to this perspective, politics does not, and should not, infringe upon ‘personal’ affairs and institutions. (Feminist thinkers in particular have pointed out that this implies that politics effectively stops at the front door; it does not take place in the family, in domestic life, or in personal relationships.)Colegio de San Juan de Letran This view has generated both positive and negative images. Positive images: Ina tradition dating back to Aristotle, politics has been seen as 2 noble and enlightened activity precisely because of its “public” character. Hannah Arendt firmly endorses this position: “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 affirms the uniqueness of each individual.” Rousseau: “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 J.S. Mills view: “Involvement in ‘public’ affairs is educational in that it promotes the personal, moral and intellectual development of the individual.” Negative images: 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 arealm of choice, personal freedom and individual responsibility This is most clearly demonstrated by attempts to narrow the realm of the political, commonly expressed as the wish to “keep politics out of” private activities such as business, sport, and family life. Politics as compromise and consensus Here, politics is seen as a particular means of resolving conflict: that is, by compromise, conciligtion and negetiation, rather than through force and naked power. This is what is implied when politics is portrayed as ‘the art of the possible’. The description of a solution to a problem as a ‘political’ solution implies peaceful debate and arbitration, as opposed to what is often called a ‘military’ solution. One of the leading modern exponents of this view is Bernard Crick. Crick offered the following definition “Politics [is] the activity by which differing 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 commurity. “In this view, the key to politics is therefore a wide dispersal of power. This view of politics clearly has a positive character. Note thet, politics is certainly no utopian solution because compromise means that concessions are made by all sides, leaving no one perfectly satisfied. But itis definitely 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 lfe of their own community. itis important to understand that this involves listening carefully to the opinions of others - and this is not so easy. That's why there is a growing disappointment with democratic politics across much of the developed world. As Stoker put it, “Politics is designed to disappoint;” its outcomes are “often messy, ambiguous and never final’.Colegio de San Juan de Letran The fourth definition of politics is both the broadest and the most radical. Rather than confining plitics 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. ‘Politics is at the heart of all collective social activity, formal and informal, public and private, inall human groups, institutions and societies’ (Leftwich). In this sense, poitics 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. Politics concerns the production, distribution and use of resources in the course of social existence. Politics Is, In essence, power: the ability to achieve a desired outcome, through whatever means. This notion was summed up in the title of Harold Laswell’s book Politics: Who Gets What, When, How? (1936). From this perspective, politics is about diversity and conflict, but the essential ingredient is the existence of scarcity: the simple fact that, while human needs and desires are infinite, the resources available to satisty 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 this view of power include Feminists and Marxists. Kate Millett, a feminist, defines politics as “power-structured relationships, arrangements whereby one group of persons is controlled by another”. Feminists can therefore be said to be concerned with “the politics of everyday life”. In their view, relationships within the family, between husbands and wives, and between parents and children, are every bit as political as relationships between employers and workers, or between governments and citizens. Politics as Power Marxists [As opposed to believing that politics can be confined to the state and a narrow public sphere, Manists believe that “the economic is political”. Lenin says “politics is the most concentrated form of economics”. Class struggle is the heart of politics. In Marxism and Feminism, politics is portrayed in largely negative terms. Politics is about oppression and subjugation. But at the same time, politics is seen as the means through which injustice and domination can be challenged. According to Marxists, class exploitation will be overthrown by @ proletarian revolution; Feminists call for a sexual revolution where gender relations will be re-ordered Finally, itis important to note that when politics is portrayed as power and domination, it is ne longer an inevitable feature of social existence. Proletarian/ sexual revolution, will bring politics toan end.Colegio de San Juan de Letran Faces (dimensions) of power In politics power is thought of as o relationship: that is, as the obility to influence the behavior of others ina manner not of their choosing. Power, therefore, can be said to be exercised whenever A gets 8 todo something that B would not otherwise have done. This can be donein various ways: Power as decision-making: -Conscious actions that in some way influence the content of decisions, The decisions can be influenced in various ways: In Three Faces of Power (1989), Keith Boulcing 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 ability to prevent decisions being made: that is, in effect, ‘non-decision: making’. -This Involves the ability to set or control the political agenda, thereby preventing issues or proposals from being aired in the first place. Example: Private businesses may exert power both by campaigning to defeat proposed consumer-protection legislation (first face), and by lobbying politicians to prevent the question of consumer rights being publicly discussed (second face). Power as thought control: The ability to influence another by shaping what he or she thinks, wants, or needs. This is power expressed as ideological indoctrination or psychological control. (the use of propaganda and, more generally, the impact of ideology). This is the radical view of power, and it overlaps with the notion of “soft” power. 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 ciscipline. 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 polities into a scientific 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. If the ‘traditional’ search for universal values acceptable to everyone has largely been abandoned, so has been the insistence that science alone provides a means of disclosing truth. 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, reflecting a concern with what ‘should’, ‘ought’ or ‘must’ be brought about, rather than with what ‘is’ Plato and Aristotle are usually identified as the founding fathers of this tradition. Their ideas resurfacedColegio de San Juan de Letran in the writings of medieval theorists such as Augustine (354-430) and Aquinas (1225-74). 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. Such writings have formed the basis of what Is called the ‘traditional’ approach to politics. This involves the analytical study of ideas and doctrines that have been central to political thought. Most commonly, ithas taken the form of a history of political thought that focuses on a collection of ‘major’ thinkers (that spans, for instance, Plato to Marx) and a canon of ‘classic’ texts. This approach has the character of literary analysis: it is interested primarily in examining what major thinkers said, how they developed or justified their views, and the intellectual context within which they worked. Although such analysis may be carried out critically and scrupulously, it cannot be objective in any scientific sense, as it deals with normative questions such as ‘Why should | obey the state?’, ‘How should rewards be distributed?” and ‘What should the limits of individual freedom be?” The empirical tradition Although it was less prominent than normative theorizing, 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’ sociological theory of government and aw. In many ways, such writings constitute the basis of what is now called ‘comparative government, and they geve rise to an essentially institutional approach to the discipline. In the USA, ané the UK in particular, this developed into the dominant tradition of analysis. The empirical approach to political analysis s characterized by the attempt to offer a dispassionate and impartial account of political reality. The approach is ‘descriptive’, in that it seeks to analyses and explain, whereas the normative approach is ‘prescriptive’, in the sense that it makes jucgements and offers recommendations. Descriptive political analysis 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 (1711-76). The doctrine of empiricism 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 (1798-1857). This doctrine prociaimed that the social sciences, and, for that matter, all forms of philosophical enquiry, should achere 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. Behaviouralism Since the mid-nineteenth century, mainstream political analysis has been dominated by the ‘scientific tradition, reflecting the growing impact of positivism. In the 1870s, ‘political science’ courses were introduced in the universities of Oxford, Paris and Columbia, and by 1906 the American Political Science Review was being published. However, 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. For the first time,Colegio de San Juan de Letran this gave politics reliably scientific credentials, because it provided what had previously been lacking objective and quantifiable data against which hypotheses could be tested. Political analysts such as David Easton (1978, 1981) proclaimed that politics could adopt the methodology of the natural sciences, and this gave rise to @ proliferation of studies in areas best sulted to the use of quantitative research methods, such as voting behavior, the behavior of legislators, and the behavior of municipal politicians and lobbyists. Attempts were also made to apply behaviouralism to IR, in the hope of developing objective ‘laws’ of international relations. Behaviouralism, however, came under growing pressure from the 1960s ‘onwards. In the first place, it was claimed that behaviouralism had significantly 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 fields such as voting studies, a narrow obsession with quantifiable data threatens to reduce the discipline of politics to little else. More worryingly, it inciined a generation of political scentists 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 mesningless because they were not empirically verifiable entities Dissatisfaction with behaviouralism grew as interest in normative questions revived in the 1970s, as reflected in the writings of theorists such as John Rawls and Robert Nozick. Moreover, the scientific credentials of behaviouralism started to be called into question. The basis of the assertion that behaviouralism is objective and reliable Is the claim that it Is ‘velue-free’: that is, that It Is not contaminated by ethical or normative beliefs. However, ifthe focus of analysis is observable behavior, it is difficult todo much more than describe the existing political arrangements, which implicitly means that the status quo is legitimized. This conservative value bias was demonstrated by the fact that ‘democracy’ was, in effect, redefined in terms of observable behavior. Thus, instead of meaning ‘popular self- government’ (literally, government by the people), democracy came to stand for a struggle between competing elites to win power through the mechanism of popular election. In other words, democracy ‘came to mean what goes on in the so-called democratic political systems of the developed West. Rational-ch e theory ‘Amongst recent theoretical approaches to politics is what is called ‘formal political theory’, variously known as ‘rational-choice theory’, public-choice theory and political economy. This approach to analysis draws heavily on the example of economictheory in building up models based on procedural rules, usually about the rationally self-interested behavior of the individuals involved. Most firmly established in the USA, and associated in particular with the so-called Virginia School, 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 behavior 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 use of such techniques by writers such as Anthony Downs (1957), Mancur Olson (1968) and William Niskanen (1971), in flelds such as party competition, interest-group behavior and the policy influence of bureaucrats, is discussed in later chapters. The approach has also been applied in the form of game theory, which has been developed more from the field of mathematics than from economics. It entails the use of first principles to analyze puzzles about individual behavior. The best-known example in game theoryis the prisoner's dilemma. Game theory has been used by IR theorists to explain why statesColegio de San Juan de Letran find it difficult, for instance, to prevent the overfishing of the seas, or the scale of arms to undesirable regimes, By no mears, however, has the rational-choice approach to political analysis been universally accepted. While its supporters claim that it introduces greater rigor into the discussion of political phenomena, critics have questioned its basic assumptions. It may, for instance, 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. Furthermore, in proceeding from an abstract, model of the individual, rational-choice theory pays insufficient attention to social and historical factors, failing to recognize, amongst other things, that human seif-interestedness may be socially conditioned, and not merely innate. 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 ‘behavioral revolution’, combined with growing concerns about its unreflective and essentially descriptive methods [which sometimes threatened to reduce politics toa collection of organizational rules and structures), 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 behavior, new institutionalism has revised our understanding of what constitutes an ‘institution’ in a number of respects. Political institutions are no longer equated with political organizations; they are thought of notas ‘things’ but as sets of rules, which guide or constrain the behavior of individual actors. These rules, moreover, are as likely to be informal as formal, policy-making processes sometimes being shaped more by unwritten conventions or understandings than by formal arrangements. Apart from anything else, this can help to explain why institutions are often difficult to reform, transform or replace. Finally, rather than viewing institutions as independent entities, in which case they exist almost outside of time and space, new institutionalists emphasize that institutions are embedded in a particular normative and historical context. Thus, just as actors within an institutional setting are socialized to accept key rules and procedures, 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. For example, itis sometimes accused of subscribing to a structuralist logicin which, to a greater or lesser extent, political actors are viewed as ‘prisoners’ of the institutional contextsin which they operate. Critical approaches Since the 1980s, the range of critical approaches to politicshas expanded considerably. Until that point, Marxism had constituted the principal alternative to mainstream political science. indeed, Kari Marx can be seen as the first theorist to have attempted to describe politics in scientific 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Colegio de San Juan de Letran both richer and more diverse as a result of the emergence of new critical perspectives, notable examples including feminism, critical theory, green politics, constructivism, post-structuralism and postcolonialism. What do these new critical voices have in common, and in what sense are they ‘critical’? In view of their diverse philosophical uncerpinnings and contrasting political vewpoints, tis tempting to argue that the only thing that unites them is a shared antipathy towards mainstream thinking. Nevertheless, they exemplify two broads, and sometimes linked, characteristics. The first is that they are ‘critical’ in that, in their different 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 intend to ignore. Feminism, for example, has drawn attention to systematic and pervasive structures of gender inequality that characterize politics in all its forms and at every level. 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 influences, including Freud and Weber. Green politics, or ecologism has challenged the anthropocentric (human-centered) emphasis of established political and social theory, and championed holistic approaches to political and social understanding. Postcolonialism emphasizes the cultural dimension of colonial rule, showing how western cultural and political hegemony over the rest of the world has been preserved despite the achievement of formal political independence across almost the entire developing world. The second characteristic of enitical approaches to politics is that, albeit in different ways and to different degrees, they have tried to {0 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 [sometimes called ‘interpretivism’ or ‘anti-foundationalism’) are therefore ‘critical’, in that they not only take issue with the conclusions of mainstream approaches, butalso 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 post-structuralism. Constructivism has had a significantly 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 2 substantive theory as an anaiytical tool. In arguing that people, in effect, ‘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'sclaim to objectivity into question. For example, as subjective entities, political actors have no fixed or objective interests or identities; rather, these are fashioned (and can be re-fashioned) through the traditions, values and sentiments that prevail at any time, Post-structuralism emerged alongside postmodernism (see p. 18}, the two terms sometimes being used interchangeably. Post-structuralism emphasizes that all ideas and concepts are expressed in language which itself is enmeshed in complex relations of power. Influenced particularly by the writings of the French philosopher and radical intellectual Michel Foucault (1926-84), post structuralists have drawn attention to the link between power and systems of thought using the idea of discourse, or ‘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 post-structuralism and postmodernism reject the idea of absolute and universal truth (foundationalism), post-structuralists ergueColegio de San Juan de Letran that itis possible to expose hidden meanings in particular concepts, theories and interpretations through a process of deconstruction. Concepts, models and the Concepts, models and theories are the tools of political analysis. However, as with most things in politics, the analytical tools must be used with care. First, let us consider concepts. A concept is a general idea about something, usually expressed in a single word or a short phrase. A concept is more than a proper noun or the name of a thing. There is, for example, a difference 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 not a thing but an idea, an idea composed of the various attributes that give a cat its distinctive character: 3 furry mammal, ‘small, ‘domesticated’, ‘catches rats and mice’, andso on. The concept of ‘equality’ isthus a principle or ideal. This is different from using the term to say that a runner has equaled a world record, or that an inheritance is to be shared ‘equally’ between two brothers. In the same way, the concept of presidency’ refers not to any specific president but, rather, to a set of ideas about the organization of executive power. What, then, is the value of concepts? Concepts are the tools with which we think, criticize, argue, explain and analyses. Merely perceiving the external world does not in itself give us knowledge about it. In order to make sense of the world, we must, in asense, impose meaning on it, and this we do through the construction of concepts. Quite simply, to treat a cat asa cat, we must first have a concept of what itis. Concepts also help us to classify objects by recognizing that they have similar forms or similar properties. A cat for instance, isa member of the class of ‘cats. Concents are therefore ‘general’ they can relate to a number of objects, indeed to any object that complies with the characteristics of the general idea itself. tis no exaggeration to say that our knowledge of the political world is built up through developing and refining concepts that help us make sense of that world. Concepts, in that sense, are the building blocks of human knowledge. Nevertheless, concepts can also be slippery customers. In the first place, the political reality we seek to understand is constantly shifting and is highly complex. There is always the danger that 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. This view implies that the concepts we use are constructed by singling out certain basic or central features of the phenomenonin question, which means that other features are downgraded or ignored altogether. The concept of ‘revolution’ can be regarded as an ideal type in this sense, in that it draws attention to a process of fundamental, and usually viclent, political change. it thus helps us make sense of, say, the 1789 French Revolution and the Eastern European revolutions of 1989-91 by highlighting important parallels between them. The concept must nevertheless be used with care because it can also conceal vital differences, and thereby distort understanding — in this case, for example, about the ideological and social character of revolution. Sartori (1970) highlighteo similar tendencies by drawing attention to the phenomena of conceptual ‘travelling’ (the application of concepts to new cases) and conceptual ‘stretching’ (the distortion that occurs when these concepts do not fit the new cases}. For these reasons, itis better to think of concepts orideal types not as being ‘true’ or ‘false’, but as being more or less ‘useful’. A further problem is that political concepts are often the subject of deep ideological controversy. Politics is, in part, a struggle over the legitimate meaning of terms and concepts. Enemies may argue, fight and even go to war, all claiming to be ‘defending freedom’,Colegio de San Juan de Letran ‘upholding democracy’ or ‘having justice on their side’. The problem is that words such as ‘freedom’, ‘democracy’ and justice’ have different meanings to different people. How can we establish what is ‘true’ democracy, ‘true’ freedom or'true’ justice? The simple answer is that we cannot. Just as with the attempt 10 define ‘politics’, we have to accept that there are competing versions of many political concepts. Such conceptsare best regarded as‘essentially contested’ concepts (Gallie, 1955/56), in that controversy about them runs so deep that no neutral or settled definition can ever be developed. In effect, a single term can represent a number of rival concepts, none of which can be accepted es its ‘true’ meaning. For example, itis equally legitimate to define politics as what concerns the state, as the conduct of public lfe, as debate and conciliation, and as the distribution of power and resources. Models and theories are broader than concepts; they comprise a range of ideas rather than a single idea. A model is usually thought of as representation of something, usually on a smaller scale, asin the case of a doll’s house or toy aero plane. In this sense, the purpose of the model is to resemble the original objectas faithfully as possible. However, conceptual models need not in any way resemble an object. It would be absurd, for instance, to insist that a computer model of the economy should bear a physical resemblance to the economy itself. Rather, conceptual models are analytical tools; their valueis that they are devices through which meaning can be imposed on what would otherwise bea bewildering and disorganized collection of facts. The simple point is that facts do not speak for themselves: they must be interpreted, and they must be organized. Models assist in the accomplishment of this task because they include a network of relationships that highlight the meaning and significance of relevant empirical data. The best way of understanding this is through an example. One of the most influential models in political analysis is the model of the political system developed by David Easton (1979, 1981). This can be represented diagrammatically. This ambitious mode sets out to explain the entire political process, as well as the function of major political actors, through the application of what is called systems analysis. A system is an orgenized or complex whole, a set of interrelated and interdependent parts that form 2 collective entity. In the case of the political system, a linkage exists between what Easton calls inputs and outputs. Inputs into the political system consist of demands and supports from the general public. Demands can range from pressure for higher living standards, improved employment prospects, and more generous welfare payments to greater protection for minority and individual rights. Supports, on the other hand, are ways in which the public contributes to the political system by paying taxes, offering compliance, and being willing to participate in public life. Outputs consist of the decisions and actions of government, including the making of policy, the passing of laws, theimposition of taxes, and the allocation of public funds. Clearly, these outputs generete ‘feedback’ which, in turn, shapes further demand and supports. The key insight offered 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. However, its vital to remember that conceptual models are at best simplifications of the reality they seek to explain. They are merely devices for drawing out understanding; they are not reliable knowledge. In the case of Easton’s model, for example, political parties and interest groups are portrayed as ‘gatekeepers’, the central function of whichis to regulate the flow of inputs into the political system. Although this may be one of their significant functions, parties and interest groups also manage public perceptions, and thereby help to shape the nature of public demands. In short, these are more interesting and more complex institutions in reality than the systems model Suggests. In the same way, Easton’s model is more effective in explaining how and why political systemsColegio de San Juan de Letran respond to popular pressures than it isin explaining why they employ repressionand coercion, as, to some degree, all do. The terms ‘theory and ‘mode!’ are often used interchangeably in politics. Theories and models are both conceptual constructs used as tools of political analysis. However, strictly speaking, 2 theory Isa proposition. itoffers a systematic explanation of a body of empirical data. In contrast, a model is merely an explanatory device; it is more like a hypothesis that has yet to be tested. In that sense, in politics, while theories can be said to be more or less ‘true’, models can only be said to be more or less ‘useful’. Clearly, however, theories and models are often interlinked: broad political theories may be explained in terms of a series of models. For example, the theory of pluralism encompasses a model of the state, a model of electoral competition, « model of group politics, and so on. However, virtually all conceptual devices, theories and models contain hidden values or implicit assumptions. This is why it is difficult to construct theories that are purely empirical; values and normative beliefs invariably intrude. In the case of concepts, this is demonstrated by people's tendency to use terms as either ‘hurrah! words’ {for example ‘democracy, ‘freedom’ and ‘justice’) or “boo! words’ (for example, ‘conflict’, ‘anarchy’, ‘ideology’, and even ‘politics’). Medels and theories arealse ‘loeded’ in the sense that they contain a range of biases. itis difficult, for ex ample, 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, itis perhaps not surprising that they have often pointed to policy conclusions that are politically conservative. In the same way, class theores of politics, advanced by Marxists, are based on broader theories about histery and society and, indeed, they ultimately rest on the validity of an entire social philosophy. There is therefore a sense in which analytical devices, such as models and micro theories, are constructed on the basis of broader macro theories. These major theoretical tools of political analysis are those that address the issues of power and the role of the state: pluralism, elitism, class analysis and so on. These theories are examined in Chapters 4 and 5. Ata still deeper level, however, many of these macro theories reflect the assumptions and beliefs of one or other of the major ideological traditions. These traditions operate in a similar way to the ‘paradigms’ to which Thomas Kuhn refers in The Structure of Scientific Revolutions (1962). A paradigm isa related set of principles, doctrines and theories that helps to structure the process of intellectual enquiry. In effect, a paradigm constitutes the framework within which the search for knowledge is conducted. In economics, this can be seen in the replacement of Keynesianism by monetarism (and perhaps the subsequent shift back to neo-Keynesianism): in transport policy itis shown in the rise of green ideas. According to Kuhn, the natural sciences are dominated at any time by a single paradigm; science develops through a series of ‘revolutions’ in which an old paradigm is replaced by a new one. Political and social enquiry Is, however, different, in that itis a battleground of contending and competing paradigms. These paradigms take the form of broad social philosophies, usually called ‘politcal ideologies’: liberalism, conservatism, socialism, fascism, feminism and so on, Each presents its own account of social existence; each offers 2 particular view of the world. To portray these ideologies as theoretical paradigms is not, of course, to say that most, if not all, political analysis is narrowly ideological, in the sense that it advances the interests of a particular group or class. Rather, it merely acknowledges that political analysis is usually carried out on the basis of a particular ideological tradition. Much of academic political science, for example, has been constructed according to liberal-rationalist assumptions, and thus bears the imprint of its liberal heritage. The various levels of conceptual analysis are shown diagrammatically. Source: Politics by Andrew HeywoodColegio de San Juan de Letran Political Ideologies ‘An ideology is a more or less coherent set of ideas that provides the basis for organized political action, whether this is intended to preserve, modify or overthrow the existing system of power. All ideologies therefore have the following features: a) They offer an account of the existing order, usually in the form of a “world view" b) They advance a model of a desired future, a vision of the ,good society" They explain how political change can and should be brought about ~how to get from (a) to (b} Heywood, A (2007). Political Ideologies — An Introduction. Palgrave Macmillan: New York. Liberalism: The Individual ‘Adam Smith, John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau Liberalism emphasizes the importance of the individual, both the uniqueness of each individual and at the same time the equality of all individuals. Thus, liberalism emphasizes a commitment to individual freedom. This does not mean though, that an individual is free to do whatever they like. There are still constraints on what you are actually allowed to do, one constraint being that you are not allowed to hurt another individual ber 5m: Fal Having faith in reason, or the ability to use one’s intellect in taking action in the world, is also @ central component. Liberalism: Justice and tolerance Liberals look at justice in that each person should be given what they are due. Because individual rights are central, this means that liberalism believes in tolerance and pluralism, or the idea that different moral, cultural and political cultures can exist together. Conservatism: Core themes Edmund Burke, Benjamin Disraeli, Margaret Thatcher, jonald Reagan Central beliefs of conservatism are based around the ideas of: « tradition « human imperfection * organic society « hierarchy and authority * property Conservatism: Tradition + Conservatives argue for the preservation of tradition, in particular with regards to values, practices and institutions. They see tradition as being one of the foundations of society; without it, they belleve society would crumble. Conservatism: Humans are imperfectColegio de San Juan de Letran + Conservatives argue that human beings are imperfect and not perfectible, thus they will need stability and security in their lives, which the government can provide. Conservatism: Organic society + Conservatives believe that human beings cannot exist outside of society, or the social groups that, nurture him/her, such as family, fiends, colleagues, local community, and the nation. Conservatism: Hierarchy and authority + Believe that society is hierarchical, and that authority (who is on top or in charge) develops naturally. Conservatism: Property © Conservatives have a firm belief in the importance of owning property, and encourage private savings and investment in property; property is seen to be a way of creating 2 stable world. © People are less likely to damage someone else's property if they also own property. Socialism (Robert Owen, Kari Marx) Core Themes + Community * Cooperation © equality + Class polities + Common ownership Community ‘+ Human beings are tied to one another by the bonds of a common humanity + We are all brothers and sister. View on human nature + Belief in the plasticity of human nature, or that humans can change and be molded by life experience. + Firm belief that humans are not predestined, but have the capacity to become something greater than what they areColegio de San Juan de Letran Cooperation not competition ‘+ Socialists believe that the natural relationship among humans is one of cooperation rather than ‘competition. Equality ‘+ Socialists are committed to equality Social Class ‘+ Emphasis is on social class as the determining factor of society Common ownership ‘+ Disagree with the idea of private property, as they see this as one of the causes of competition and therefore social inequality. ‘© Thus, have a view that all property should be communal ‘+ From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" — Karl Marx Comparing the three we have looked at so far View Uberalism Conservatism Socialism Human nature Inherently good Inherently imperfect | inherently good and selfish Of individual Free to pursue | Individual is to obey the | Supports the common individual goals power structures good Of society Made up of individuals, | Hierarchical — divisions | Society more important working together are natural than the individual Private property Used for personal | Necessary for stability _| The cause of inequality benefit Fascism While liberalism, conservatism and socialism are ideas that have their roots in the 19th Century, fascism was born in the period between the first world wars, and emerged most dramaticallyin Italy and Germany. Benito Mussolini and his Fascist Party came to power in Italy in the 1920s and lasted until the second World War, upon which he was executed by the Italian partisans and hung by his feetin a square in Milano. Adolf Hitler and his Nazi Party came to powerin the 1930s and lasted until the Second World War, until the defeat of Germany by the Allies.Colegio de San Juan de Letran A Features of fascism It is a difficult ideology to define, but some of its common themes include: ‘+ Areaction against rationelism, or the use of reason to make sense of the world + Abelief that life is struggle, and that the strongest survive (influenced by Darwin's idea of natural selection) + Does not believe in equality; instead believes in elitism, or that some people are born leaders, ‘+ An extreme embrace of nationalism; incorporating a belief that certain nations are superior to others Feminism Mary Wollstonecraft, Simone de Beauvoir, Betty Friedman Important ideology that changed the focus of ideology from looking at the public to the private sphere. That is, rather than looking at the politics of the state level, they started to look at the politics of the individual. Key to this was looking at the power relationship that exists between men and women. ‘+ Use of the concept of "patriarchy" to describe the power relationship between men and women ‘+ Made a distinction between the idea of ,sex" and agender": sex is a biological term defined by birth, whereas gender is a cultural term which incorporates learning how to be female or male. Anarchism, liam Godwin, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Peter Kropotki Noam Chomsky ‘+The defining feature of anarchism is its opposition to the state and the institutions of government and law ‘+ Their main argument against authority is that they see authority as being an offence against the principles of freedom and equality + They believe in a natural goodness of humans, and that without a state governing human would naturally fall into a state of cooperation with one anotherColegio de San Juan de Letran Ecologism James Lovelock, Ernest Haeckel ‘+ Earth as a living organism * Concern about the damage done to the environment by the increasing pace of ‘economic development. Groups, Interests and Movements Interest groups ‘+ An interest group is an organized association that aims to influence the policies or actions of government, ‘+ An interests’ group is a representative of the interests, aspirations and values of a particular group. ‘+ Modern linkages between. government and the people. ‘+ Interest groups are the products of industrialized societies. What is the difference between an interest group and political party? ‘+ No objective to win elections ‘+ Narrow definitions of interests and membership criteria Why do we need interest groups? ‘+ Representatives of group interests ‘+ Agents of political mobilization How to classify interest groups ‘+ Association: A group formed by voluntary action on the basis of shared interests and common values. a. Association: Membership is usually based on profession. (Unions, Chambers, Bars) b. Social Clubs, Societies, Communities: Membership is usually based on wealth and status, ethnicity, outstanding accomplishments, or religion. Foundation: Non-profit organizations such as charities.Colegio de San Juan de Letran Types of Groups Communal groups ‘+ Membershipis based on birth, shared heritageandancestors. Example: families, tribes and ethnic groups Institutional groups + Partof government. ‘+ Therefore, no autonomy or independence ‘+ Example: bureaucracies and the military, semi-autonomous government agencies such as (Capital Markets Board of Turkey) Associational groups ‘+ Voluntary membership and the existence of common interests. ‘+ Feature of industrial societies ‘+ Example: Unions like Union of Chambers of Commodity Exchanges of Turkey (TOBB), Labor/Trade Unions such as Memur-Sen Sectional vs. Promotional ‘+ Sectional groups are private interest groups whose main concern is the well-being of ts members and promotion of their interests. Example: Egitim-Sen, Bar Associations, Medical Associations ‘+ Promotional groups are public interest groups which fight for acause and promote shared values and ideal for the whole society. Example: TEMA, Greenpeace. Models of Group Politics Pluralist Model ‘+ Pluralist Model Positive view of group politics. ‘+ Based on the argument that in modem democracies political power is/should be dispersed and fragmented + Politics understood as bargaining and consensus. + Politics cannot/should not be dominated by a single community or a group of elites ‘+ Interest groups defend individuals agzinst government. ‘+ Interest groups are the guarantors of a healthy democracy. ‘+ interest groups should have equal opportunities to influence government policies. Model Corpora © Corporatism emphasizes the privileged position that certain groups enjoy in relation to government.Colegio de San Juan de Letran Closer links between some interest groups and government. In this case, insider groups are more influential than outsider groups either because they are consulted by government or because they have a veto power on policies. Government needs to consult these groups as they are seen as a source of knowledge and information on specific issues, as a source of legitimation for their policies. Prosand Cons of Interest Groups Pros 1 They strengthen representation by articulation interests and advancing particular views and values neglected by government They promote debate and discussion on certain issues. They broaden the scope of political participation by providing opportunities for grassroots demand to be heard 4. They check goverment power and defend individuals against the state 5. They maintain political stability by providing a channel of communication and link between government and the people. cons 1, They usually promote the views and interests of wealthy and privileged people. 2. They are politically and socially divisive as they promote the interests of one group over the interests of whole society. Threat to national unity. 3. They are not publicly accountable and transparent bodies as they can be more influential than political parties even though they are not elected by the people. 4, They make societies ungovernable as they can block government initiatives and hinder social and economic development. Social Movement Social movements are purposeful forms of political participation that often remain unorganized. Such movements have “sympathizers” as oppose to “members” Social movements tend to more diffuse and less hierarchical that other avenues of political participation. Social Class Social classes are major social groups formed by relationships to the means of production in society. In pre-capitalist societies where central means of production as land- social classes reflected divisions between those with landed entitlement (kings, emperors, shoguns, knights and so on] and those without it who worked the land (slaves, peasants, vassals, serfs and so on) Intermediary classes suchas craftsmen, service performersalso.existed in pre-capitalist socialites.Colegio de San Juan de Letran + A particular form of collective behavior and political activism which has a loose organizational framework yet a strong motive and commitment as well as high level of political activism ‘+ Example: environmental movements, the peace movement in the 1960s. ‘+ Example; worker's movement in the 19th century, nationalist movements, Nazi movement in Germany, anticolonial movements. + Difference between rebellion and social movements is that the latter is more organized and aimed at achieving a social or political goal usually through non-violent ways such as protests. Interest Groups ‘+ Democratic theories claim social cleavages give rise to group identities and that these find expression in organizations. ‘+ Onesuch organization is the interest group: policy ‘+ Interest groups “articulate” the interests of their members also known as “pressure groups” rivate organization which seeks to influence public Differences between old and new social movements Old social movements 1. Old social movements included oppressed and exploited people such as workers, peasants, whereasnew social movements include young, better educated and affluent people. 2. Old movements were materially oriented as their main goal was to improve economic conditions and welfare of workers, peasants, minority groups whereas new social movements are much more postmaterialist. They aim to advance gender equality, animal rights, environmental protection and human rights. 3. Old movements usually didn’t work together and had little in common in terms of ideology some of them socialist, some of nationalist whereas new social movements dohave a common ideology, namely the New Left. New social movements 1. Newsocial movements are decentralized, loosely organized, participatory in decision-making and developed new ways of political participation and activism against the traditional methods. They are against established political parties (they are anti-party parties)