Political Sociology

Grand definitions: Who gets what, when and how (i.e. power) How political outcomes affect and effected by social circumstances. How class and inequality affect demand for welfare states and how different kinds of welfare states have different impacts in inequality and class. More informal definitions: It is about people how they relate to politics. What people think about politics, what policies they want, what makes them participate and at what level, what divides or unites them. Thins that affect political preferences, attitudes, values and behavior in society at large, but also how that goes on to affect policy and other political outcomes, including regime type. While Comparative Government focuses on the political institutions (the sausage machine of politics), Political Sociology focuses on the social circumstances in which those institutions work (i.e. what goes into the sausage machine). Political Sociology is different from political sciences: How is political sociology different from political sciences? After all, both disciplines are social sciences. They both deal with human behavior. In this case, both political sociology and political sciences deal with a specific aspect of human behavior. Keith Faulks (2000) defines political sociology as follows: At its broadest level, political sociology is concerned with the relationship between politics sociology. Its distinctiveness within the social sciences lies in its acknowledgement that political actors, including parties, pressure groups and social movements, operate within a wider social context. Political actors therefore inevitably shape and in turn are shaped by social structures such as gender, class and nationality. Such social structures ensure that political sociology is that power, where power is defined as the capacity to achieve ones objectives even when those objectives are in conflict with the interest of another actor. Political sociologists therefore invariably return to the following questions: Which individuals and groups in society possess the capacity to pursue their interests and how is this power exercised and institutionalized. There are several concepts contained within this definition that are basics to political sociology and that need defining themselves.

Basic Concepts: Polity, Politics, Policy Polity refers to the entire political domain, the space where political actors (political parties, special and public interest groups, lobbyists, etc.). Polity is the political field where these actors vie for power, try to maintain or increase their power, struggle to have their interests prevail. Politics refers to the activities that these actors engage within the political domain. Crafting bills, trying to influence legislators, campaigning for elections or on specific political issue, all these activities constitute politics and as with any social activity there are norms in place as to what is or what is not acceptable. Policy refers to public actions that public policies and the actual products of governance. These actions are usually distinguished by domain of activity so that we often speak of economic policy, environment policy, labor policy or educational policy, for instance. All of these are public policies. All the societies have different forms of each and they all refer to collective governance of society as a whole. Power: Hard / Soft Power The concept of power is already is defined in the quote above. There are different types of power, though. A first distinction refers to how power is exercised. Hard power or coercion is the exercise of power through force or the threat of force. Military power for instance, is the ultimate form of hard power, so is a parent spanking a child. Soft power or influence refers to the exercise of power through persuasion. Diplomacy, for instance, is a form of soft power whereby political actors try to convince other parties to see things their way and agree to their demands. Is one more effective than the other? Hard power may result in compliance on the short term, but because it generates resentment, it might have negative effects on the long term. Soft power tends to generate better and more long term effects in that recipients do not feel bullied or forced against their will. These concepts were developed by foreign policy analyst Joseph Nye (2005).

Forms of Power: Another distinction made by sociologist Michael Mann (2005) refers to the social dimensions of power and how they shape societies. Mann identifies four such forms of social power-ideological, economic, military and political. Ideological power derives from the human need to find ultimate meaning to share norms and values and to participate in aesthetic and ritual practices. Control of an ideology that is combine ultimate meaning, values, norms, aesthetic and ritual brings general social power. Examples: religions and secular ideologies like liberalism, socialism and nationalism. Economic power derives from the need to extract, transform, distribute and consume the resources of nature. It is peculiarly powerful because it combines intensive, everyday labor cooperation with extensive circuits of the distribution, exchange and consumption of goods. All the complex societies unequally distributed controls over economic resources, thus classes have been ubiquitous Military power is the social organization of physical force. It derives from the (necessity) of organized defense and utility of aggression. Military power has both intensive and extensive aspects for it concerns intense organization to preserve life and inflict death and can also organize many people over large sociospacial areas. Those who monopolize it, as military elites and castes wield a degree of general social power. Political power derives from the usefulness of territorial and centralized regulation. Political power means state power. It is essentially authoritative commanded and willed from a center. State organization is twofold: Domestically: it is territorially centralized; externally in involves geopolitics. Political culture and social capital: What are these? How have they changed over the time and how do they affect the quality of democracy. Political Action and Participation: Voter Turnout Citizen participation: petitions, writing to MPs etc. Social movements: how the organizations fair. Political violence, civil wars and revolutions: when do people try to overthrow regime and when do they succeed. Social Cleavages: Race and ethnicity: differences in electoral behavior and representation. Extreme-right: sources of anti-immigrant attitudes. Nationalism: what is it and where does it come from. Religion: effects on social and political attitudes (including to democracy) and electoral behavior.

 Gender: attitudes, behavior and representation. Class: mainly electoral behavior and change.

Class issues: 1. Political elites: how much power do they have and how can we tell? 2. Welfare regimes: why do some countries have more generous welfare provision than others? 3. Post materialism and social attitudes: has there been a rise in post materialism or other broad trends in social attitudes and the implications. 4. Media: how biased are they and how they influence political attitudes and behavior. Explanation: Every society has more or less of each of these categories power. For instance, as Mann (2005) indicates, the United States is a military giant, an economic backseat driver, a political schizophrenic and an ideological phantom. What does he mean by that? Military power is hard power and there is no doubt that the United States is the most militarized society on Earth (see graph below):

No doubt about it, The United States almost the entire world combined when it comes to military spending, so, the "military giant" image is appropriate.

The "economic backseat driver" image reflects the fact that the United States exercises much power in global institutions such as the IMF, the World Bank or the World Trade Organization and therefore was in position to impose neo liberal reforms to many lowincome countries (see section on economic globalization).

The "political schizophrenic" image refers to the fact that the United States, as militarily powerful as it is, finds it more and more difficult to engage in unilateral political actions "going it alone" - in an era where the rise of other powers (China, India, or Brazil along with the politically emergent European Union) require some degree of multilateralism - engaging

in cooperation with other countries on specific global political issues. We will return to the structure of global governance in a latter section. At the same time, the United States has had trouble effecting regime changes in some countries (such as Iraq or Afghanistan).

Finally, an "ideological phantom" refers to the contradiction between the United States selfperception as a bastion for democracy and human rights while the policies related to the Global War on Terror have involved anti-democratic mechanisms (massive spying on the population) and strong violations of human rights. As a result, the ideological standing the United States has considerably eroded beyond the normal level of skepticism that has always existed in parts of their world. These contradictions and the high level of American religiosity (and corresponding self-righteousness) have left the country ideologically illequipped to understand, and deal with, the current ideological complexities of the world: ethno-nationalism and religious fundamentalism.

Of course, different countries possess different levels of each power. For instance, there is no doubt that China is an economic power on the rise, and a military power (especially within Asia), these two factors have increased its political power but, as far as ideological power is concerned, China would rank fairly low as its human rights violations and appalling record do not make it a role model for good governance. On the other hand, most Sub-Saharan African countries (with the exception of South Africa) rank low on every power dimension. Scandinavian countries rank high on ideological power (these are countries that provide a lot of international aid to poorer countries, and have almost impeccable human rights records), but they are middle of the road in terms of political power. They are not interested in military power as they prefer to use soft power. They are economically strong but small.

Over time, of course, these power distributions change as countries rise or fall along the different dimensions. For instance, the end of the British Empire after World War II lowered the country's standing in terms of economic and political power. Similarly, after World War II, Japan and Germany were prohibited from having a military except for a token force for self-defense. Therefore, they could no longer exercise military power. But over the 20th Century, they found ways to exercise other forms of power: both of them became strong economic powers, and Germany regained a great deal of political power through its involvement in - and promotion of - the European Union.

Every form of power then can be used by a country that possesses it to enforce its interests over other countries or regions or on the global stage. A country may use its military power to invade another one, as China did in Tibet or the United States did in Iraq (with a few allies). But military intervention is not the only way to enforce one's interests. Economic power may be used as well: for instance, countries may impose economic sanctions against other countries to pressure them to change their behavior. For instance, after the first Iraq War in 1990, Iraq was subject to economic sanctions, that are, prevented from trading with other countries. These sanctions were extremely devastating to the country. Economic sanctions may be targeted at certain goods, for instance, during the War the dismantled the country that used to be Yugoslavia, the United Nations imposed an embargo (prevention of trade) on weaponry: in effect, no one was allowed to sell weapons to the parties in conflict in Yugoslavia. Similarly, political power may be exercised through influence at the UN Security Council to pursue one's interest. For instance, the UN has been unable to force resolutions on the Israel / Palestine conflict because the US vetoes any resolution that seems critical of Israel. On the other hand, the US was unable to obtain political support for Operation Iraqi Freedom in 2003, a sign of declining political power. Finally, military, political or economic power will be exercised more easily if the country enjoys ideological power.