I studied psychology and sociology. I think my assumption was that I would go to graduate school, and I don't know what I was going to do after that.
From the interactionist perspective, political institutions, like all others, are "socially constructed" in the course of human interaction. They do not simply come into being as structures of norms, statuses, and roles and then continue to function without change. Instead, they are continually being shaped and reshaped through interaction. This view closely parallels the popular notion that democratic political institutions must be continually challenged if they are to live up to their ideals. Otherwise they will become oligarchies that rule for the benefit of small cliques rather than for the mass of citizens (Oberschall, 1996, Social Movements). The question of how social interaction affects a society's political institutions was a central concern of the leading philosophers of ancient Greece. In his Politics, for example, Aristotle held that "humans were made for life in society just as bees were made for life in the hive" (Bernard, 1973, The Sociology of Community, p. 30). Because humans are "political animals," Aristotle believed, their constant discussions of political issues and their ability to form coalitions allow them to arrive at a consensus regarding what a good society is and how it should be governed. Unfortunately, he concluded, existing political systems were flawed. The divisions and gaps in interaction created by wealth prevented consensus and created conflict. Moreover, people in occupations like farming did not have enough time to examine all the sides of an issue and work toward agreement with their fellow citizens. In a good society, therefore, all the citizens must be free to devote their full attention to political affairs. In practice, Greek democracy required an economy based on the labor of slaves. Nearly two thousand years later the Italian political advisor Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527) again took up the relationship between human interaction and political institutions. Machiavelli believed that political institutions had to be based on the recognition that all human beings are capable of evil as well as good. In his Discourses he made this observation: All those who have written upon civil institutions demonstrate . . . that whosoever desires to found a state and give it laws, must start by assuming that all men are bad and ever ready to display their vicious nature, whenever they may find an occasion for it. (1950/1513, Discourses and The Prince, vol. 1, p. 3)
Some people, he admitted, are merciful, faithful, humane, and sincere, but even though there are virtuous people in every society, political leaders must anticipate the worst possible behavior. In his most famous work The Prince, Machiavelli suggested that the wise ruler or prince would be a master of astuteness---the ability to read the intentions of allies and opponents in the tiniest of gestures and reactions---and would also have mastered the skills of diplomacy. He used the following comparison to make this point: A prince must imitate the fox and the lion, for the lion cannot protect himself from the traps, and the fox cannot defend himself from wolves. One must therefore be a fox to recognize traps, and a lion to frighten wolves. Those that wish to be only lions do not understand this (1950/1513, vol. 1, p. 66) In the five centuries since they were originally formulated, these ideas have had a powerful influence on political thinkers. The authors of the U.S. Constitution, for example, attempted to avoid situations in which "foxes" or "lions" could take advantage of the weaknesses of others. They anticipated the more self-serving aspects of political interaction rather than simply assuming that a new society would bring about cooperation among the citizens: "If men were angels, no government would be necessary" (The Federalist, number 51). This is why they planned a government in which each of the major branches would be able to check any abuse of power by the other branches. Political Interaction in the "Democratic Experiment" In the 1830s Alexis de Tocqueville, a young French aristocrat, visited the world's first experiment in national democracy. Although the United States was by no means a true democracy since it condoned slavery, indentured servants, and war against Native Americans, European social thinkers took a keen interest in the model of citizen rule through democratic institutions that was being established in the new nation. Tocqueville was stunned by the "tumult" of American political interactions, which must be seen in order to be understood." In America, he wrote, political activity was in evidence everywhere: A confused clamour is heard on every side; and a thousand simultaneous voices demand the immediate satisfaction of their social wants. Everything is in motion around you; here, the people of one quarter of a town are meant to decide upon the building of a church; there, the election of a representative is going on; a little further, the delegates of a district are traveling in a hurry to the town in order to consult upon some local Improvement; or, in another place, the labourers of a village quit their plows to deliberate upon the project of a road or a public school. (1980/1835, On Democracy, Revolution, and Societyp. 78)
Toqueville was concerned that democratic societies might encourage the rise of demagogues who could manipulate the masses, but his observations persuaded him that the immense number of competing groups in the American political system would prevent this from happening. And while he worried about the possibility of political conflict tearing the young nation apart, he became convinced that Americans' love of liberty and belief in the legitimacy of their political institutions would carry them through any crisis that might arise. The Media and Political Communication In a world in which the techniques of communication are increasingly sophisticated, it becomes ever more important to analyze political communications and to read between the lines of political rhetoric. Political jargon often makes masks deeds that leaders would rather not admit to. George Orwell, a master of political commentary, made this point in his essay "Politics and the English Language": Political speech and writing are largely the defense of the indefensible. . . . Defenseless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets: this is called pacification. Millions of peasants are robbed of their farms and sent trudging along the roads with no more than they could carry: this is called transfer of population or rectification of frontiers. People are in prison for years without trial, or shot in the back of the neck or sent to die of scurvy in Arctic lumber camps: this is called elimination of unreliable elements. Such phraseology is needed if one wants to name things without calling up mental pictures of them. (1950, p. 136) The point of his essay is that to be politically objective, to seek the true meanings of political acts and the consequences of political beliefs, we must "start at the verbal end": The great enemy of clear language is insincerity. When there is a gap between one's real and one's declared aims, one turns as it were instinctively to long words and exhausted idioms, like a cuttlefish squirting out ink. . . . If you simplify your English when you make a stupid remark it's stupidity will be obvious, even to yourself. Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. One cannot change this all in a moment, but one can at least change one's own habits, and from time to time one can even, if one jeers loudly enough, send some worn out and useless phrase . . . into the dustbin where it belongs. (p. 140) *MAIN SOURCE: KORNBLUM, W., (2003), SOCIOLOGY IN A CHANGING WORLD, 6TH ED., PP. 628-633* end |
No comments:
Post a Comment