Structural versus Piecemeal Definitions of Social Issues: A Subjective Factor in Systern‐Transcending Struggle

In: Scandinavian political studies, Band 3, Heft 1, S. 39-57

Abstract

Virtually all social scientists, Marxists or non‐Marxists, agree that various aspects of advanced contemporary societies have become increasingly interdependent. Therefore it would seem that piecemeal definitions of issues and social problems are becoming more and more inadequate in dealing with the crucial systemic characteristics of our societies. Decision‐makers as well as the public need not only more information, but systemic information based on structural rather than piecemeal definitions of issues and social problems. This paper explores, firstly, how mainstream sociology and Marxism deal with the complexity and interdependency characteristics of mature capitalist societies. Secondly, it explores some normative conclusions about the type of political information and communication needed in mature capitalist societies, according to Marxist and mainstream sociological interpretations. Thirdly, it provides some empirical illustrations of how we can study piecemeal versus structural definitions of issues and problems in political communications and public opinion. Finally, some assertions about holistic versus piecemeal political communication and policy‐making are briefly confronted with Popper's views about the compatibility of piecemeal versus utopian or holistic social engineering with political democracy.