Suchergebnisse

The rapid drive of formerly colonial and dependent countries toward independent nationhood has gone hand in hand, over the last decade, with a thorough reorientation in the discipline of comparative politics. In Southeast Asia, on the Indian subcontinent, in the Near East—everywhere, the Western powers have surrendered their former positions of imperial domination. Even in Africa, once the dark continent of colonialism, fully half the population now has emerged to self-government. In all, a score of new nations has joined the roll of sovereign states, and their global importance is attested daily by far-flung programs of economic assistance, by the gradual shift of the cold-war front from Europe to Asia and Africa, and by the recent redistribution of voting power in the United Nations.

Professor Kling of Washington University in St. Louis reviews the history, accomplishments, and future of comparative political research on Latin America. What scholars choose to study and how they go at it are described. Real progress in Latin American studies, says the author, depends on blending the traditional and modern versions of area studies.

This is a tentative outline of a systematic and comprehensive approach to the study of politics. Part I gives the method. Part II indicates some advantages of the approach. Part III anticipates likely objections to it. And Part IV suggests some applications. My purpose in presenting the paper in its present form is to encourage my colleagues to consider this approach and, if they find it potentially useful, to contribute to its refinement through criticism. As David Easton said in his "Approach to the Analysis of Political Systems," I know "I run the definite risk that the meaning and implications of this point of view may be only superficially communicated; but it is a risk I shall have to undertake since I do not know how to avoid it sensibly."

There is wide recognition that in the non-Western world profound social and cultural changes are taking place as traditional societies have been exposed to the ideas and the ways of the West. There is also general agreement that new political patterns and relationships are evolving in these countries. However, with respect to most non-Western countries, it remains difficult to foresee whether the consequences of social change are to be stable, viable political practices or endemic instabilities in government. In many cases, it is still an open question whether the future will bring them a liberal democratic form of politics or some type of authoritarian rule such as communism.This state of affairs can be a challenge to the comparative method of political analysis. This is particularly so because most of the non-Western political systems have many features in common. They are generally the product of a traditional past in which the administration of government was the preserve of a select few. Many show the influence of a previous colonial rule, some even that of the same country. More important, they are often quite self-conscious about the problem of moving from a definite past to an idealized future.

As used in sociol & anthrop, the conceptual characteristics of the term `culture' stress its inclusiveness, its abstractness, its patterned character, & its function as a regulative component of behavior. As a technical concept, the term 'pol'al culture' appears to date from 1956, when it was defined by G. Almond as a 'particular pattern of orientations to pol'al action.' Almond also made use of Parsonian pattern-variables in describing various cultures, though this seems to contradict his thesis re cultural dualism. S. Beer defines pol'al cultures as `values, beliefs & emotional att's' re pol'al action, a classification that appears identical with that of Parsons & Shils. An understanding of the relation of orientation to `situation' appears to be lacking in the definitions of both Almond & Beer. Beer also introduces a consensus/dissensus dichotomy as an element of pol'al culture, believing that an increase in consensus decreases the likelihood that pol'al culture will be stated explicitly. Analytical problems arise from the difficulty of determining the degree of consensus at varying levels of pol'al action. R. Macridis has advanced 3 `descriptive' categories of a pol'al system: pol'al culture, soc configuration, deliberation-decision. His definition of pol'al culture (shared goals & rules `of individual & group interaction') establishes an unsatisfactory equation between culture & goals & norms. Definitions of pol'al culture should include variant as well as dominant components. IPSA.

Those who specialize in the study of Soviet government and politics are beginning to feel and acknowledge the need for a more effective theoretical apparatus. The post-war years of expanded research in this field have been fruitful in empirical studies of Soviet political history and institutions, but the theoretical development has not kept pace; and now the lag is beginning to inhibit the further fruitful progress of empirical research itself. Instead of a gradually developing body of theory, we still have a mélange of "ten theories in search of reality," as Daniel Bell has summed it up in the title of a recent article.The purpose of the present paper is not to propound an eleventh theory. It is only an exploratory effort, a consideration of a somewhat different approach to the problem than has been customary in the field of Soviet studies. In presenting it, I shall try to shed the blinkers of a Russian specialist and take a look at the whole political galaxy in which Russia is only the biggest star and probably no longer the brightest one.The best way out of the theoretical difficulty may lie in making the study of Soviet government and politics more comparative than it has generally been so far, thus bringing it into much closer working relations with political science as a whole and particularly with the slowly growing body of theory in comparative politics. As this statement implies, our work on Soviet government and politics has been characterized by a certain theoretical isolationism.