Suchergebnisse

Contemporary studies of political power have often been based on the belief that the major determinants in the struggle for power may be ascertained by analyzing the social stratification of a society. This belief is supported by the following series of more or less tacit assumptions: The ideas and actions of men are conditioned by their social and economic position in society. When large number of individuals occupy a comparable social position, they may be expected to think and act alike. They are likely to share social and economic interests which are promoted—in competition or conflict with other social groups—through political organization and interest-representation. Hence, a study of politics should be concerned with the social composition of the members and leaders of different political organizations; this kind of knowledge will provide a clue to the power which such organizations can exert and to the political goals which their leaders are likely to pursue.I wish to examine the relation between stratification and politics in four respects:(1) How did Marx deal with the problem of social stratification and political power?(2) What insight into the relation between stratification and politics can be gained from retrospective investigations?(3) Does a knowledge of social stratification enable us to understand the development of totalitarian movements and their conquest of power?

Social science writings have one thing in common with products of the artistic spirit—they readily lend themselves to dating by their "stylistic" traits. This is not a preferred manner for dating scientific products. Science, like technology, is generally regarded as cumulative in its development. To the extent that this is so, it is possible to place a scientific work in its historical position by examining the stage of knowledge that it reveals. However, the store of social science knowledge grows very slowly indeed. The result is that much of social science impresses one as being modern more by virtue of various stylistic traits than by demonstrable additions to, or modifications of, our stock of substantive (or methodological) knowledge.

The paper indicates that 'in the struggle for social power among special interest groups in a competitive social order, certain kinds of action can be observed-those involving the minimax, randomized strategy, and the formation and dissolution of coalitions.' This consistency in competitive action makes it observable to scientific analysis. The author utilizes von Neumann's theory of games to analyze two cases-the Taft-Eisenhower struggle for the 1952 Republican presidential nomination and the dispute between the steel companies and the CIO steelworkers in 1952. Competitive action is not necessarily irrational nor is it necessarily random. The author concludes from his case analyses that the principles of strategy formulated by von Neumann and Morgenstern are useful in interpreting the actions of groups in competitive situations. An implication of the analysis is that the theory is 'extra-cultural' in that similar actions are found in divergent and even antagonistic value systems. E. Scott.