An advocate of natural rights continues his/her presentation[1] …
Tracing Gabriel Almond and G. Bingham
Powell’s structural-functional model,[2] the last
posting described the model’s treatment of how political systems handle inputs
from their environments. Inputs take the
form of demands and supports and readers are encouraged to review the last
several postings to see how this blog accounts for those elements. This posting will shift to outputs, the
policies, regulations, proclamations, and other forms of governmental actions that
systems produce.
Outputs are described as the result of
combinations of several factors: the
product of rational decision-making in trying to meet expressed demands,
attempts of political systems to adjust to changes in their environments, and
those in power trying to maximize their interests given the political realities
at given times and conditions.
These writers, Almond and Powell, do
emphasize the rational factors and utilize the concept of capabilities when
referring to systems’ actions as a whole.
Analyses of capabilities measure the behaviors or accomplishments in the
following categories of performances:
extractions, regulations, distributions, symbolisms, and incidents of responsiveness. These analyses can be applied to both
domestic and international political conditions or situations.
Political systems depend on their
respective societies, i.e., their citizens, to willingly contribute both human
and natural resources so that they can achieve societal goals. Almond and Powell employ the term extractive
capabilities to describe systems’ abilities to bring to bear those
resources. These can be financial
resources, as when people pay their taxes, or labor, as when people serve in
the armed forces.
When political systems are able to
exert control through regulations and enforcements, Almond and Powell call
these regulative capabilities. Of
course, in comparing different kinds of systems, democratic systems have very
limited regulatory capabilities as compared to totalitarian or highly
authoritarian systems. For example, in
the area of speech, the political system of the US is highly limited in this
capability.
Distributive capabilities refer to
allocating values, a prime function of the political system. The focus here is to whom are the values
distributed, what values are distributed, when and how will the values be
distributed. These decisions are related
to the famous notion Harold Lasswell first introduced to the political science
world in 1936.
In that year, his book, Politics: Who Gets What, Where, and How[3]
which defines politics to many, was published.
This type of outputs refers not only to direct distributions of
resources by governments, but to decisions and laws that affect who will
benefit, and who will not, in the economic and social arenas of nations.
Moving on, with symbolic capabilities, Almond and Powell write about
legitimate powers of systems, i.e., how well systems can elicit patriotic or
nationalistic feelings of support. Here,
authorities use national symbols extensively, such as flags and anthems, to
generate these feelings. They also
question the patriotism of their opponents.
Using David Easton’s terminology, the authorities are trying to increase
diffuse support by this type of outputs.[4]
The responsive capabilities are probably the most important to
average citizens. The concern with them
is how outputs relate to inputs, particularly demands. Whose demands are getting satisfied and to
what level of satisfaction are they being met are concerns that are being
addressed with analyses of this type of capabilities.
In order to get clear views of these concerns, investigators must
study entire demand flows within systems.
Several methods of demand responses are identified by the model. These are incidences of repressions,
indifferences, and accommodations. Some
might judge this element of the model, demand flows, as the most telling in
terms of what sort of systems a specific system is.
Authorities ignoring demands constitute indifference. Accommodations consist of satisfying, to some
degree, demands and the level that systems demonstrate this capability is the
level they demonstrate responsiveness.
At times, especially with recurring demands with high levels of popular
concern, accommodations can become institutionalized, and the responses become
automatic. For example, in the case of
natural disasters in the US, all relevant levels of government respond almost
automatically.
A final set of functions in the Almond and Powell model needs to
be included. These functions are
political socialization and political recruitment. More specifically,
·
political socialization, as
Easton describes it, refers to the internalization of political cultures by
respective populations or nations. This
function is carried out through the instruction of members of the systems,
particularly the young, in their respective cultural values, beliefs,
attitudes, and customs of political systems.[5] And
·
political recruitment refers
to the need to find and select individuals for authority positions. These identified people will carry out the
processes of political systems.
Another function is communications; they tie together the other
functions, processes, and structures within and without systems. Oftentimes, stresses are either caused or
augmented by faulty communications.
That concludes a general
description of the systems model of analysis in political science. Within the discipline, this approach was
dominant from the 1950s through the 1960s.
Its insights into how political systems operate still have a large
influence under the parameters described by Stephen L. Schechter and
Jonathan S. Weil,
In the twentieth century, both
politics and political science have experienced a profound shift in emphasis
from government to the individual.
Politics and political science became increasingly separate and
specialized pursuits … Political science became a social science guided by the
behavioral question posed by Harold D. Lasswell in the subtitle of his book Politics: Who Gets What, When, and How? The large shift in political science from the
study of government to the study of the individual was followed by another
shift in emphasis from the study of political institutions to the study of
political behavior.
On
the threshold of the 21st century, political science has experienced yet
another shift in emphasis – this time, from the study of political behavior to
the study of decision-making. … Political scientists in the so-called
post-behavioral age are beginning to accept the concern for values, qualitative
judgments, and the ends of politics as legitimate considerations of political
science. [6]
The judgment here is that this claim is still viable today with the only
qualifier that this value orientation of today has shifted (yet again) toward
critical theory-based concerns.
The concern here is that
the influence of political science on civics education as reflected by the
textbooks public school systems employ, has been stuck at the point of the
above development that reflects the political systems model that this and the last
ten or so postings have described, more specifically in the behavioral/popular
values stage. This blogger makes this
argument in his recently published book, From Immaturity to Polarized
Politics (available through Amazon).[7]
[1] This presentation continues
with this posting. The reader is informed that the claims made in
this posting do not necessarily reflect the beliefs or knowledge of this
blogger. Instead, the posting is a representation of what an
advocate of the natural rights view might present. This
is done to present a dialectic position of that construct. This series of postings begins with “Judging
Natural Rights View, I,” August 2, 2022.
[2]
Gabriel Almond and G. Bingham Powell, Jr., Comparative Politics: A Developmental Approach (Boston: Little,
Brown. 1966).
[3] Harold D Lasswell, Who Gets What, When, and How (New
York, NY: McGraw-Hill, 1936). Current distributor of this book is Papamoa
Press. Accessed April 16, 2020, https://www.google.com/books/edition/Politics_Who_Gets_What_When_How/UlekDwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&printsec=frontcover .
[4] David Easton, A System Analysis of Political Life (New York, NY: John
Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1965).
[5] Just as a point of interest, readers should take note
of the role civics education plays here.
[6]
Stephen L. Schechter and Jonathan S. Weil,
“Studying and Teaching Political Science,” in Teaching the Social Sciences
and History in Secondary Schools: A
Method Book, edited by James C. Schott and Laurel R. Singleton (Belmont,
CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1996),
138.
[7]
Robert Gutierrez, From Immaturity to
Polarized Politics: Obstacles in
Achieving a Federated Nation (Tallahassee, FL: Gravitas Civics Books, 2022).
No comments:
Post a Comment