PRACTICAL ATTRIBUTES

This posting continues my review of the attributes of an entity – members of a federated union. To date, in the last series of postings, I have described the attributes of status and conscience. Please, if interested, review those postings if you have not yet read them. This posting will describe an array of attributes I summarily call practical attributes. These are: useful resources, character, and roles. And again, the utility of these attributes is to focus the attention of a student of politics or government. This focus can lead to questioning of what goes on when political or governmental actors engage in their work. Appropriate questions can derive insights about the behavior of groups or collectives engaged in politics.

Entities are a main element of a federation since it is willing individuals and/or groups that make up a federation. As such, entities are the membership that will determine the actions of such groups. These groups – either arrangements lacking to some degree in federated qualities or associations that meet the threshold of those qualities and therefore are considered federated – are begun and maintained to meet some set of goals and aims. The assumption is that groups, all other things being equal, are better equipped to achieve their aims and goals if they are federated. Through this assumption, a student can do several things: one, look at groups and attempt to describe and explain why a group is, from a political perspective, either successful or not; two, can inquire into why groups act they way they do; and three, can inquire into how a group should act. Such studies can provide meaningful insights into a group's actions.

Federation theory does not get any more realistic than when it directs our attention to the practical attributes of an entity. Through this aspect of the theory, a student of politics and governance is drawn to those resources that an individual or group might command in order to get its way. After all, that is the purpose of politics – be it altruistic or selfish or something in between. Practical attributes can be seen from two perspectives: from that of a political actor and from that of a student of politics and government. What follows will go back and forth between these two perspectives.

So, what are these useful resources? First, there is, in a given political event, the useful knowledge of relevant conditions that an entity has. Who are the significant actors; what are the relative power levels of these actors; what is the topography – physical, financial, and other social factors – of a given political interaction; and what are the stakes – the interests of the various political or governmental actors involved? For example, when trying to gauge the likelihood of a politician to act in a certain way, it is useful to know which related parties have the ability to secure votes, have access to money, and/or command relevant expertise – apparently politicians respond to these types of people. These questions relate to some of the assets one needs to have in order to be effective in politics and knowing what the actors know about these assets is also useful in being able to describe and understand political and governmental action. Second, there are the personal qualities that can make a difference such as levels of common sense, physical attributes, – health, strength, physical power, athleticism, dexterity, endurance, attractiveness – sociability, – listening skills, communication skills, charm, humor, friendliness, tolerance, disposition toward accepting the unexpected – and an entity's availability to act in relation to time and location – better known as timing. All of these combine to formulate a person's political skills such as in lobbying or campaigning.

The second practical attribute is character. Character relates to another attribute, conscience,¹ but not in terms of the content of an entity's conscience, but in terms of the depth to which the entity holds that content. Any significant depth presupposes that that content is held by the entity as a result of reflection. An entity has character when the person or group has taken the time and effort to think and emotionally commit to the moral ideals which make up that person's or group's conscience. Character also refers to how simple or complicated one's commitments are; does the entity have a uni-dimensional moral perspective or is it complex and nuanced? This latter concern can be dicey in that there is a fine line between being complex or being compromised. Compromised positions generally reflect duplicity or opportunism.

The third practical attribute is role(s). Role refers to status,² but as opposed to expected levels of leadership, roles are the specific functions an entity fulfills or is expected to fulfill. Two entities can have the same role, but one might have more status than the other. Role reflects what one expects the entity to do; status reflects the respect the entity enjoys in relation to what the person or group does. While status reflects how an entity is seen in an arrangement, a role is usually the planned actions that were in mind when the position for the entity was created or revised. Yes, a role can be one of leadership, but it also can be one of follow-ship. Roles, when planned, are created for strategic reasons, although, at times, roles develop through experience and can be informal – they just happen. Their importance can vary over time and, when we compare comparable groups, similar roles can be created or are evolved, but the actual role might vary. They can also vary within a group over time. Therefore, roles are dynamic and changeable. To illustrate, the role of husband and wife varies between families, over the history of families, and over time within a given family.

Again, in terms of character and role, these attributes serve as guides. They suggest questions of given political and governmental groups and their activities. They assist us in asking the questions that lead us toward understanding what is going on and what should be going on with our government, our institutions as far as they are political, and our general social surroundings.

1As I described conscience in my last posting: “ a conscience, in terms of federated commitments, relates to how an entity believes and feels about the values and norms of the federation in which the entity belongs.”

2As I described status in my posting of June 3, 2013: “status is a reflection of how much leadership standing a particular entity either has or is thought to have.”