With the last posting, this
blog has resumed its posting schedule of Tuesdays and Fridays. With this posting, the blog picks up its
critique of the natural rights view. As a
quick review, the natural rights mental construct is the dominant view of governance
and politics in the US. In the last
posting (the first after a three-month break), this critique was introduced by
outlining a list of points it will develop.
The first was:
The
construct has a limited view of decision-making. This is important because the construct’s
position on decision-making is narrowed to transactional aspects of governance
and politics. The position on
decision-making serves as one of the construct’s basic operating assumptions.
Let this posting describe
and explain this shortcoming.
A political systems model
is an extensive and comprehensive view of the political life one finds in a
nation. As the mode by which the natural
rights view encourages students to go about studying politics, it is
exceedingly useful if a student makes an assumption that there are extensively
shared goals and values within the political system. If these exist, then a further assumption or
prior condition is possible.
In such a nation, behavioral studies’ reliance on people being
apt to make rational decisions will be the normal course of decision-making. That is, when people are confronted with a
decision, they will basically ask themselves what choice affords them the most
benefit for the least cost. Choices will
be made toward those possibilities in which the marginal benefits exceed
marginal costs.
For example, should one
turn on the TV? Does what is on TV
accrue more benefit than expending the energy to turn the set on or to do
something else? Of course, calculations come
into play as to the possibilities for benefits and costs with alternative
choices in an uncertain world.
This analysis can be highly
involved, but the mind handles the calculations fairly efficiently given the
complexity of the choice and the information a person has at the time of the
decision. But in any event, certain stable
conditions need to prevail for this type of calculation to be possible and
should be considered.
So, how is this relevant?
Theoretical work in the field of political studies which has been based
on these considerations is advanced by Anthony Downs.[1] In his writing, the concern is focused on the
role the above mentioned marginal or rational thinking has in political systems
study. The judgement here is that the
rational assumption is a basic one for those students who employ the political
systems approach. Or if one wishes to delve
a bit further, what is assumed are those elements of a political culture to be
present and viable when such decisions are being made.[2]
Daniel Moynihan shares this view: “… American social science had pretty much
settled on a utilitarian model in which behavior is explained by expectation of
things yet to happen. Rewards and
punishments.”[3] This critique is not that political systems
and other derived models are crude behavioral efforts – all of them have taken
pains to address other factors beyond rewards and costs – but the biases toward
that sort of calculation are entrenched in systems theorizing and in their
derived research.
And therefore, their concerns
for the formulation of goals and values – normative factors – seem wanting. This is so if one considers that there are
two sides to decision-making. One side
is the way the individuals see the benefits and costs before them, and the
other is the development of the goals and values that establish what is judged
to be beneficial and costly.
This latter part of
decision-making is mostly ignored in the political systems approach to the
study of politics. In most analyses,
these aspects are taken as given, yet this critique deems these concerns essential
if understanding and predictability are the ultimate goals of any given study. The approach, by so assuming, adds to its
reductionist tendency of only taking those factors immediately present when such
decision-making takes place.
Money plays a role in these
considerations. Money is not an end in
itself. It is converted into many
different things and conditions of life.
When one says, “it’s only money,” one does not do money justice. Money can mean peace of mind or a child’s health. It can convert into recreation or education. It can mean an untold number of things. As such, it can represent goals and values.
To add to this situation,
money can be counted in equal units.
Therefore, there is a tendency for money to create an illusion. The illusion is that money can represent
goals and values. It can be seen in
different guises as a won contract or a promotion at work. Money then seems to be the universal goal or
value. In capitalist economies, the
attainment of money seems to permeate all aspects of life. Sports, religion, and education seem to be
measured in monetary terms.
But upon reflection, people
know that not all is for sale or measurable by a monetary value. The significance of this is that systems’
view of counting on benefits and costs is further entrenched by the role of money. Not only are all people after money, or so
the assumption goes, but one can measure how much money – reward or benefit –
it takes to get people to do something.
There is a certain theoretical cleanliness about this view.
In short, what is being
suggested is that human behavior, much less human thinking, emoting, planning,
and other non-observable human “actions” are highly complex and involved and
that doesn’t even consider what is at the subconscious level. This posting ends with this introduction to
decision-making and will continue with this point of contention in the next
posting with a quote by Philip Selznick.
[1] Anthony Downs, An Economic Theory of Democracy
(New York, NY: Harper and Row Publisher,
1957).
[2] See Jurgen R. Winkler, “Political Culture,”
Britannica (n.d.), accessed February 9, 2023, https://www.britannica.com/topic/political-culture. Winkler
writes,
American
political scientist Lucian Pye defined political culture as the composite
of basic values, feelings, and knowledge that underlie the political process.
Hence, the building blocks of political culture are the beliefs, opinions, and
emotions of the citizens toward their form of government.
… The classic study of political
culture is The Civic Culture (1963) by American political scientists
Gabriel Almond and Sydney Verba.
He goes on to point out that
some studies look closer at subcultures within nations, but the effect is the
same; it provides the landscapes by which decision-making can proceed as
described here.
[3] Daniel P. Moynihan, Pandemonia: Ethnicity in International Politics (New
York, NY: Oxford University Press,
1993), 30.
No comments:
Post a Comment