FOUNDATIONS OF POLITICAL SCIENCE – PART #1

By: John Paul Tabakian

Political Science is a branch of the Social Sciences like Sociology. Both fields are fairly similar as each is primarily interested in individual as well as group behavior. Their fundamental difference is exhibited by what theory serves as the foundation for each respective discipline. Social scientists are biased towards elitism while political scientists are prone to pluralism. This does not mean that elite theory is not utilized in the political sciences. It is recognized, but only in contrast with pluralism. Both theories compliment each other, but pluralism is generally favored by political scientists. Political scientists examine how political behavior is influenced as sociology, which looks at individual behavior that is determined according to elite influence in general. Elite theory serves as the primary basis of the social sciences (sociology) while political scientists are biased towards pluralism or the result of competing interests and the end result of conflict and compromise.

Researchers in the social sciences focus on labeling the causes of social behavior. They seek to explain why things happen and many in the sciences believed that depending on scientific methods would then grant social scientists the ability to develop laws in the same way that the natural sciences have done. Positivism in other words was looked to as the salvation for the social sciences that would finally allow researchers to establish scientific laws that would remain true forever. This is especially true as formal models are less appropriate in the social rather than the natural sciences primarily because social reality is too complex. It is difficult to conduct controlled experiments in a society since it is impossible to control external influences as scientists are able to do in a laboratory. Social scientists identify laws to predict outcomes. They create theories that then lead to testable hypotheses. Positivism remains a strong force in the social sciences. It is important to understand that researchers should not necessarily discredit those forms of methodology out of hand even though they may not agree with its procedure. It is not wise to define social sciences through the terms of a single set of criteria.

ELITISM

Social science is a big tent that can encompass various methodologies, including theories, which in turn allows both researchers and students to derive a more diverse understanding of the school. Political Scientists and Sociologists are both interested in the study of individual behavior. One may argue that Political Scientists may be more interested with mainly political behavior. Both fields utilize two theoretical approaches in their study: elitism and pluralism with the former stating that public policy reflects the interests and values of elites and not the people. Reforms or public regarding motives is only done to preserve the system.  The theory also views masses as passive participants. Elitism can be summarized as follows:

1.     Society is divided between the powerful few and the majority who are weak.

2.     Governing few are not typical of the governed masses. Elites are not drawn mostly from the upper class socioeconomic section of society.

3.     Non-elites have to be given the opportunity to rise up to elite positions. This must happen slowly and the masses have to believe that the process is continuous or revolution may occur. There must be barriers to prevent elite positions from being overtaken by unqualified individuals. Another reason is that there are only a finite number of elite positions available at any given time. Swarms of interested members from the masses cannot be allowed to freely takeover. This is a classic rat and cheese scenario (see below). Non-elites cannot rise to elite positions if they do not accept the basic elite consensus. This is especially true for elite governmental circles.

4.     Elites share a common belief on the basic values of the elite. Any change of public policy will be incrementally slow rather than revolutionary.  

5.     Elites may base their actions either on narrow, self-serving motives and risk undermining mass support, or they may initiate reforms, curb abuse, and undertake public-regarding programs to preserve the system and their place in the system.

6.     Active elites are not typically influenced from apathetic masses. Elites influence masses more than the masses influence elites.