FUNCTIONALISM AND ITS CRITICS - Intercollegiate Studies Institute

More documents

Recommendations

Info

FUNCTIONALISM AND ITS CRITICS 257 undermines the " rationality activist model" it has conservative implications and. thus is unacceptable. 53 It is a little difficult to understand what the attackers propose. At least some of their arguments sound quite similar to those the Church offered when deciding to silence Galileo because his theories were felt to undermine the basis of Christian morality. After all, if the kind of democratic polity described by Almond is the best we can realistically expect to create, then rejecting it because it does not conform to our wishes, is a little like suggesting we repeal the law of gravity because it does not permit men to walk on water. 54 Whatever the relation between facts and values, no reasonable person will. continue to strive to achieve a state of affairs which cannot be realized, especially if Almond ' s theory is correct, and the attempt seems likely to lead to greater evils than now exist. Faced with Almond ' s analyses, then, a scholar with a serious commitment to attaining as democratic a polity as possible, has but two options. He may offer an alternative theory which is at least as good as Almond ' s in terms of its explanatory power, and which permits us to believe that full "rational" political participation can be achieved by means of structural changes in the society. Alternately, he may accept Almond ' s analysis and yet deny its implication, by showing that so-called disruptive behavior promotes values which are more important than " democratic stability." He may not, without emulating the Church in one of its most ludicrous moments, reject the analysis for its " moral " or political implications." Bay and Walker, in the analyses I have been summarizing, attempt both tasks. With regard to the first, however, they do little but assert that the average man has potentially more competence than Almond gives him credit for. Unfortunately their argument remains on the level of assertion, and does not quite hit the mark 53 See Walker, and Bay, op. cit., among many others. 54 As Marx noted in attacking the German idealists. His point was that there was little to be gained in attacking the existing system and calling for socialism, unless one could develop a conceptual scheme and a theory which demonstrated that a superior type of social order such as socialism could replace existing social arrangements. J5 See the insightful essay by Charles Taylor, " Neutrality in Political Science," in Peter Laslett and W. G. Runciman (eds.), Philosophy, Politics and Society, third series (Oxford, 1967), pp. 25-57. Walker cites this article, but it seems to me that he does not really understand its implications.
258 THE POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEWER at that. Almond ' s analysis, after all, was derived from structural considerations rather than personal competence arguments. The second part of their criticism seems to me to be on firmer ground. In The Civic Culture Almond seemingly focused on the achievement of stable democracy to the exclusion of other concerns. 66 His critics suggest, as a counter argument, that a certain amount of disorder may serve humane ends. Now, this may very well be true. However, the issues are rather more complicated. Very few political scientists today would seriously suggest that a political system characterized by violence and disorder is an end to be sought in itself. The vast majority would recognize that some kind of order is necessary if any goals are to be attained. A given kind of political order may benefit dominant groups. Continued disorder can only benefit the stronger and the more aggressive, if it benefits anyone. Walker and Bay would certainly seem to accept the above proposition. Their argument is that a certain amount of instability can be tolerated if it results in greater social justice. I suspect that Almond would not disagree with their position. The differences, if any, would have to do with the relationship between instability, social justice and a reasonably democratic order. In short, the issues between the revisionist democratic theorists and their post-revisionist critics are essentially empirical. I will not, here, attempt to join in the argument, except to point out that the analyses of the revisionists, including Almond, have to be dealt with directly. They cannot simply be dismissed. 5 7 Actually, Almond himself has recently attempted to develop measures which might allow theorists to begin to talk in more meaningful terms about just the issues we have been discussing. In Comparative Politics he discussed in a preliminary manner the problem 56 ' Two points should be made in Almond s defense. One cannot say everything in one book, and The Civic Culture was about the cultural conditions supportive of democratic regimes. Secondly, nothing in Almond ' s analysis denies that stable democracy can be associated with the repression of some minority groups. 6 7 These points are made from a somewhat different perspective by Peter Y. Medding, " Elitist Democracy: An Unsuccessful Critique of a Misunderstood Theory," Journal of Politics 31 (August, 1969), pp. 641-654. I shall return to some of the points made here in the conclusion of the essay. I shall also have some critical remarks of another kind to make about Almond ' s approach to the study of political culture at that time.
Page 1 and 2: FUNCTIONALISM AND ITS CRITICS : An
Page 3 and 4: 238 THE POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEWER
Page 9 and 10: 244 THE POLITICAL SCIENCE .REVIEWER
Page 21: 256 THE POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEWER
Page 41: 276 THE POLITICAL SCIENCE REVIEWER

FUNCTIONALISM AND ITS CRITICS - Intercollegiate Studies Institute

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?