FUNCTIONALISM AND ITS CRITICS - Intercollegiate Studies Institute

FUNCTIONALISM AND ITS CRITICS
greater significant than relations among parts of the political system
itself. We should like, then, some clarification as to the relationship
between the political system and other subsystems in the society.
Almond, however, has little or nothing to say about this problem.
For one thing he has not developed a functional model of the
whole society. Thus, while he argues that the political system performs
certain functions, he never tells us what other functions must
be performed in a society, and how the performance of such functions
is to be conceptualized.
Furthermore, Almond never tells us clearly what a boundary is,
although he talks freely about boundaries. in reading his analysis
we can develop some vague ideas After all, the political system is
involved in processing demands, and we have some vague notions
as to which structures are involved in such processing and which are
not. Unfortunately, these vague notions are never clarified, and, as
a result, a good deal of fudging occurs, some of it of considerable
importance. The political system floats uneasily in an environment
whose relation to it remains unclear, and, indeed, at times it seems
to expand until it becomes practically co-equal with the society as
a whole. "
One of the major reasons for this, I think, has to do , with Al -
mond 's conceputalization of the functions of the political system.
The Eastonian model has very serious limitations. For example, if
followed rigorously, it would prevent really adequate comparisons
between the Soviet Union under Stalin, China under Mao, Cuba
under Castro, and countries such as the United States or England.
Indeed, it would make comparisons difficult between most modern
states and bureaucratic empires (such as the Ottoman).
In the case of mobilization regimes the effort of the political elite
has not been simply to process demands, but to achieve certain
goals based on ideological preconceptions, and, in fact, to change
the demand structure of society. And, as Eisenstadt points out, one
of the characteristics of bureaucratic empires was the availability
of resources which the elite could use for ends of its own choosing. 78
Almond attempts to deal with such questions by arguing that de-
"See, for example, his discussion of France in Comparative Politics, op. cit.,
pp. 263-66.
"
"
"Cf. Stanley Rothman, One Party Regimes: A Comparative Analysis,
Social Research 34 (Winter, 1967), pp. 675-702 and Eisenstadt, The Political
Systems of Empires, op. cit.
267