KATE NASH

The concept of Political Sociology is one of the most extended forms of sociology, which
examines the basis of social power and studies the relationship between the state and society. It
involves debates and arguments about the question of power, authority, resistance and political
institutions and systems. The structure of the state, its legitimacy and force used by the state is
also dealt within the discipline, along with history of political processes and political change. All
of this helps in understanding the dynamic nature of political phenomena. Although political
sociology and political science are interdependent disciplines in many ways, the latter was
interested in traditional and normative prescriptions and its focus on the state. Initially political
sociology was too understood as focusing on the nation-state and how the state affects the
society but this approach was considered flawed because of society’s changing circumstances
like globalization, social movements and the growing distinction between state and society. This
called for a different and broader definition for political sociology and the concept of cultural
politics came into picture, which is understood as the contestation and transformation of cultural
identities and structure.

The contemporary political sociology is influenced by the: social movements. Sociologists from
the 1970s onwards have been active participants in the movements especially feminism and anti-
racism and have therefore been directly called on to think about politics in new ways. Rise of
‘anti-disciplinary’ disciplines of cultural studies. Cultural studies have renewed the interest in the
importance of symbolic meaning of social life. In this respect, contemporary political sociology
is closely linked to the ‘cultural turn’. Prominence of the state has been called into question in
globalization; sociologists working on this topic also had to rethink power and politics.

Therefore, there are two ways of thinking of culture:

Epistemological variant: culture is implicated in all social practices because, as human being, we
have access to reality; we know it and manipulate it, only through social classifications. Culture
is ‘constitutive’, it is not reflective or expressive of other social practices, they do not determine
it, nor can it be used simply as a tool or instrument to bring about change. Culture is constitutive
in the sense that it is only through symbolic representations that human experience, sense, access
and manipulate reality, whether created by human beings or not. Culture is therefore constitutive
of our reality and this is crucial to how our social world is reproduced and transformed.
Historically specific Culture is ‘the signifying system through which necessarily a social order is
communicated, reproduced, experienced and explored. This definition includes the more
commonly used conception of culture as ‘the works and practices of intellectuals and especially
artistic activities’. ‘It is not a thing but a dimension, not an object to be studied as a dependent
variable but a thread that runs through, one that can be teased out of, every conceivable social
form.’

Orum defined political sociology as drawing attention towards “the social circumstances of
politics, how politics is shaped by and shapes other events in societies”. The concept of power is
very significant in this discipline as politics involves struggles over power. Therefore, political
sociology studies the social organization of power and power is considered a potentiality in all
social relations. The discipline of political sociology is developed through the contribution of
sociologists like Karl Marx, Max Weber, Emile Durkheim, and Michel Foucault and many
others.

Marxist theory was based on the concept of economic determinism, i.e. economy determines the
structure of the society. It understood political power as a translation of economic power
concentrated in the modern state. Dunleavy and O’Leary classified Marx’s analysis of the state
into three distinct and contradictory positions on how it contributes to the reproduction of the
economic power of bourgeoisie. The first is the instrumental model where the state was seen as
coercive and repressive of working-class resistance to exploitation and helped the bourgeoisie to
rule over subordinate classes. The second was the arbiter model where the state has relative
autonomy from the interests of the bourgeoisie, and the third is the functionalist model where the
state is construed as a superstructure, determined by changes in the economic base of the society.
However, the Neo-Marxists rejected this simplistic economism and considered political power as
relatively independent of economic power. The first one to theorize this relative autonomy was
Antonio Gramsci. For Gramsci, the state is formed by the balance of forces achieved in the
struggle for hegemony, which he defined as “the way in which the dominant class gains consent
for its rule through compromises with some class formations and disorganization with others.”
He says that a class does not take state power, rather it becomes the state. He doesn’t see the
state as an institution for politics and believes hegemony is something which is gained first in
civil society. All relations in civil society involve issues of power, and politics is seen more as a
cultural sensibility. Like Gramsci, Louis Althusser maintained the distinction between political
and economic base, but being under the umbrella of Marxism, economism cannot be avoided. He
believes that ‘political structures have their own laws and the state is fully implicated in the logic
of capitalism, where its function is to reproduce the mode of production.’ He gives a lot of
importance to ideology, which he saw as a matter of practice, where he mentions that along with
repressive institutions like army and police, the state also works through ideologies embedded in
its institutions. Coming to the Weberian approach, it is anti-Marxist and against economic
determinism. In Weber’s work, the autonomy of the political at the level of the state is a central
idea. He defines power as ‘the chance of a man to realize his own will in a communal action
against resistance shown by others who are also participating in that action.’ Weber’s definition
implies that power can be a part of any institution and not just politics. He defines politics as
consisting of any independent leadership in action and not confined to a single arena. It involves
‘striving to share power or influence in the distribution of power’. He focused on the power and
politics of the nation-state. Its territoriality is crucial for Weber. Another important contribution
by Weber is his theory of Bureaucracy, which is, for him, the only way to manage economic and
politically differentiated societies. Another contribution by Weber is his notion of authority
where he distinguishes between three types of authority. The first is Rational-legal authority,
which rests on the legality of the enacted rules and rights. Second is Traditional Authority,
resting on the belief in the sanctity of age-old rules and traditions. Lastly, Charismatic Authority
rests on the devotion to the exceptional sanctity and exemplary character of an individual person
-called charisma- and certain patterns revealed by them. Weber also covers democracy where he
argues that participatory democracy cannot be practiced in large-scale, complex societies.
Democracy is important for him as it provides a testing ground for leaders who sometimes are
the only chance to select the effective to take office and override bureaucracy. He continues to
see democracy more as the rule of the elite. Elite theorists see democracy as working along the
lines proposed by Weber. They are concerned with how and why a minority (who are the
decision-makers) rules over the majority. Robert Michel’s gave the Iron Law of Oligarchy,
which states that political parties need to be highly organized and become oligarchic, run by
leaders and excluding most of the members from the decision-making process. Another elite
theorist, Joseph Schumpeter saw democracy as a competition between political parties whose
elite members fight for votes. On the other hand, C.W Mills considered elitism as a hindrance to
democracy. The elite theorists have a state-centric view of politics and see citizens as ignorant.
Pluralists also seem to have ties with Weber’s view. They, in contrast to Elitists, see citizens as
actively involved in politics. They see politics as a matter of competing interest groups and the
state itself is a set of competing institutions rather than a monolithic entity. Neo-pluralists see
elites having a greater influence in government policy than other groups because of their greater
access to resources. For pluralists, politics is confined to the state and what is political takes
place only at the level of the state, not outside it. Emile Durkheim, an important figure, focused
on social order and integration and the role of the state is to secure it by formulating a moral
consciousness shared by all the members of the society. He sees state as an outcome of division
of labor that creates modern societies. It takes on the function of reflecting societies ‘collective
representations that guides individuals to constrain their behavior. Durkheim views modern
societies organized based on organic solidarity where people find themselves independent and
they occupy different roles in the society, in contrast to mechanical solidarity, which is seen in
traditional societies and is characterized by people performing similar functions. Durkheim’s
theory does not see conflict as intrinsic to societies rather see it as a lack of proper integration
and as pathological. He believed there should be consensus on cultural norms. He does not see
politics as important in sociology and the functioning of society. Along with Durkheim, neo-
Durkheim theory also has a place in political sociology, which focuses on the difficulties of
achieving and maintaining solidarity and the relevance of social justice in contemporary
societies. Jeffrey Alexander in his book, The Civil Sphere, builds on Durkheim’s conceptions
and believes that democracy is sacred and must be protected from counter-democratic people and
organizations. Whoever is seen as profane or polluting is isolated and marginalized at the
boundaries of civil society. Alexander also gives attention to social movements that have led to
the incorporation of certain communities into the democratic mainstream. Durkheim’s work is
relevant in political sociology because of the importance he gives to symbolic meaning, which is
implicated in the constitution of social relations. Michel Foucault has done one of the major
contributions to political sociology. His definition of power has led to rethinking contemporary
political sociology, even though he was concerned with ethics more than politics. Foucault
prefers thinking in terms of “analytics of power” in which power is identified only in instances
where it is exercised. Power, for Foucault, is not “juridico-discursive” i.e. not possessed by the
state but rather is productive and constitutive, working to produce particular types of bodies and
minds in practices. He also makes a distinction between two types of power. First being
Repressive Power - It is violent, evokes fear and aims to punish the wrongdoer. Second is
Normalizing Power - It is subtle and the society has been socialized into accepting this power. It
shapes the beliefs and desires of people and they do not even realize that they are subjected to
power. He sees power as a part of every social relation, and that all social relationships and
identities are product of power. Foucault sees power as pluralist, exercised from innumerable
points and being present everywhere rather than from a single political center. In this sense, it is
not the possession of elite and not governed by a single project. He also argues that where there
is power there must be resistance as power works on what he calls free subjects. He links his
analyses of power with social movements, which challenges subjectification. Power acts on those
who may resist and there is always the possibility of reversals of power. This view of power has
been groundbreaking for the discipline. In political sociology, government is also an important
concept and Foucault defines it as the conduct of conduct, the attempt to influence the actions of
free subjects. Foucault’s view of power contests the Machiavellian idea of sovereignty, which is
focused on the ruler. Instead, he believes that individuals and institutions are being
“governmentalized” and politics is involved more in the productivity of people rather than
imposing order and security from above. Governmentality is constructive of centralized state
power and at the same time state institutions furthers disciplinary power through activities such
as passing legislation to manage the population and expanding productivity. Foucauldian theory
also gives weight to neo-liberalism, which is seen not just as an ideology, but also as a practice,
which is associated with the capitalist economy and have taught people to govern themselves.
The aim of new liberalists is to roll back the frontiers of the state, which they believe have
intruded too far in the private sphere of economy. Contemporary political sociology has also
been influenced from other major sources. Firstly, from the intellectual work carried out around
social movements. Sociologists have been active participants in movements and have been called
on to think about politics in new ways. Second is the rise of “anti-disciplinary” discipline of
cultural studies. The relationship between cultural studies and sociology is of importance. Lastly,
the prominence of the state which has been called into question in the era of globalization, which
involves rethinking of power and politics.. The work of Ferdinand De Saussure has also been
influential in political sociology. He talks about the importance of language and meanings, which
structures the world for us through classifications. Social meanings are constantly changing
simply through repeated use; symbols are meaningful only insofar as they are used regularly and
a sign that is repeated is always somewhat novel in respect to the context in which it appears. On
the other hand, meanings may become relatively fixed. This is problematic because settled
meanings enable possibilities of action that favor some at the expense of others. Collective action
is needed to challenge meanings that have been relatively fixed. Sometimes this action is seen in
social movements that transform social relations by challenging and redefining meanings and
creating new collective identities across the social field. Manuel Castells is another contributor
who sees power in Weberian terms and says that power shapes understandings of reality and may
involve force or the threat of force. He views the state as a significant site of cultural politics. He
believes that one should understand social life as made up of networks where the states are nodes
in the networks, they absorb and process relevant information as it flows within and across
networks.

To sum up contemporary political sociology is concerned with cultural politics, which is the
interpretation of social meanings that support, challenge, or change the perspectives and
identities of social actors, to the advantage of some and the disadvantage of others, across state
and society. In shaping identities and perspectives, cultural politics changes preferences.