Transcript THE SOCIAL INSTITUTION THAT DISTRIBUTES POWER, SETS A SOCIETY’S AGENDA, AND MAKES DECISIONS.

THE SOCIAL INSTITUTION
THAT DISTRIBUTES POWER,
SETS A SOCIETY’S AGENDA,
AND MAKES DECISIONS
AUTHORITY
POWER THAT PEOPLE PERCEIVE AS
LEGITIMATE, NOT COERCIVE
 TRADITIONAL
 LEGITIMIZED THROUGH
TRADITION
 RATIONAL-LEGAL
 LEGITIMIZED THROUGH
LAW
 CHARISMATIC
 LEGITIMIZED THROUGH
PERSONALITY
 HUNTING AND GATHERING
 LIKE FAMILY: SPECIALIZED ROLES
 AGRARIAN SOCIETIES
 SMALL ELITE GAINING POWER
 POLITICAL STATES
 RESTRICTED GOVERNING
 MODERN NATION-STATES
 MODERN TECHNOLOGY BROUGHT ABOUT
LARGER-SCALE POLITICAL SYSTEMS REFERRED
TO AS NATION-STATES
THE MONARCHY
RULE BY A SINGLE FAMILY OVER GENERATIONS
 TYPICAL OF AGRARIAN SOCIETIES
 MODERN EXAMPLE: BRITAIN
 ABSOLUTE MONARCHY
 RULERS MONOPOLIZING POWER
 CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCHIES




MODERN-DAY MONARCHIES
MORE FIGURE HEAD THAN RULER
POLITICAL PRINCIPLES RULE
ELECTED OFFICIAL ACTUALLY RULES
POWER IS EXERCISED
BY PEOPLE AS A WHOLE
 REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY
 AUTHORITY IN HANDS OF ELECTED
OFFICIALS
 RATIONAL-LEGAL REASONING
HAS TIES TO DEMOCRACIES
 USE OF EXTENSIVE
BUREAUCRACIES
 EXTENSIVE USE OF NEVER
ELECTED PETTY BUREAUCRATS
THE POWER OF
THE BALLOT
BOX ENSURES
SOME AMOUNT
OF INDIVIDUAL
PARTICIPATION!
AUTHORITARIANISM
DENIES POPULAR PARTICIPATION IN GOVERNMENT
 ABSOLUTE MONARCIES
 HEAVY CONTROL
 LITTLE OR NO VOICE IN GOVERNMENT FOR
MOST PEOPLE
 GOVERNMENT IS OFTEN INDIFFERENT TO
PEOPLE’S NEEDS
 GOVERNMENT HAS NO LEGAL PROCESS TO
REMOVE LEADERSHIP
 EXAMPLES: SAUDI ARABIA AND KUWAIT
 “SOFT AUTHORITARIANISM”
 HEAVY-HANDED GOVERNMENT OFFERING A
“GOOD LIFE” TO PEOPLE (Singapore)
EXTENSIVE REGULATION OF PEOPLE’S LIVES
 CLOSE MONITORING OF
PEOPLE
 MASSIVE AND PROTECTED
EFFORTS TO COLLECT HUGE
AMOUNTS OF INFORMATION ON
POPULACE
 PEOPLE ARE EXPECTED TO
ADHERE TO GOVERNMENT
WISHES AND ARE DENIED
BASIC AND HUMAN RIGHTS
 GOVERNMENT
INDOCTRINATION BEGINS AT
AN EARLY AGE
WALLS CAN BE BUILT
TO KEEP PEOPLE IN, AS
WELL AS TO PROTECT
THEM FROM EXTERNAL
INFLUENCES.
POLITICS IN AMERICA
CONCERNS AND ISSUES
 CULTURAL TIES
 AMERICA’S BILL OF RIGHTS
 THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM
 LIBERAL TO CONSERVATIVE
 ECONOMIC ISSUES
 DIFFERENCE OF OPINIONS
 SOCIAL ISSUES
 “THE VALUE ISSUES DEBATE”
 MIXED POSITIONS
 RACE AND MONEY TALK
 PARTY IDENTIFICATION
 WHY JUST TWO PARTIES?
POLITICAL PARTY IDENTIFICATION
by Proportion of Respondents
44.2
2.1
20.1
33.6
PERCENT
DEMOCRAT
REPUBLICAN
INDEPENDENT
OTHER PARTY/NO RESP.
General Social Surveys, 1972-2000
GETTING POSITIONS HEARD AND UNDERSTOOD
 SPECIAL INTEREST GROUPS
 POLITICAL ALLIANCE OF PEOPLE
INTERESTED IN SOME ECONOMIC OR SOCIAL
ISSUE
 THE NRA, AARP, AFL-CIO, ETC.
 POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEES
 ORGANIZATIONS FORMED BY SPECIAL
INTEREST GROUPS, INDEPENDENT OF
POLITICAL PARTIES, TO PURSUE POLITICAL
AIMS BY RAISING AND SPENDING MONEY
SOME THEORETICAL ANALYSIS
EXPLAINING POLITICAL POWER
 PLURALIST MODEL
 POWER IS DISPERSED AMONG MANY
COMPETING INTERESTS GROUPS
 THE POWER-ELITE MODEL
 “REAL” POWER IS CONCENTRATED
AMONG THE VERY RICH IN AMERICA
 CAN THE WEALTHIEST IN AMERICA
EVER ENCOUNTER PRESSURE TO NOT
ACT IN THEIR OWN BEST INTERESTS?
 POLITICAL-ECONOMY MODEL
 POWER IS DIVIDED ALONG THE LINES
OF A POLITICAL ECONOMY
 BIAS IS ROOTED WITHIN THE NATION’S
SOCIAL INSTITUTIONS
 REVOLUTION IS THE ONLY ANSWER
YOU MEAN, I REALLY
DON’T HAVE A REAL
SAY IN MY OWN
GOVERNMENT?
THE OVERTHROW OF A POLITICAL ORDER IN
ORDER TO ESTABLISH A NEW ONE
REVOLUTIONS SHARE COMMON TRAITS
 RISING EXPECTATIONS
 WHEN QUALITY OF LIFE IS IMPROVING, PEOPLE WANT MORE
AND ARE LESS WILLING TO WAIT
 UNRESPONSIVE GOVERNMENT
 DEGREE OF WILLINGNESS AND ABILTY TO REFORM TO MEET
DEMANDS OF PEOPLE
 RADICAL LEADERSHIP BY INTELLECTUALS
 REVOLUTION IS OFTEN “UNIVERSITY CENTERED”
 ESTABLISHING NEW LEGITIMACY
 GUARDING AGAINST ATTEMPTS TO COUNTER THE
REVOLUTION
TERRORISM
 VIOLENCE, OR THE THREAT OF
VIOLENCE, EMPLOYED BY AN
INDIVIDUAL OR A GROUP AS A
POLITICAL STRATEGY
 STATE TERRORISM
 USE OF VIOLENCE, GENERALLY
WITHOUT SUPPORT OF LAW,
AGAINST INDIVIDUALS OR GROUPS
BY A GOVERNMENT OR ITS AGENTS
War AND peace
 WAR –
ORGANIZED, ARMED
CONFLICT AMONG
PEOPLE OF TWO OR
MORE NATIONS,
DIRECTED BY THEIR
GOVERNMNETS
FACTORS PROMOTING WAR
 PERCEIVED THREATS
 THREATS TO PEOPLE AND TERRITORY
 SOCIAL PROBLEMS
 INTERNAL PROBLEMS AND FRUSTRATION
 POLITICAL OBJECTIVES
 SHOW OF FORCE AND PROTECTING ONE’S
OWN PROPERTY
 MORAL OBJECTIVES
 RALLYING PEOPLE AROUND MORALITY
 ABSENCE OF ALTERNATIVES
 LIMITED OPTIONS
COSTS ARE OFTEN FOUND WELL BEYOND THE
BATTLEFIELDS AND LONG AFTER THE WAR
 $5 TRILLION SPENT ANNUALLY
 $1,000.00 FOR EVERY PERSON ON EARTH
 ANOTHER BILLION HERE, ANOTHER MILLION THERE...
 HOW MUCH SUFFERING GOES ON BECAUSE NEEDED FUNDS MUST
BE DIVERTED? WOULD IT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE IF THE FUNDS
WERE AVAILABLE FOR OTHER NEEDS?
 THE POLITICS OF WAR
 MILITARY INDUSTRAIL COMPLEX
 THE CLOSE ASSOCIATION BETWEEN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT,
THE MILITARY, AND THE DEFENSE INDUSTRY
 FOLLOW THE MONEY AND THE CAREERS OF PENTAGON OFFICIALS
AFTER THEY LEAVE THE MILITARY AS SEE WHERE THE TWO END UP!
 NUCLEAR WEAPONS
 ARE THINGS ESCALATING AGAIN WITH THE CHANCE OF SUCH
WEAPONS BEING USED BY 3RD WORLD MILITARIES?
 PAKISTAN AND INDIA
REDUCING CHANCES FOR WAR AND
INCREASING CHANCES OF PEACE
 DETERRENCE
 BALANCE OF POWER BETWEEN SOCIETIES
 HIGH-TECHNOLOGY DEFENSE
 STRATEGIC DEFENSE INITIATIVE
 DIPLOMACY AND DISARMAMENT
 KEEP TALKING ABOUT REDUCING ARMS
 RESOLVING UNDERLYING CONFLICT
 INCREASE SPENDING ON PROMOTING PEACE RATHER
THAN BUILDING UP MILITARY