Scribd
Upload
127 views4 pages

Sartori on Political Sociology's Hybrid Nature

Giovanni Sartori's 1969 article argues for the establishment of political sociology as a distinct interdisciplinary field, separate from the sociology of politics, which often reduces political phenomena to social-structural explanations. He critiques the historical interaction between sociology and political science, advocating for a framework that incorporates both social and political variables to better understand political behavior. Sartori emphasizes the need to recognize the role of political actors and institutions as active agents in shaping social behavior, ultimately calling for a more dynamic approach to the study of political phenomena.

Uploaded by

pratibha.2021.180
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
127 views4 pages

Sartori on Political Sociology's Hybrid Nature

Giovanni Sartori's 1969 article argues for the establishment of political sociology as a distinct interdisciplinary field, separate from the sociology of politics, which often reduces political phenomena to social-structural explanations. He critiques the historical interaction between sociology and political science, advocating for a framework that incorporates both social and political variables to better understand political behavior. Sartori emphasizes the need to recognize the role of political actors and institutions as active agents in shaping social behavior, ultimately calling for a more dynamic approach to the study of political phenomena.

Uploaded by

pratibha.2021.180
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

In Giovanni Sartori's 1969 article, From the Sociology of Politics to Political Sociology,

he seeks to clarify the distinctions between sociology of politics and political sociology,
arguing for the development of political sociology as a distinct interdisciplinary hybrid,
separate from the sociological reduction of politics. The article critiques the way
sociology and political science have historically interacted and offers a forward-looking
proposal for their integration into a more robust field that captures the dynamics of
political and social systems.

Key Distinctions: Sociology of Politics vs. Political Sociology


Sartori begins by explaining that the term "sociology of politics" refers to a subdivision of
sociology, just like sociology of religion or sociology of leisure. This framework situates
political phenomena within the broader field of sociology, where social-structural
conditions are used to explain political behavior. However, Sartori points out that
"political sociology" remains a vague term, often used synonymously with political
science. He critiques the European tendency, championed by Maurice Duverger, to blur
the lines between political sociology and political science. Sartori argues that political
sociology should not be considered a subset of sociology but rather an interdisciplinary
bridge that combines sociological and political approaches.

The main distinction between these two terms lies in their analytical focus. The
sociology of politics tends to reduce political phenomena to social-structural
explanations, treating political institutions as "givens" or external factors. Political
sociology, on the other hand, must incorporate both social and political variables in its
analysis, treating political structures not merely as outcomes but as forces that influence
social behavior. Sartori stresses that treating political sociology as a simple extension of
sociology undermines the development of political science and diminishes the capacity
to fully understand the complexities of political systems.

The Division of Labor in the Social Sciences


Sartori reflects on the broader division of labor between the social sciences, borrowing
from Neil J. Smelser’s analysis. He explains that social sciences advance by simplifying
the complexity of human behavior through the isolation of variables and parameters.
Each discipline focuses on its own set of variables while treating other factors as
"givens." For instance, economists treat political structures as external variables, while
sociologists treat political phenomena as social outcomes.

This division of labor has led to the specialization of each discipline, allowing for deeper
analysis but also creating silos. Sartori argues that this approach is both necessary and
limiting. While specialization has led to scientific advances, it has also discouraged
interdisciplinary engagement. He proposes that political sociology should serve as a
bridge between sociology and political science, fostering cross-disciplinary research
without erasing the distinct boundaries between the fields. He critiques the idea of
merging disciplines or eliminating boundaries, advocating instead for the construction of
"connecting bridges" that allow for interdisciplinary cross-fertilization.

Differentiating Political Science and Sociology


Sartori emphasizes the importance of distinguishing between political science and
sociology. Sociology focuses on social structures as explanatory variables, while
political science focuses on political structures. However, Sartori acknowledges that this
neat division is not always reflected in the state of political science, which he argues is
in a state of crisis, particularly in Europe. The key, he argues, is not to compare political
science with sociology as a whole but rather to compare the sociology of politics with
political science in the realm of understanding political behavior.

Sartori contends that much of the confusion in defining political sociology comes from a
failure to differentiate between the conceptual frameworks of sociology and political
science. He points out that sociological concepts such as community, authority, status,
and alienation are not the unit ideas of political science, which deals more directly with
concepts like power and state structures. Sartori critiques efforts to force sociological
models, such as those of Talcott Parsons, onto political science, arguing that they are
often inadequate for analyzing political phenomena.

The Sociology of Parties


One of Sartori's key critiques of the sociology of politics is its approach to the study of
political parties. He explains that sociologists tend to treat parties and party systems as
dependent variables, shaped by social-structural conditions like class, whereas political
scientists view parties as independent variables that shape political outcomes. Sartori
believes that the sociology of politics often overemphasizes the role of class in political
behavior, reducing political actions to reflections of social structures.

Sartori uses Seymour Martin Lipset’s work Political Man as an example, showing how
class conflict is often viewed as the primary driver of party politics. While Lipset
acknowledges that other factors like ethnicity, religion, and ideology also influence
political behavior, Sartori argues that the emphasis on class in the sociology of politics
often leads to an oversimplified understanding of political phenomena. He critiques the
Marxist-inspired view that parties represent class interests, pointing out that class
interests are often too ambiguous or abstract to provide a clear explanation of political
behavior.

The Limits of Class Analysis and the Need for Political Sociology
Sartori critiques the use of class analysis in the sociology of politics, particularly the
assumption that political parties represent distinct class interests. He argues that the
concept of representation is often abused, with sociologists projecting class interests
onto parties without sufficient empirical verification. Sartori challenges the notion that
parties represent classes in any meaningful way, arguing that sociologists often confuse
empathy with true representation. He also points out that conflicts between classes are
not always zero-sum (one group's gain at another's loss), and that the simplistic view of
class conflict as a driving force in politics fails to account for the complexity of political
systems.

Moreover, Sartori highlights the need for a new approach—political sociology—that


incorporates both social and political variables. He praises Lipset and Stein Rokkan’s
1967 book Party Systems and Voter Alignments for moving beyond the sociology of
politics to examine how social cleavages are "translated" into party systems. This
approach, he argues, takes into account not only social structures but also the political
processes that shape party systems. Sartori stresses that political sociology must
address how political actors and institutions translate social cleavages into political
behavior.

The Role of Politics in Social Systems


Sartori concludes by emphasizing the importance of recognizing the role of politics as
an independent variable in social systems. He argues that sociologists often treat
politics as a reflection of social structures, failing to account for the ways in which
political actors and institutions shape social behavior. Sartori calls for political sociology
to give greater weight to the role of political entrepreneurs and decision-makers in
shaping political outcomes.

By treating political systems as active agents rather than passive reflections of social
conditions, Sartori argues, political sociology can better understand the dynamics of
political behavior. He also critiques the "objectivist superstition" in the social sciences,
which assumes that socio-economic indicators are more powerful predictors of political
behavior than political variables. Sartori argues that this belief overlooks the role of
political agency in shaping political outcomes.

Conclusion
In his article, Sartori makes a strong case for the development of political sociology as a
distinct interdisciplinary field that combines the strengths of sociology and political
science. He critiques the reductionist tendencies of the sociology of politics, arguing that
it often oversimplifies political behavior by reducing it to social-structural explanations.
Instead, Sartori calls for a more dynamic approach that recognizes the interplay
between social and political variables, and gives due weight to the role of political actors
and institutions.

Sartori's proposal for political sociology as an interdisciplinary hybrid seeks to overcome


the limitations of both sociology and political science, creating a more comprehensive
framework for understanding political phenomena. His critique of class analysis and his
emphasis on the importance of political agency mark a significant shift in thinking about
the relationship between politics and society.

Common questions

Powered by AI

Sartori challenges the sociology of politics for overly emphasizing class in political behavior, leading to oversimplified analyses. He critiques the notion that parties represent class interests due to ambiguous and abstract class definitions. Sartori recommends an alternative approach through political sociology that incorporates both social and political variables, examining how social cleavages are translated into party systems and political behavior .

Sartori's proposal for political sociology aims to resolve the limitations found in both sociology and political science by creating an interdisciplinary field that encapsulates the strengths of each. This approach allows for a dynamic analysis that considers the influence of political structures and actors, while also accounting for social variables, providing a comprehensive framework for understanding complex political phenomena .

In Sartori's framework for political sociology, political agency plays a critical role by actively shaping social systems rather than merely reflecting them. This is significant as it emphasizes the importance of political actors and decision-makers in influencing political outcomes, countering the reductionist view that socio-economic indicators are the primary predictors of political behavior .

Sartori believes that the neat division between sociology and political science is not always reflected due to the conceptual overlap and the historical crisis in political science, especially in Europe. He suggests focusing on how the sociology of politics and political science both contribute to understanding political behavior, allowing for more accurate differentiation and overcoming conceptual confusion .

Sartori argues that political sociology can bridge sociology and political science by integrating both social-structural and political variables in its analyses. This interdisciplinary approach allows for a comprehensive understanding of political systems without reducing political phenomena to mere social consequences or treating political structures as simplistic outcomes .

Sartori identifies issues with the Marxist-inspired view of class conflict in understanding political behavior due to its oversimplification of political phenomena. He argues that class interests are often too abstract and ambiguous for clear political representation and that political actions cannot be entirely deduced from social structures. This approach neglects the complex interplay of various political actors and processes .

Sartori critiques the division of labor in the social sciences for leading to silos, as each discipline isolates variables for deeper analysis while treating others as 'givens.' This specialization can limit interdisciplinary engagement. Sartori proposes addressing this by fostering political sociology as a bridge between sociology and political science to encourage cross-disciplinary research without merging or eliminating distinct disciplinary boundaries .

Sartori advocates for political sociology over the sociology of politics because it provides a more nuanced understanding of political phenomena by incorporating both social and political variables. This approach recognizes political structures and actors as active agents that influence social behavior, thus allowing for a comprehensive analysis of political systems beyond mere social-structural narratives .

Giovanni Sartori differentiates between the 'sociology of politics' and 'political sociology' by highlighting their distinct analytical focuses. The 'sociology of politics' is seen as a subdivision of sociology, where political phenomena are examined through social-structural explanations, treating political institutions as external variables. In contrast, 'political sociology' is defined as an interdisciplinary field that integrates both social and political variables, examining political structures as forces that influence social behavior .

Sartori critiques the application of Talcott Parsons' sociological models to political science by arguing that they inadequately capture political phenomena. Sociology and political science have distinct conceptual frameworks, such as authority and status in sociology versus power and state structures in political science. Parsons' models, suited for sociological analysis, often fail to address the nuances of political structures effectively .

You might also like