Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The political inactivity of the less advantaged : the approaches of Marxism and empirical social science Paehlke, Robert 1975

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1975_A1 P33_3.pdf [ 19.17MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0100106.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0100106-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0100106-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0100106-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0100106-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0100106-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0100106-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0100106-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0100106.ris

Full Text

THE'POLITICAL INACTIVITY OF THE LESS ADVANTAGED: THE APPROACHES OF MARXISM AND EMPIRICAL  SOCIAL  SCIENCE  by  Robert  Paehlke  B.A. L e h i g h U n i v e r s i t y ,  1963  M.A., New S c h o o l f o r S o c i a l Research,  1968  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT  OF  THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE.OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY  i n the Department of P o l i t i c a l Science  We a c c e p t t h i s  t h e s i s as conforming to t h e  required s^nd/frd  THE UNIVERSITY  OF BRITISH COLUMBIA  September, 1975  '  In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shal make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of m y Department by his representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shal not be alowed without m y written permission.  Department of The University of British Cou lmba i Vancouver 8, Canada Date 04y  6  /?7S~,  ABSTRACT  The thesis begins by outlining some of the major findings of p o l i t i c a l sociology regarding the demographic characteristics of those persons who are t y p i c a l l y less inclined to participate i n the p o l i t i c a l process within l i b e r a l democratic systems.  I t has generally been found  that participation i s p o s i t i v e l y related to income, education, and occupational status; and that generally men and r a c i a l , ethnic and r e l i g i o u s majorities tend as well to participate more than women and minorities. The third chapter isolates seven alternative explanations of.the r e l a t i v e p o l i t i c a l i n a c t i v i t y of the less advantaged from the recent l i t e r a t u r e of empirical s o c i a l science.  There i s then an attempt to show  that to a considerable extent though by no means universally, the explanations of empirical s o c i a l science can be usefully seen as  fitting  into a 6-part 'conservative understanding' of the non-participation of the less advantaged. Associated claims such as those which state or imply that low levels of participation have positive effects for p o l i t i cal systems because the less advantaged are less informed or more i n t o l e rant are critiqued by a detailed questioning of research techniques, by a gathering of empirical evidence from less familiar sources , and by doubts regarding the degree to which some researchers findings follow from their own evidence.  Included as part of these sections i s an analysis of  recent introductory texts i n p o l i t i c a l science wherein the elements of the 'conservative understanding' mentioned above are found, cases, to be badly (and erroneously) stated.  i n some  Lastly, towards the close  of the fourth chapter there i s some discussion and analysis of recent  i  American i n t e l l e c t u a l h i s t o r y i n an attempt t o p l a c e i n h i s t o r i c o s o c i a l p e r s p e c t i v e s e v e r a l aspects participation.  of t h e r e c e n t study  of p o l i t i c a l  At several points there i s a d i s c u s s i o n of aspects  of t h e methodology o f e m p i r i c a l s o c i a l s c i e n c e and i t s r e l a t i o n s h i p t o the f i n d i n g s under c o n s i d e r a t i o n h e r e . C h a p t e r s 5 and 6 f o c u s on t h e c o n t r a s t s between, on t h e one hand, the a n a l y s e s  o f e m p i r i c a l s o c i a l s c i e n c e r e g a r d i n g t h e r e l a t i v e non-par-  t i c i p a t i o n o f t h e l e s s advantaged, and on t h e o t h e r , t h e e x p l a n a t i o n s o f M a r x i s t s o f t h e seeming d i s i n c l i n a t i o n o f t h e working c l a s s i n ' l a t e capitalist'  s o c i e t i e s t o pursue p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i t y  (in particular  r e v o l u t i o n a r y s o c i a l i s t p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i t y ) . C h a p t e r 5 i s o l a t e s and d e v e l o p s 13 s e p a r a t e b u t r e l a t e d e x p l a n a t i o n s temporary M a r x i s t s , evidence The  supporting  assumptions,  found  i n the w r i t i n g s o f con-  Chapter 6 o f f e r s a c r i t i q u e of e x p l a n a t i o n s , the them, and a s p e c t s o f t h e methodology u n d e r l y i n g them.  approaches and methods o f Marxism and e m p i r i c a l s o c i a l  science are treated  comparatively.  Among t h e c o n c l u s i o n s reached  i s t h e v i e w t h a t w h i l e Marxism i s  o f t e n i m p r e c i s e and g e n e r a l l y slow t o adapt to changing e m p i r i c a l c o n d i t i o n s i t has an i m p o r t a n t hensive,  capacity f o r developing  e x p l a n a t i o n s w h i c h a r e compre-  i n t e g r a t e d and t h e o r e t i c a l l y u s e f u l .  A s e r i e s of suggestions are  o f f e r e d whereby M a r x i s t e x p l a n a t i o n s might be, a t l e a s t i n p a r t , t e s t e d empirically.  The f i n a l c h a p t e r  empirical social  d i s c u s s e s some o f t h e weaknesses o f b o t h  s c i e n c e and Marxism and makes some t e n t a t i v e  about how they might be avoided  i n both  ii  suggestions  t h e o r e t i c a l and d e t a i l e d i n q u i r y .  TABLE OF CONTENTS Page -  Abstract  i  Chapter 1  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . .  2  Some Measures o f t h e R e l a t i v e P o l i t i c a l  1  I n a c t i v i t y o f the Less Advantaged 3  The E x p l a n a t i o n s o f E m p i r i c a l S o c i a l S c i e n c e  4  A C r i t i q u e o f t h e View o f E m p i r i c a l S o c i a l Science  30 . . . .  38  1  1  6  5  The E x p l a n a t i o n s o f Marxism  215  6  A C r i t i q u e o f t h e View o f Marxism  287  7  Conclusions  342  . . .  n£  Bibliography  iii  *7  1  CHAPTER 1 Whenever a l i v i n g organism or c o l l e c t i v i t y loses the p o s s i b i l i t y of being more than i t i s , i t cannot continue; i t begins to d i e .  Poten-  t i a l i t i e s , then, are an intimate and inseparable part of being. For human i n d i v i d u a l s , p o t e n t i a l i t i e s are manifest i n a complex of biology and consciousness.  There can be no r e a l understanding of what a human  i n d i v i d u a l i s without a knowledge of what she/he might become; the complex of b i o l o g i c a l and mental p o t e n t i a l i t y i s an important part of any such understanding.  A c o l l e c t i v i t y i s less contingent upon biology than i s  any one i n d i v i d u a l ; but i t s existence i s no less dependent on its potentialities.  Understanding what a society i s , then, i s p a r i  passu understanding what i t might become."*"  That understanding i s then,  i n turn, related less to biology than to the dynamics of s o c i a l organization and to s o c i e t a l self-consciousness about s o c i e t a l p o s s i b i l i t i e s . Any patterned study of human society which e i t h e r does not or cannot e f f e c t i v e l y come to understand s o c i a l p o t e n t i a l i t i e s w i l l not  I n this sentence the word 'might' i s important, ^ h i s stress and i n my use of the word ' p o t e n t i a l i t y ' I hope to indicate my view that s o c i a l science can never be more than p r o b a b i l i s t i c science. And I" have doubts that i n practice rather than i n p r i n c i p l e we w i l l ever come to the point where the p r o b a b i l i t i e s regarding many major questions can be expressed i n the form of solvable mathematical equations or precise odds. The single most convincing d i f f i c u l t y i s , f o r me, the fact that the objects of study are subjects and can adjust their behavior i n the l i g h t of previous findings. In t h i s , and perhaps other senses, the contingency of human behavior i s limited — there i s some element of human c r e a t i v i t y which may w e l l prove impossible to a n t i c i p a t e . I do not take this unlikelihood as grounds f o r not attempting to anticipate c r e a t i v i t y , for i n trying, p a r t i a l l y succeeding and communicating that success we continually advance the l e v e l at which that process begins. X  2  e f f e c t i v e l y understand s o c i a l a c t u a l i t i e s . i s a l s o t r u e ; any  patterned  cannot e f f e c t i v e l y  And,  of c o u r s e , the  reverse  study of human s o c i e t y which does not  or  come to understand s o c i a l a c t u a l i t i e s w i l l not  f e c t i v e l y understand s o c i a l p o t e n t i a l i t i e s .  Contemporary  ef-  empirical  2 s o c i a l science  has  o f t e n been seen as u n w i l l i n g or unable to d e a l 3  f e c t i v e l y with s o c i a l p o t e n t i a l i t y  or s o c i a l change.•  c o r r e c t one?  I f so, i n whole or i n p a r t , what are  shortcoming?  Are  Are  a d d i t i o n a l p l a u s i b l e explanations torical  Is this claim a  the r o o t s of  they n e c e s s a r y l i m i t s of methodology b r o a d l y  they n e c e s s a r y l i m i t s of methodology b r o a d l y —  ef-  conceived?  this conceived?  Are  there  f o r example, i s t h e r e a s o c i o - h i s - •  b a s i s f o r some of the emphasis of contemporary e m p i r i c a l  social  science? ' i w i l l use the term e m p i r i c a l s o c i a l s c i e n c e throughout t h i s i n q u i r y i n a q u i t e narrow way, as a term which r e f e r s to a l a r g e body of non-Marxist s o c i a l science. I am f u l l y aware t h a t the term used more b r o a d l y c o u l d be taken to subsume Marxism, but such a usage i n a comparative i n q u i r y such as t h i s would f o r me r a i s e many q u e s t i o n s . For example, why should we not on the c o n t r a r y see a l l e m p i r i c a l s o c i a l s c i e n c e as at l e a s t p o t e n t i a l l y a subset of Marxism? I take e m p i r i c a l s o c i a l s c i e n c , then, to be t h a t p o r t i o n of soc i a l s c i e n c e which seeks to a t t a i n p r e c i s e , i d e a l l y q u a n t i f i a b l e , measures of human s o c i a l b e h a v i o r and sees those measures, and t h e i r use i n a p r o cess of d i s c o n f i r m i n g n u l l hypotheses i n ways s u b j e c t to r e t e s t by other r e s e a r c h e r s , as the soundest r o u t e to the u n d e r s t a n d i n g of s o c i a l man. I take the term to be o n l y somewhat broader than the term b e h a v i o r a l s o c i a l s c i e n c e i n t h a t I might i n c l u d e w i t h i n i t s scope more l e g a l , i n s t i t u t i o n a l and systems s t u d i e s than are sometimes c o n s i d e r e d b e h a v i o r a l . F i n a l l y , i n g e n e r a l i n t h i s i n q u i r y I w i l l be l o o k i n g a t p r i m a r i l y the d i s c i p l i n e s of s o c i o l o g y and p o l i t i c a l s c i e n c e , and to a l e s s e r extent s o c i a l p s y c h o l o g y and some a s p e c t s of economics. I did not, of c o u r s e , wish to be taken to be t r y i n g to g e n e r a l i z e beyond those bounds which I have c a r e f u l l y examined.  3  See, f o r example: C h r i s t i a n Bay, " P o l i t i c s and Pseudo P o l i t i c s : A Crit i c a l E v a l u a t i o n of some B e h a v i o r a l L i t e r a t u r e , " American P o l i t i c a l S c i e n c e Ree;view, LIX 1 (March, 1965), 39-51; Henry S. K a r i e l , Open Systems: Arenas f o r P o l i t i c a l A c t i o n , ( I t a s c a , 111.: F.E. Peacock P u b l i s h e r s , 1969); K.W. Kim, "The L i m i t s of B e h a v i o r a l E x p l a n a t i o n i n P o l i t i c s , " Canadian J o u r n a l of Economics and P o l i t i c a l S c i e n c e , XXXI (August, 1965), 315-327; M u l f o r d Q. S i b l e y , "The L i m i t a t i o n s of B e h a v i o r a l i s m , " i n James C. C h a r l e s w o r t h , Ed., Contemporary P o l i t i c a l A n a l y s i s , New York: The F r e e P r e s s , 1967); and J a c k L. Walker, "A C r i t i q u e of the E l i t i s t Theory of Democracy," American P o l i t i c a l Review, LX, 2 (June, 1966), 285-295.  3  It i s perfectly clear that there i s no purely deductive way to deal with such questions.  We must directly examine some part of the 4  body of empirical literature.  I t i s also perfectly clear that no  one effort w i l l be able to wholly answer such questions, a l l that can be hoped for i s the addition of some further c l a r i t y to e a r l i e r e f f o r t s . This I hope I w i l l be able to do by undertaking here a study of how empirical s o c i a l science has come to understand and explain"* an issue which has been both of general theoretical importance and the subject of extensive empirical research. i s p o l i t i c a l participation:  The area of research I have chosen  more p a r t i c u l a r l y the relative lack of  participation by socio-economically disadvantaged  persons.  I do not believe, however, that an examination i n i s o l a t i o n of this one pattern i s a s u f f i c i e n t means of answering or c l a r i f y i n g the questions I have asked.  I propose to look as w e l l at an alternative  attempt to understand and explain, i n this case, a particular form of p o l i t i c a l i n a c t i v i t y of the disadvantaged:  contemporary Marxist ex-  planation^) of the p o l i t i c a l i n a c t i v i t y of the* working class i n developed and late capitalism.^ In looking at Marxist explanations In doing so I w i l l to some extent draw as w e l l on secondary summaries prepared by both behavioralists and their c r i t i c s (see Chapters 2 and 3). "*For a c l a r i f i c a t i o n of the particular meanings I have given these two terms i n this study see below the closing section of this Chapter. ^'Late capitalism' i s a term current i n Marxism which carries the imp l i c a t i o n that the capitalism of the contemporary West has extended i t s e l f beyond i t s 'appropriate' departure from history by a variety of devices ranging from imperialism to militarism to easy consumer credit and Keynesian economics. Accordingly, those who use this term hold the view that this formation i s due or overdue for transformation and are then l e f t to account for the behavior and 'non-behavior' of the working class. Thereby those Marxists who are inclined to use this concept are, among others, of great interest i n this inquiry.  of this question and the forms or lack of evidence which contemporary Marxists have offered i n support of their explanations I hope that i n this comparison and contrast I can deal more effectively with my o r i g i n a l questions. There seems to be a good prime facie case that Marxism might serve as a means of gaining further understanding of empirical s o c i a l science.  For example, i n terms of our opening concern, i f empirical  social science could be said to underestimate  the importance of and/or  be unable to effectively measure the potentiality 'portion' of s o c i a l r e a l i t y , Marxism could equally f a i r l y be said to look at s o c i a l r e a l i t y through, i f you w i l l , a potentiality prism.  Marxist measures of past  and present tend to be made i n terms of their a b i l i t y to serve as the basis for understanding approximated f u t u r e .  7  the prospects of a transformation toward an I f empirical s o c i a l science tends at times to  s a c r i f i c e scope and depth of explanation for precision, Marxism's forte i s explanatory scope, i t s nadir conceptual c l a r i t y .  Social science seeks  quantified evidence and t y p i c a l i t i e s , Marxism i s more often concerned with portents and indications of possible trends.  I f empirical s o c i a l  scientists have been restricted i n their a b i l i t y to incorporate h i s t o r i c a l materials many Marxists have blurred the details of years for the patterns of decades and centuries. I f s o c i a l scientists have too often lacked theoretical grounding for detailed research projects,Marxists have often been trapped i n a s p i r a l of ever more abstracted and r e i f i e d Whether or not Marx himself or many Marxists would accept this characterization i s a complex question; I do not necessarily take i t to be 'their' view. 7  5  theorizing.  There are further interesting differences, of course,  but I w i l l offer them i n later Chapters when I can begin to deal with their complexities i n greater d e t a i l .  Suffice i t to say here that  Marxist analysis and empirical s o c i a l science are two well-developed methods of coming to some understanding of s o c i a l r e a l i t y , their perspectives can be usefully counterposed, and they each have devoted considerable attention and considerable theoretical centrality to the concrete research area within which I w i l l attempt to c l a r i f y the. l i m i t s of these two methodological perspectives. The Significance of P o l i t i c a l Participation If asked to choose one concept by which to best judge the r e l a t i v e presence or absence of democracy i n a society's p o l i t i c s most of us would, I expect, choose "participation".  If we were seeking the knowledge nec-  essary to locate the means to increase the degree of democracy we would attempt to determine the varieties of individuals for whom participation i s uncommon or ineffective and the systemic-institutional, s o c i a l c u l t u r a l , and individual-psychological veness.  explanations of that i n e f f e c t i -  Such knowledge could provide a beginning point for the posing  of alternatives. How can one best get at the meaning of the concept 'participat i o n ; what are i t s indicators? 1  v a l i d measure?  Are hours spent, or dollars spent, a  Is intensity of involvement —  the depth of emotions  f e l t , the salience of p o l i t i c s — a useful measure?  Or wouldn't we  better seek to determine the 'quality' of participation via measures of levels of p o l i t i c a l sophistication (knowledge)? Or i s there a  6  dimension missing i n the usual measures of p a r t i c i p a t i o n — deal with the questions of effectiveness of p a r t i c i p a t i o n .  must we  not  That i s ,  i s the essence of p a r t i c i p a t i o n less i n the quantity or q u a l i t y of energy and resources expended than i n the effectiveness of that expenditure?  Surely a c t i v i t y u t t e r l y without e f f e c t on the s o c i a l order  i s not f u l l p a r t i c i p a t i o n ; i t i s , depending on the intentions of the actors, either a game or a deception.  A l l these are surely important  matters, but on balance what should be remembered i s that there i s as w e l l much to be gained i n making separate measurements of a c t i v i t y of effectiveness of a c t i v i t y .  and  Each can be seen to be a part of demo-  cratic participation. The question of p a r t i c i p a t i o n then implies some need to make comparisons among Burkean v i r t u a l representation, the dictatorship of the p r o l e t a r i a t , P h i l i p p i n e e l e c t o r a l shoot-outs and  the mass organization  production of c o a l i t i o n government i n post-war A u s t r i a .  Within  that  complex of questions and unavailable answers we must i n turn confront an often-avoided  yet r e a l conceptual-theoretical problem: g  cipation necessarily imply a c t i v i t y ?  More s i g n i f i c a n t l y , does a mere  a c t i v i t y increase imply greater p a r t i c i p a t i o n ? does —  does p a r t i -  If we conclude that i t  that the concept would most u s e f u l l y be taken to do so —  we  must r e a l i z e that we have thereby lessened i t s usefulness as a necessary  Not necessarily, of course,  the same thing as measurable a c t i v i t y .  7  indicator of the presence, absence or degree of democracy.  Not a l l  students of participation have been f u l l y aware that they have made this assumption.  We should perhaps indicate b r i e f l y at this point the importance of p o l i t i c a l participation as a part of the c l a s s i c a l conception of democracy.  An elaborate demonstration of that importance i s not  necessary here, the case has been well made elsewhere."^ The nature of that importance w i l l be discussed further shortly.  The importance  of such harkenings back, to c l a s s i c a l democratic theory can be very easily overdrawn; I offer i t as a useful i n i t i a l context, not as canon. In this l a t t e r regard one point should be clearly made here  y  ^1 follow C.B. MacPherson The Real World of Democracy,(Toronto: Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, 1965) on the theoretical p o s s i b i l i t y of non-liberal democracy and i t follows for me that a non-participatory democracy i s also a p o s s i b i l i t y (rarely actualized). Democracy i n i t s broadest possible conception can be a useful concept. Government of, by and for (taken one at a time) the people allows one to come to mixed conclusions i n comparing the democracy of an acknowledgedly authoritarian workers' state which genuinely sought to engage i n a rapid improvement of the condition of the less advantaged majority of i t s population to another state i n which the interests of a r e l a t i v e l y active majority chose to systematically disadvantage a minority within, or large numbers of persons outside i t s borders. "^This i s very effectively dealt with i n Carole Pateman Participation and Democratic Theory (Cambridge: At the University Press,1970), especially pp. 16-44. I t i s also a part of many of the other 'postbehavioral' critiques of the study of p o l i t i c a l participation including Graeme Duncan and Steven Lukes, "The New Democracy," P o l i t i c a l Studies.XI (1963), pp. 156-177; Peter Bachrach, The Theory of Democratic E l i t i s m : A Critique, (Boston: L i t t l e , Brown and Company, 1967); Lane Davis, "The Cost of Realism: Contemporary Restatements of Democracy," Western P o l i t i c a l Quarterly XVII (March, 1964), pp. 37-46. f  8  t h a t i s , t h a t what might be seen as i m p l i c i t b e h a v i o r a l ' c r i t i q u e s of none of the  'post-  'democratic r e v i s i o n i s m ' I would a g r e e t h a t  t h e o r i s t s of l i b e r a l democracy g e n e r a l l y h e l d to be c e n t r a l  to the f o r m a t i o n be  i n some of the  correctly  of the  'classical'  t h e o r y o f l i b e r a l democracy  d e s c r i b e d as u n e q u i v o c a l  c o n s i s t e n t advocate  democrats.^  In f a c t none i s a  of even the degree of p a r t i c i p a t i o n common to  contemporary Western l i b e r a l democracies. p r i m a r i l y concerned w i t h  the r u l e o f law,  r i g h t of r e v o l u t i o n a g a i n s t t y r a n n y . but beyond t h a t was  could  u n c l e a r as  "...Locke has  no  He  Locke, f o r example,  was  l i m i t e d government, and objected  to the p r o p e r  the  the  to a b s o l u t e monarchy,  locus of  c l e a r view o f the n a t u r e  sovereignty: or  r e s i d e n c e of s o v e r e i g n t y . He speaks a t one time of the supreme power o f the p e o p l e , o r i n o t h e r words the community; he speaks a t another of the supreme power o f the l e g i s l a t i v e — which may, i t i s t r u e , be the community, but a l s o may be a body of r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s a p p o i n t e d by the community; and i n s t i l l another c o n t e x t he remarks t h a t "where...the e x e c u t i v e i s v e s t e d i n a s i n g l e p e r s o n who has a l s o a share i n the l e g i s l a t i v e then t h a t s i n g l e p e r s o n , i n a v e r y t o l e r a b l e sense, may a l s o be c a l l e d the supreme power. "-^  v  " C e r t a i n l y Duncan and Lukes are c l e a r about the v e r y l i m i t e d n a t u r e of J.S. M i l l ' s c a l l f o r d e m o c r a t i c p a r t i c i p a t i o n (see p. 164 and p. 170 i n C h a r l e s A. McCoy and John P l a y f o r d , A p o l i t i c a l P o l i t i c s (New Y o r k : Thomas Y. C r o w e l l Company, 1967)). They a r e a l s o c l e a r t h a t he had g r e a t e r hopes f o r f u t u r e p o t e n t i a l , e t c . On the o t h e r hand Lane Davis seems a b i t l e s s c a u t i o u s when he r e f e r s to p e r i o d i c e l e c t o r a l chores as p a r t i c i p a t i o n " . . . at b e s t , a p a l e and r a t h e r p a t h e t i c v e r s i o n o f the r e s p o n s i b l e and a c t i v e p a r t i c i p a t i o n w h i c h was the a s p i r a t i o n o f c l a s s i c a l democracy" ( i n McCoy and P l a y f o r d at page 193). I do not o f f e r the b r i e f d i s c u s s i o n which now f o l l o w s as a r e b u t t a l . Rather I simply wish to make c l e a r t h a t my c r i t i q u e does not depend i n l a r g e p a r t on ' e t e r n a l v a l u e s ' expressed i n d e m o c r a t i c t h e o r y . 12 Barker, Ernest 1962), p. xxv.  i n S o c i a l Contract  (New  York:  Oxford  University Press,  9  Locke d i d n o t d e a l w i t h q u e s t i o n s o f s u f f r a g e , o r w i t h the p a t t e r n e d r e g u l a r r e c u r r e n c e o f e l e c t i o n s o r p o p u l a r d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g beyond h o p i n g t h a t the p e o p l e would o v e r t u r n those t y r a n n i e s which were e n d u r i n g and i n t o l e r a b l e .  F u r t h e r , he had  little  consistent,  d i f f i c u l t y accepting  a s o c i a l assignment which might be c a l l e d q u a l i f i e d s l a v e r y c o u l d be owned but not murdered and,  (slaves  i n rare cases, s l a v i c i d e ,  too,  was a c c e p t a b l e ) . ^ The v e r y l i m i t e d n a t u r e o f the d e m o c r a t i c a s p e c t s o f the p o l i t i c a l forms c a l l e d f o r by o t h e r o f t e n - c i t e d 17th and 18th c e n t u r y democratic t h e o r i s t s a r e a l s o well-known.  Montesquieu's  s e p a r a t i o n o f powers  was  14 d e s i g n e d i n p a r t to check the power o f e l e c t e d r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . ambivalence  and ambiguity o f Rousseau a r e w e l l - k n o w n . ^  De  The  Tocqueville,  13 Locke, John, "Second T r e a t i s e on C i v i l Government," i n op. c i t . , pp. 15-16. F o r a thorough d i s c u s s i o n o f the work o f Locke i n t h i s c o n t e x t see Frank M a r i n i , "John Locke and the R e v i s i o n o f C l a s s i c a l Democratic Theory," Western P o l i t i c a l Q u a r t e r l y , XXII (March, 1969), pp. 5-18. M a r i n i e f f e c t i v e l y makes s e v e r a l i m p o r t a n t p o i n t s ; f o r example he a r g u e s : "Locke's p o l i t i c a l t h e o r y b e a r s l i t t l e resemblance to the ' c l a s s i c a l t h e o r y o f the c r i t i c a l arguments. The c i t i z e n s Locke d e s c r i b e s a r e not the pure, p e r f e c t l y r a t i o n a l , informed and ac i v e c i t i z e n s which the c r i t i c s found i n c l a s s i c a l t h e o r y . " (The quote i s a t p. 17.) The c r i t i c s to whom M a r i n i r e f e r s a r e l a r g e l y b e h a v i o r a l i s t p o l i t i c a l s c i e n t i s t s . ) M a r i n i f e e l s t h a t Locke's v i e w p o i n t has been d i s t o r t e d i n t o a strawman and t h a t Locke i n a c t u a l i t y i s "not a t a l l d e m o c r a t i c i n the sense t h a t ' c l a s s i c a l d e m o c r a t i c t h e o r y ' i s u s u a l l y r e p r e s e n t e d as b e i n g d e m o c r a t i c . " ( A l s o , p. 17.) I n my view most o f the ' c l a s s i c a l ' t h e o r i s t s a r e f a r l e s s democratic than they have been taken to be. Many e m p i r i c a l s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t s , ^ as T j v i l l d i s c u s s - * i n Chapters 3 and 4, have i n e f f e c t taken modest b e l i e f i n human i m p r o v a b i l i t y as w i l d - e y e d i d e a l i s m . 14  . . Newmann, F r a n z , i n t r o d u c t i o n to Baron de Montesquieu, The S p i r i t the Laws, New York: Hafner P u b l i s h i n g Company, 1962, p. i x .  of  "''"'The b e s t e v i d e n c e f o r t h a t ambiguity i s the w i d e l y d i f f e r i n g views o f Rousseau's d e m o c r a t i c c o n s i s t e n c y . Two s h a r p l y d i v e r g i n g i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s are J . L . Talmon The O r i g i n s of T o t a l i t a r i a n Democracy (London: Seeker & Warburg, 1952), and Pateman, op. c i t . , Chapter 2.  10  of course, was highly fearful and even primarily concerned with the tyranny of the majority and the dangers of social leveling.  And to  reach nearer the time-bounds of anything we might c a l l ' c l a s s i c a l ' democratic theory J.S. M i l l i n Considerations on Representative Government i s often doubtful of popular recognition of eminence and consistently fearful of both citizens and representatives attempting matters 16 beyond their limited competence.  M i l l i s an e x p l i c i t proponent of  truncated democracy; he argues for tests of literacy and arithmetic competence and for the debasement from the francise of those who are i n receipt of parish r e l i e f (and thereby make no tax contribution however small or indirect)."'"'' F i n a l l y , and probably most convincingly here i s M i l l s ' direct c a l l for weighted voting to accompany the then oncoming introduction of nearer universal (male) suffrage. He c a l l s for the granting of multiple votes to those of greater "education" either as directly measured i n a national test, or as, i n his view,approximated by occupation ("A banker...is l i k e l y to be more i n t e l l i g e n t than a trades18 man...") professional status or university graduation. Few, i f any, then, of the " c l a s s i c a l " democratic theorists were sanguine about the appropriateness or even, i n some cases, the eventual d e s i r a b i l i t y of universal participation, or even further, i n other cases, 16 M i l l , J.S., Considerations on Representative Government,(Indianapolis : The Bobb-Merrill Company, Inc., 1958),see particularly introduction by Currin V. Shields, Ed., p. xiv and x i x . "^Regarding tests of l i t e r a c y , see i b i d . , p. 132; regarding the d i s enfranchisement of those receiving r e l i e f see the same source at p. 134. 1 R  Ibid., pp. 135-140.  11  the eventual d e s i r a b i l i t y of universal participation i n even the i n d i rect participation of the representative democracy. Yet i t i s generally held that widespread participation i s the heart of any truly democratic theory.  This seeming limitation i n the early statement of the theory 19  can only be understood by reference to the h i s t o r i c a l s p e c i f i c i t y  of  the theories. In a l l cases the theorists were semi-consciously advocating pieces of a more or less integratable theory of l i b e r a l democracy. In most cases the pieces each of them emphasized, whether the rule of law, the extension of suffrage, or the l i m i t a t i o n of absolute powers can be imagined/constructed  from this point i n time as advocated steps towards  a coherent theoretical whole. But the dimension of potentiality i s not an aspect of democratic or any other social theory merely retrospectively.  Social theory can be  seen as an attempt to engage i n more than 'mere' explanation (logic and fact i n combination) more than a communication of meaning of a hoped20 for universal intersubjective transmissibility; i t i s an attempt to communicate understanding: explanation i n concert with an evaluative, 21 prescriptive and broadly theoretical dimension. In the expression of 19 For an appreciation of the meaning of this term see C. Wright M i l l s , The Sociological Imagination, New York: Oxford University Press, 1959, pp. 143-164, and particularly p. 149. 20 This term i s most clearly discussed i n Arnold Brecht, P o l i t i c a l Theory (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1959), especially pp. 113-116. 21 Just as explanation might be described as something more than description, understanding might be described as something more than explanation. The something more i n each case, i t seems to me, i s some greater involvement of and/or appreciation by a subject. Explanation can be seen as a description which 'makes sense,' understanding a f u l l appreciation of an explanation or set of explanations. (On the relationship between description and explanation see Michael Scriven i n Herbert Feigl and Grover Maxwell, Eds., Minnesota Studies i n the Philosophy of Science, Vol. I l l (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota P r e s s , 1962), pp. 174-176.) J  12  the u n d e r s t a n d i n g s o f s o c i a l t h e o r y a r e , a t l e a s t i m p l i c i t l y , b i l i s t i c p r e d i c t i o n s f o r major dimensions  o f the s o c i a l o r d e r and  thereby p r u d e n t i a l modes f o r i n d i v i d u a l a c t i o n . porates explanations of empirical r e a l i t y  possi-  S o c i a l theory i n c o r -  i n t o a form which a l l o w s them  to be not merely measures o f s o c i a l b e h a v i o r but i n t u r n measured by the making o f h i s t o r y . I am now  to a p o i n t where I may  more m e a n i n g f u l l y take up  matter d e f e r r e d above, namely, the n a t u r e of the importance p a r t i c i p a t i o n to c l a s s i c a l d e m o c r a t i c democratic  theorists  theory.  The c l a s s i c a l  of  the political  liberal  have been 'shown by h i s t o r y ' g e n e r a l l y to have  c o n s t r u c t e d p e r s p e c t i v e s which, however p r o g r e s s i v e l y p r e s c r i p t i v e might have been i n t h e i r h i s t o r i c c o n t e x t , now  they  seem a t most m i n i m a l i s t  22 f o r the democraciesoof the Adyaneed.West;  Political participation, i n  s p i t e o f the t e n t a t i v e n e s s and l i m i t s o f the a s s e r t i o n , was p r i m a r y component o f democracy, thereby i t was as w e l l , ment and, tization.  the means o f f u r t h e r advance:  seen as  an end f o r s o c i e t y  the  and,  b o t h i n d i v i d u a l human d e v e l o p -  t h e r e b y , f u r t h e r s o c i o - p o l i t i c a l advance: T h i s c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n of p a r t i c i p a t i o n and  g r e a t e r democrademocracy was  most  f u l l y and  c l e a r l y developed by J.S. M i l l ; i n t h i s assessment I f o l l o w 23 24 Lane D a v i s and e s p e c i a l l y Graeme Duncan and Steven Lukes. As I do not o f course a s s e r t t h a t h i s t o r y i s u n i l i n e a r i n t h i s ( o r any o t h e r ) r e g a r d . That my statement i s more o r l e s s c r e d i b l e i n s p i t e o f the r i s e of c e n t r a l i z e d b u r e a u c r a c i e s of a l l d e s c r i p t i o n s g i v e s f u r t h e r weight to the modesty o f e a r l y democrats' e s t i m a t e s o f human p a r t i c i p a tory p o s s i b i l i t i e s . N e i t h e r do I u n d e r e s t i m a t e the d i v e r s i t y of d e m o c r a t i c t h e o r y , c l a s s i c o r o t h e r w i s e . That the more r a d i c a l democrats such as the L e v e l l e r s a r e not more prominent i n 'our' contemporary c o n c e p t i o n o f what the main body o f c l a s s i c a l democratic theory 'jLs_' i n d i c a t e s to some e x t e n t the c o m p l e x i t y o f i s s u e s o f h i s t o r i c a l s p e c i f i c i t y . 23  D a v i s , op. c i t . Duncan and Lukes, op. c i t .  13  Duncan and Lukes have put i t : "Although he (J.S. M i l l ) feared that an enfranchised working class would misuse i t s powers and suggested certain safeguards to secure the authori t y of the enlightened, he had great f a i t h i n the c i v i l i z i n g effects of p o l i t i c a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n i t s e l f . He described the franchise as 'a potent instrument of mental improvement' and followed Tocqueville i n explaining the conscientious c i t i z e n s h i p of the Americans by their democratic i n s t i t u t i o n s . Self-government i s i n t h i s sense self-sustaining: through the possession of l e g a l rights men became capable of properly exercising them "25 M i l l , then, not only saw democratization as h i s t o r i c a l l y evolutionary, but saw i t s evolution —* through the v e h i c l e of p a r t i c i p a t i o n —  as at  least i n part self-advancing. Thus i t i s the case that one cannot speak simply of a single ' c l a s s i c a l democratic  theory' which i s unqualifiedly  further one can e a s i l y be struck at how many of those  democratic.  And  theorists  generally taken to be the most important a r t i c u l a t o r s of the  traditions  on which our i n s t i t u t i o n s are founded e x p l i c i t l y reject even f u l l i n d i r e c t suffrage and, i n fact, accept, j u s t i f y or construct i n s t i t u t i o n a l instruments which, i n e f f e c t or by conscious design, r e s t r a i n p a r t i c i pation.  They can be reasonably seen to be p a r t i a l formulators of  ' c l a s s i c a l democratic  theory' only when considered i n h i s t o r i c context.  They are certainly then not merely a r t i c u l a t o r s of 'universal democratic i d e a l s ' , rather they are more c r u c i a l l y a r t i c u l a t o r s of levels of democ r a t i c awareness appropriate to their current or impending h i s t o r i c  Ibid.,  i n A p o l i t i c a l P o l i t i c s , op.  c i t . , p.  164.  14  situations.  M i l l i s a significant departure i n democratic theory i n  great part because he i s at least p a r t i a l l y self-conscious about the evolutionary process having taken and taking place both i n individuals and i n the social order.  Through him we can see participation not  26 merely  as a (or even the) key aspect of democraticization, but even  more importantly we can begin to see participation as an at least pot e n t i a l h i s t o r i c a l force: an active agency of individual and s o c i a l transformation. A Definition of P a r t i c i p a t i o n In addition to the above attempt to convey an impression of the meaning and significance of p o l i t i c a l participation, I would l i k e as well to attempt to delineate a reasonably precise d e f i n i t i o n of the concept.  I can begin with a tentative acceptance of Myron Weiner's usage: "...I s h a l l use the concept of p o l i t i c a l p a r t i c i p a tion to refer to any voluntary action, successful or unsuccessful, organized or unorganized, episodic or continuous, employing legitimate or i l l e g i t i m a t e methods intended to influence the choice of public p o l i c i e s , the administration of public a f f a i r s , or the choice of pol i t i c a l leaders at any level of government, l o c a l or national.  In this definition there i s a clear choice for a c t i v i t y over effect — i n making such a choice as I noted above, i t i s clear that something is lost: cracy.  participation i s thereby less demanding a measure of demoBut the gains i n this usage i n the relative ease of judging  whether or not any given empirical event i s an instance of p o l i t i c a l 26 This, of course, i s an important 'merely.' 27  Weiner, Myron, " P o l i t i c a l Participation: Crisis of the P o l i t i c a l Process," i n Leonard Binder et a l . , Crises and Sequences i n P o l i t i c a l Development, (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1971), p. 164.  15  participation are very important.  One must simply verify that (1)  an action has occurred, (2) that i t was voluntary, (3) that i t had a specific intent to influence the choice of public p o l i t i c s  [and/or]  the administration of public a f f a i r s [and/or] the choice of p o l i t i c a l leaders at any level of government, l o c a l or national. Of the three aspects of the d e f i n i t i o n I have isolated i t seems to me that 'voluntariness' i s the least problematic.  Weiner comments  that "(I)nvoluntary acts, such as serving i n the armed forces (through conscription) or paying taxes, are excluded. Belonging to organizations 28 or attending mass r a l l i e s under government orders i s also excluded." The phrase 'under government orders' i s very vague and even perhaps Cold War-ish.  Are those attending Castro's speeches 'under government  orders' i f they came i n an army vehicle from the countryside?  Are  American schoolteachers and schoolchildren who "take time out" to see the President or the Pope pass by i n a limousine?  What of a c t i v i t y  beyond mere card-holding i n an involuntary association such as a trade union i n the U..S.S.R.? What of involuntary union membership i n a legally supported closed-shop situation i n a l i b e r a l democracy? What, l a s t l y here, of obedience to a conscription law i n the face of widespread exp l i c i t l y p o l i t i c a l disobedience?  But a l l of these questions merely i n -  dicate complexity and c a l l for caution and subtlety.  They do not cause  any fundamental problems for this inquiry. More d i f f i c u l t are questions relating to matters of the intentiona l i t y and explicitness of actions. Weiner notes, 2 8  Ibid.  16  " . . . ( f o r our purposes) p o l i t i c a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s d e f i n e d as a c t i o n , i n c l u d i n g v e r b a l a c t i o n , not simply a t t i t u d e s or s u b j e c t i v e f e e l i n g s . In a l l p o l i t i c a l systems p e o p l e have a t t i t u d e s towards government and p o l i t i c s , but u n l e s s t h e r e i s some a c t i o n i t would be i n a p p r o p r i a t e to use the term " p a r t i c i p a t i o n " . Alienation i s an a c t o f p a r t i c i p a t i o n o n l y i f i t i s v e r b a l l y expressed." In a c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e s e m a t t e r s w i t h a concept sciousness.  one q u i t e q u i c k l y must come to d e a l  c e n t r a l to M a r x i s t p o l i t i c a l  thought:  totally  'trade' consciousness f o r e x p l i c i t  the o b s e r v e r .  action?  c o n s c i o u s i n a c t i o n c o n c e i v e d as p a s s i v e r e s i s t a n c e ; e.g.,  What o f not buying  a g i v e n p r o d u c t o r i n t e n t i o n a l l y n o t v o t i n g o r s i l e n t l y not expected s o c i a l , p o l i t i c a l o r economic d u t i e s .  performing  F u r t h e r , what  qualifies,  to use Weiner's example, as a v e r b a l e x p r e s s i o n o f a l i e n a t i o n ? h a r d l y expect gosh, I'm  con-  One must a l s o , as do M a r x i s t s and o t h e r s , c o n s i d e r as w e l l  d i s t i n c t i o n s between the p e r s p e c t i v e s o f the a c t o r and Can one  political  consciousness s u f f i c i e n t  One  to cause an u t t e r a n c e l i k e  can 'My  a l i e n a t e d ' to be commonplace^and even i f they were they might  be no more than a s o c i a l r i t u a l .  To be more s p e c i f i c  then —  the p o l i -  t i c a l n a t u r e o f a g i v e n a c t such as p a r t i c i p a t i o n by a B l a c k American i n a l o o t i n g r i o t or by a worker i n a u n i o n or a n e i g h b o r l y d i s c u s s i o n of women's -.rights.'-over c o f f e e c o u l d be seen t o depend on b o t h degree  of p o l i t i c a l  specific  c o n s c i o u s n e s s o f the p a r t i c i p a n t and  c o n t e x t o f the i n c i d e n t .  That i s , under c e r t a i n  the  the historically  circumstances  p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n r a c i a l l y - b a s e d l o o t i n g c o u l d have enormous p o l i t i c a l  Ibid.  17  effect even i f the consciousness of those effects was very, very unclear i n the mind of the participant.  The r i o t e r might not be aware of f e l t  oppression and might have no knowledge of the p o l i t i c a l system beyond an a b i l i t y to differentiate between police and non-police.  Thus I  would argue that many acts, perhaps especially the acts of the d i s advantaged, might usefully be 'granted some latitude' ±th regard w  to the conscious intentionality i f their, i f you w i l l , objective ef30 feet  i s clearly p o l i t i c a l . On the other hand, and here Weiner's d e f i n i t i o n might also have  difficulty:  what of a case where an act has less obvious 'objective'  p o l i t i c a l effect but might be a very clear element of s o c i o - p o l i t i c a l intentionality.  Let us examine here the case of women informally d i s -  cussing women's rights. policy?  Is the disadvantaged status of women a public  Is i t p o l i t i c a l i f i t i s neither an issue i n an election nor  an i d e n t i f i a b l e practice with public administration?  What i f at least  one of the women saw her actions as a conscious choice of p o l i t i c a l tactics to avoid the p o l i t i c o - l e g a l route?  What we would have ihen i s  an instance of p o l i t i c a l intention manifesting i t s e l f i n an i n d i r e c t l y p o l i t i c a l manner. The same judgement, whatever i t might be, would also be useful i n considering most trade union a c t i v i t y .  Such a c t i v i t y can  be seen as an option to more acts more obviously and directly p o l i t i c a l . Thus i t might be preferable to am£nd Weiner's d e f i n i t i o n to a broadening such as the following.  P o l i t i c a l participation i s any conscious  or quasi-conscious action or conscious non-action which i n i t s h i s t o r i c 30 This i s a Marxist usage of the term objective. I t can be taken by a l l to mean at least an observer rather than an actor view.  18  context i s directly or indirectly p o l i t i c a l i n i t s effect and/or intent. This greatly broadens the d e f i n i t i o n , but does not I hope leave i t utterly unbounded.  I t allows for consideration of more of the actions of the  disadvantaged whose level of p o l i t i c a l consciousness i s generally 'lower' than those whose place i n society and p o l i t y i s more assured. However, whatever d e f i n i t i o n might be preferable i t i s the case that most empirical studies have centered on concrete, v i s i b l e , intentionally, directly p o l i t i c a l acts as voting,electoral campaigning, making donations to  candi-  dates or p o l i t i c a l parties, discussing p o l i t i c s with friends, and contacting public o f f i c i a l s .  Marxist writers have tended to more often i n -  clude some more indirect a c t i v i t i e s such as trade union organizing and, of course, such non-electoral a c t i v i t i e s as demonstrations and revolutionary or quasi-revolutionary a c t i v i t y .  For the most part I w i l l not  belabor the question of definition i n my explication of the writings of either group; I merely note that this matter i s worth keeping i n mind as we proceed.  In choosing to use the term ' p o l i t i c a l participation' I have self-consciously rejected such related terms as p o l i t i c a l involvement/ non-involvement, p o l i t i c a l apathy/interest and p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i t y / i n activity.  Some of my doubts about the term include the impression that  p o l i t i c a l participation seems to carry with i t a subtle implication that there are channels available for carrying on an a c t i v i t y i f only individual or groups w i l l choose to use them. The concept 'participation'  19'  carries with i t a notion that there i s a process already going on that is somehow other than systematically l i m i t i n g and exclusionary.  The notion  of p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i t y / i n a c t i v i t y , for example, would be more neutral i n this matter.  There i s even, I think, at least i n common usage of the  concept ( p o l i t i c a l participation) an implication that  the individuals  and groups carrying on this a c t i v i t y together are doing so i n an atleast quasi-cooperative fashion; that i s that i n 'participation' there i s some sharing by a l l with a l l . Each of these three conceptually carried intimations i s i n contradistinction to the Marxist view of the functioning of liberal-democratic p o l i t i c a l systems.  Since this inquiry  w i l l focus on these systems this seems a heavy burden for a central concept to carry into what I hope w i l l be an open inquiry into the relative merits and shortcomings of the two perspectives. However, many of the other possible terms also carry certain disadvantages. Most obviously the concept participation 'has' a whole body of l i t e r a t u r e conducted under i t s heading; to seek a separate term usable throughout this inquiry i s to run the r i s k of altering the meaning of the o r i g i n a l statement.  A l l of the matters we cited i n the preceding  paragraph may w e l l be part of what those who use the term wish to convey. To avoid altering meanings i n various sections of this inquiry I w i l l simply use the term ' p o l i t i c a l participation' when I am dealing with empirical s o c i a l science.  And i n these sections I w i l l avoid using other  characterizations to which p o l i t i c a l scientists have been prone, for example, p o l i t i c a l involvement or p o l i t i c a l apathy.  Neither of these  terms (or their opposites) could with ease be used as Weiner uses  20  p a r t i c i p a t i o n ; they carry far too many moral and psychological imp l i c a t i o n s extraneous to our discussion to be useful i n this analytic context. In the protions of this study i n which I examine the Marxist perspective on 'participation' there might be d i f f i c u l t i e s i f I were to attempt to 'impose' a term where i t had not been used —  even  though, as I w i l l discuss again shortly below, much of the Marxist l i t e r a t u r e i s directed at very similar phenomena.  The single most  commonly used Marxian concept which relates closely to the p o l i t i c a l science concept of p a r t i c i p a t i o n i s " p o l i t i c a l  consciousness".  Clearly, what i s meant by the term i s d i f f e r e n t from what i s meant by ' p o l i t i c a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n ' ; most e x p l i c i t l y i t does not s i g n i f y only 'activity'.  On the face of i t i t represents a 'state of mind'.  How-  ever, just as Marxists found i t necessary to create the concept of praxis from the separate notbns of theory (mind) and practice p o l i t i c a l consciousness implies p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i t y .  (action),  The implication  i s seen to be a necessary one i n many h i s t o r i c a l contexts.  Further,  while, p o l i t i c a l consciousness can be and has been a n a l y t i c a l l y separated as a (or the) cause or effect of p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i t y , i n some usage i t v i r t u a l l y subsumes what p o l i t i c a l science would describe as p o l i t i c a l participation —  much as I argued above that p o l i t i c a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n  should be broadened to subsume at least some aspects of p o l i t i c a l consciousness (and h i s t o r i c a l circumstance).  In sum, the terms p o l i t i c a l  p a r t i c i p a t i o n and p o l i t i c a l consciousness are most surely not i n t e r changeable, but observations about'the presence, absence or character  21  of one of them could, i f v a l i d , be seen to say something about the presence, absence or character of the other.  But the concepts are  d i s s i m i l a r enough i n intent to suggest that i n this study i t would be best i n the sections which attempt"  to i d e n t i f y and c l a r i f y the  Marxist understanding of p o l i t i c a l ' p a r t i c i p a t i o n ' to use only the term p o l i t i c a l consciousness. It w i l l also be useful and convenient a t this point to make mention of two a d d i t i o n a l possible confusions with regard to the term p o l i t i c a l consciousness as used by Marxists.  At times the term i s used  with reference to i n d i v i d u a l p o l i t i c a l consciousness, but more often i t refers to e i t h e r the class consciousness of a s o c i a l class or to the p o l i t i c a l consciousness of a s o c i a l class.  In general at this point  I think we need only introduce a general r u l e of thumb —  references  to consciousness or p o l i t i c a l consciousness r e f e r to c l a s s , s o c i a l groupings or even whole s o c i e t i e s and not to i n d i v i d u a l s unless context c l e a r l y indicates that to be .the case;  references to p o l i t i c a l  partici-  pation would more l i k e l y be to i n d i v i d u a l s unless otherwise s p e c i f i e d . Some of the problems caused f o r comparative study by this difference i n approach w i l l be discussed further as we proceed. The second confusion which may be troublesome at times i s the varying use of the term p o l i t i c a l consciousness to refer either to (a) the coming, of an i n d i v i d u a l or c l a s s , to a very general awareness of the s o c i o - p o l i t i c a l world or t h e i r (one's) disadvantaged p o s i t i o n within i t , or (b) coming to a quite e x p l i c i t and detailed p o l i t i c a l viewpoint, namely that of revolutionary Marxism or at least to an 'awareness' of  22';  the (presumed) need f o r a revolutionary s o c i a l transformation of a Marxian v a r i e t y .  The l a t t e r , of course, could simply be seen as a  'higher l e v e l ' of the former —  however i t i s sometimes the case that  i t i s d i f f i c u l t f o r the reader to discern which i s being discussed. Forewarned readers w i l l , I hope, be less prone to confusion. Finally.here, I would l i k e to indicate that i n the l a t t e r portions of this inquiry I w i l l use a t h i r d term: (inactivity).  political activity  This i s a term which I hope, i n as neutral a way as  possible, subsumes both p o l i t i c a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n as generally used by p o l i t i c a l s c i e n t i s t s and p o l i t i c a l consciousness as generally used by Marxists.  And, ;  the term can be taken to include as w e l l  the massive variety of other expressions — usage —  e s p e c i a l l y i n Marxist  e.g., mass action, praxis, p o l i t i c a l movement, advances i n  class s o l i d a r i t y and so f o r t h .  I t Is not offered as a means of fusing  (and thereby confusing) the two separate concepts.  I t i s merely taken  as a convenient usage i n cases when I must refer to those phenomena to which either or both of the concepts might apply and wish to i n d i c a t e 31  that I am doing so from outside both perspectives. Comparing P o l i t i c a l Science and Marxism' Having resolved f o r the moment doubts raised by c e n t r a l terminology l e t me then face an even more fundamental doubt, namely, the central enterprise of this project.  That i s , can p o l i t i c a l science and  31  •I w i l l attempt to use the term only when I am, as i n the t i t l e of this inquiry,, speaking at once of both concepts.  23  Marxism be m e a n i n g f u l l y and u s e f u l l y compared and c o n t r a s t e d w i t h r e g a r d to  their  r e s p e c t i v e views on what i s taken t o be one q u e s t i o n ?  to be p e r f e c t l y  c l e a r , ever ask the same q u e s t i o n ?  case w i t h r e g a r d t o t h e ' p o l i t i c a l t h a t what one sees as p o l i t i c a l  inactivity  l o o k a t any common g r o u p i n g s , o r , f o r t h a t m a t t e r , charge  that There  Could i t n o t be the  of the less  the o t h e r d o e s n ' t ,  advantaged'  and t h a t  they  never  tha t^ftbtf-n" would  the o t h e r ' s c a t e g o r i e s were f a l s e and/or i s , I t h i n k , some credence  Do they,  meaningless?  i n each o f these doubts.  For  example, some M a r x i s t s would s u r e l y say t h a t n o n - p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n liberal-democratic p o l i t i c s ness.  Further, l i k e l y  i s a positive sign of p o l i t i c a l  a l l M a r x i s t s (and l i k e l y ,  conscious-  o f c o u r s e , some non-  M a r x i s t s ) would say t h a t under some c o n d i t i o n s , some k i n d s o f non-participation tical  i n liberal-democratic p o l i t i c s  consciousness.  would be c l e a r s i g n s o f p o l i -  I t i s e q u a l l y t r u e too t h a t many e m p i r i c a l  s c i e n t i s t s would n o t h e s i t a t e  to equate  an a c c e p t a n c e  a  'following' of Marxists with a denial of p o l i t i c s  I  t h i n k , i s l a r g e l y d e a l t w i t h f o r our purposes  Weiner's d e f i n i t i o n o f p a r t i c i p a t i o n : r e g a r d i n g the w i d e r problem  social  o f Marxism o r  itself.  T h i s problem,  i n an a c c e p t a n c e o f  b u t t h i s by no means h e l p s us  o f comparison  o f the perhaps  uncomparable.  Each o f t h e s e developed p a t t e r n s o f u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f the p o l i t i c a l inactivity degree That  o f t h e l e s s advantaged  o b l i q u e to ' p o l i t i c a l  address  activity'  i s , some o f t h e b e h a v i o r a l i s t s  electoral participation —  themselves  i n its fullest  to q u e s t i o n s to some conceptual  c o n s i d e r e d speak almost  even o f v o t i n g p a r t i c i p a t i o n —  s t a n d i n g o f t e n does not p r e t e n d  to be more broad  than t h a t .  sense.  exclusively of and t h e i r Others  underhave  24  dealt with other forms of p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i t y , e.g., interest groups or, more recently,violence, but have less often made any systematic effort 32 to relate their findings to democratic theory.  On the other  side  the Marxists' understanding i s usually of the non-participation of the working class33 ±  n  a  particular kind of p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i t y :  activity  that i s class self-conscious and self-interested, ' l e f t ' i n i t s intentions and effects and, l i k e l y , outside 'normal' p o l i t i c s . These, of course, are not the only relevant qualitative differences i n the two enterprises.  P o l i t i c a l science, and particularly behavioral  These are not the grounds on which I give non-electoral studies somewhat less consideration; rather I have limited myself to the question of the relative non-participation of the disadvantaged and only discuss these other studies when they consider or are relevant to that issue. Some are; and some of these are discussed i n Chapters 2 and 3. One example of the kind of study that must be l e f t unconsidered i s H. Eulau et a l . , "The Role of the Representative: Some Empirical Observations on the Theory of Edmund Burke," American P o l i t i c a l Science Review, 53 (September, 1959), pp. 742-56. While i t clearly relates effectively to an aspect of democratic theory (whether a representative i s a 'delegate' or a 'trustee') i t does not relate either overall or more especially to the one question to which I must r e s t r i c t myself. 33  Some p o l i t i c a l scientists refer to the 'less educated', some to the manual workers (occupational strata), some to the poor, and many to 'the marginal' (some combination of the previous three). Marxists generally speak of the working class, but sometimes mean by that an entityfur sich (class), sometimes one an sich (strata). To confuse matters further 'marginality' at times broadens to include as w e l l sex and rural/urban factors. Further, Marxists generally are highly variant i n the percentage of the population appropriately included i n the working class or strata (from 20-85%). And f i n a l l y there are innumerable d i f ferences among p o l i t i c a l scientists with regard to defining class according to property, l i f e s t y l e , work style or individual subjective attribution of class. I w i l l discuss many matters relating to these questions throughout this study, particularly i n Chapter 5. Suffice i t to say here that I w i l l i n general discussion adopt the broad, loose and more or less neutral term 'the less advantaged' and note that . I am looking at patterned understanding more than at detailed explanations, and that many of these problems of variation tend to 'wash out' at long range.  25  political  s c i e n c e , has g e n e r a l l y m a i n t a i n e d  s h o u l d be p o l i t i c a l l y not merely ity  neutral.  to understand  t h a t i t s e n t e r p r i s e i s and  F o r Marxism, o f c o u r s e , the t a s k i s  the w o r l d but  to change i t , p o l i t i c a l  i s seen to be n e i t h e r p o s s i b l e , nor d e s i r a b l e .  which g r e a t l y a f f e c t s every a s p e c t of i n q u i r y .  This i s  something  More n a r r o w l y , w i t h  r e g a r d to our p a r t i c u l a r a r e a of concern i t i s g e n e r a l l y that M a r x i s t s a r e a t t e m p t i n g to e x p l a i n why  the case  almost no one  'really'  p a r t i c i p a t e s while b e h a v i o r a l p o l i t i c a l s c i e n c i s t s are often to  e x p l a i n why  should be)  t h e r e are (and sometimes t r y i n g to j u s t i f y  differentials  i n the degree  neutral-  why  trying there  and k i n d o f p a r t i c i p a t i o n between  various s t a t i s t i c a l  c a t e g o r i e s of i n d i v i d u a l s .  F i n a l l y here,  the d i f f e r e n c e s may  be e n d l e s s , M a r x i s t s d e r i v e t h e i r c o n c l u s i o n s on  the matter a t hand l a r g e l y from and f o r Western Europe, s c i e n t i s t s l a r g e l y from and f o r America.  though  political  Both on t h i s p o i n t l a p s e on  o c c a s i o n i n t o unworthy o v e r g e n e r a l i z a t i o n and each might w e l l come a b i t n e a r e r to u n d e r s t a n d i n g the o t h e r Having  s t a t e d a l l these doubts  t h a t they a l l s h o u l d be by  i f they exchanged  the r e a d e r .  I will  loci.  I can say a t t h i s p o i n t no more than  taken as c a u t i o n s to be heeded b o t h by m y s e l f attempt  and a s s e s s the importance  throughout  to acknowledge and  to  clarify  o f these d i f f e r e n c e s o f p e r s p e c t i v e and  F u r t h e r whatever the d i f f e r e n c e s i n the two  enterprises  and  intent.  t h e r e remains  a  34 c e r t a i n o v e r a r c h i n g commonality:  both p o l i t i c a l  s c i e n c e and Marxism  have a deep t h e o r e t i c a l commitment to e x p l a i n i n g the r e l a t i v e ( r e l a t i v e i n both cases both  34  As has, o f c o u r s e , l i b e r a l  to o t h e r s o c i a l groups democratic theory.  and  inactivity  to what might  be  26  d e s i r e d and/or expected)  of the l e s s advantaged  c r a c i e s o f the advanced c a p i t a l i s t n a t i o n s . considerable efforts —  F u r t h e r b o t h have committed  i n each case by some o f t h e i r most w i d e l y  respected p r a c t i t i o n e r s — I  i n the l i b e r a l demo-  to e x p l a i n i n g  take i t to be a u s e f u l p r o j e c t  these phenomena.  On  balance  t o , w i t h some i n t e r p r e t i n g , t r a n s p o s i n g  and t h i s acknowledgement o f d i f f e r e n c e s , presume t h a t the two p e r s p e c t i v e s can be u s e f u l l y I t i s my  taken to be d e a l i n g w i t h r o u g h l y the same q u e s t i o n .  hope that an i n q u i r y i n t o  the c o n c l u s i o n s and methods o f  each  can o f f e r some wider u n d e r s t a n d i n g t o the o t h e r .  EXPLANATION AND The of  UNDERSTANDING:  A PRELIMINARY NOTE  g o a l o f s c i e n c e i s g e n e r a l l y t a k e n t o be e x p l a n a t i o n by means  generalizations called  t h e o r i e s o r laws and b o t h p o l i t i c a l s c i e n c e and  Marxism make c l a i m s to b e i n g s c i e n c e s .  I w i l l n o t a t t h i s p o i n t t r y to  e l a b o r a t e or assess these c l a i m s , but I w i l l attempt my  to c l a r i f y  usage o f some of the t e r m i n o l o g y w i t h i n which I w i l l d e a l w i t h  issues.  I w i l l attempt  M a r x i s t s and p o l i t i c a l I t i s perhaps science:  the  referents.  scientists.  b e s t to b e g i n w i t h the e l e m e n t a l p a r t i c l e o f  fact. empirical  Evidence i m p l i e s both the t h e o r e t i c a l o r d e r i n g o f some p a r t  the u n i v e r s e and some s t a t e d method o f f a c t u a l d e t e r m i n a t i o n .  fully  these  to adopt usage which w i l l be a c c e p t a b l e to b o t h  " F a c t s " are taken h e r e i n t o be i n a l l cases e v i d e n c e w i t h  of  here  c o m f o r t a b l e w i t h David Easton's d e f i n i t i o n o f a f a c t as  I  am  "...a 35  p a r t i c u l a r ordering of r e a l i t y  i n terms o f a t h e o r e t i c a l  interest."  35 David E a s t o n , The P o l i t i c a l 1953), p. 53.  System (New  York:  A l f r e d A. Knopf,  27  I see his j u s t i f i c a t i o n of this d e f i n i t i o n as one of the grounds for undertaking this study: " I t i s obviously impossible l i t e r a l l y to describe an event however long we might take or however limited the event i n time and space. There i s an i n f i n i t e level of detail possible about any event. The aspect of the event selected for description as the facts about i t , i s determined by the prior interest of the observer; the selection i s made i n light of a frame of reference that fixes the order and relevance of the facts. When raised to the level of consciousness this frame of reference i s what we c a l l a theory." (p. 53) A theory can perhaps best be seen i n turn as an instrument able to 36 produce useful explanations.  Explanations are answers to 'how can i t  be' or 'why' questions; that i s they communicate either p o s s i b i l i t y or necessity.  For the most part I w i l l use the term explanation to refer  to predominantly causal empirical explanations and theories rather than explanations which are predominantly subjective-normative.  Causal  explanation might, of course, include reference to the values held and purposes intended by the actors whose behavior i s being explained. This sort of thing f i t s w e l l within Arnold Brecht's guidelines for "what S c i e n t i f i c Method Can Do Regarding Values" and i t i s that model which I accept as being the clearest statement of the position of p o l i t i c a l 37 seience. In adopting such a usage I do not, at this point at least, wish to go so far as to accept the view that facts and values can be usef u l l y seen as two tidy categories. Rather I am simply at this point See Eugene J . Meehan, Explanation i n Social Science: A System Paradigm (Homewood, I l l i n o i s : The Dorsey Press, 1968), p. 53. 37  Arnold Brecht, P o l i t i c a l Theory: The Foundations of Twentieth-Century P o l i t i c a l Thought (Princeton: Princeton University Press,1959), pp.121-26.  28  accepting that most who write on p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i t y , participation or consciousness, most of the time see themselves as dealing i n the modalities of empirical research, empirical generalization, empiricallybased theory, h i s t o r i c a l and/or d i a l e c t i c a l materialism, and thereby, for different but not altogether dissimilar reasons, avoid at least 38 normative-subjectivist grammatical constructions.  I accept at least  then that one can i n principle and often i n practice analytically distinguish between causal and value theory.  But I then must immediately  add my agreement with Easton that i n practice each i s involved with the other. I am, however, most interested i n isolating the o v e r a l l , wider understandings  of p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i t y - i n a c t i v i t y expressed or implied by  on the one hand p o l i t i c a l science and on the other hand Marxism. I take the term 'understanding' to refer to those forms of theory and explanation which as f u l l y and generally as possible offer an integrated grasp of a subject of study i n both i t s normative and causal aspects. Understanding i s often expressed i n a mode which fuses explanation and evaluation.  I w i l l attempt as a part of the process of analyzing the  view(s) of p o l i t i c a l science and Marxism on the subject of the p o l i t i c a l i n a c t i v i t y of the disadvantaged  to delineate some characteristics of  their respective understandings of this question.  I w i l l also attempt  The correctness of such an intention w i l l be dealt with at some length elsewhere i n this inquiry. 39  Easton, op. c i t . , particularly pp. 219-232.  29  to determine what, i f any, are the relationships between those understandings and on the one hand the more d e t a i l e d explanations and findings contained i n their respective bodies of l i t e r a t u r e on the subject and on the other hand their respective methodologies.  30  CHAPTER 2 Before I proceed to the explanations used i n empirical social science for the relative non-participation of the less advantaged, I would l i k e very b r i e f l y to i l l u s t r a t e the extent of that r e l a t i v e non-participation.  In doing so, hopefully, I w i l l also c l a r i f y a b i t more the  bounds of meaning for the term "less advantaged."  In this chapter I  simply want to indicate some findings which i l l u s t r a t e lesser p a r t i c i p a tion for several categories of disadvantaged persons, i n several p o l i t i c a l systems, for several different measures of p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i t y , at several different points i n time.  Many readers w i l l be familiar with  this material and i f this i s the case, can freely proceed to the more detailed and analytic chapter.  considerations which begin i n the following  For those who are not, thls'Cchapter,, hopefully., w i l l provide  a useful additional introduction to later discussions and analysis.  The measures of advantage/disadvantage I w i l l i l l u s t r a t e b r i e f l y here are occupational status, income, education, sex, and race. Occupation Basel, Switzerland, 1908, Voter Turnout:''' Labourers  49.6%  Merchants, Manufacturers  63.6%  O f f i c i a l s and Canton employees  70.0%  Tingsten, Herbert, P o l i t i c a l Behavior, Studies i n Election S t a t i s t i c s (Totowa, N.J.:' The Bedminster Press, 1963), p. 120.  31  Basel, Switzerland, 1911, Voter Turnout: Workers  66.8%  Salaried, artisans  71.1  Professionals, o f f i c i a l s , owners  77.5  Selected Nations, 1960s, Multifactor Participation Scale: England  Germany  Unskilled and Farming  5.6%  Skilled and Semi-skilled Small Business and White Collar Professional and Managerial Great B r i t a i n ,  Italy  USA  6.1%  3.3%  4.9%  7.0  7.1  4.7  7.0  8.3  7.9  5.6  9.5  10.1  9.6  7.3  10.8  1966, Level of Interest i n P o l i t i c s : Working Class  Middle Class  Very Interested  14%  17%  Interested  30  52  Not really interested  38  22  Not at a l l interested  18  9  'Tingsten, p.  4  120.  *Di Palma, Guiseppi, Apathy and Participation, (New York: The Free Press. 1970), p. 144. The multifactor participation scale, which w i l l be used several times shortly below, includes such factors as voting, interest, attention,knowledge, attempts to influence l o c a l and national p o l i t i c s , talking with others about p o l i t i c s , and following accounts of p o l i t i c a l events. Rush, Michael, and Althoff, P h i l l i p , An Introduction to P o l i t i c a l Sociology, (London: Thomas Nelson and Sons, Ltd., 1971), p. 102.  32  Elmira, New York, 1948, Voter Turnout: Age  Business and White Collar  Wage Workers  21-24  74%  35%  25-34  75  65  35-54  85  79  54+  80  82  Income Copenhagen, Denmark, 1913, Voting Turnout: Free Professionals-  Men  Women  67.3%  67.9%  76.5  67.4  1200-1500  74.7  69.7  1500-3000  81.2  72.8  3000-6000  86.7  75.7  86.8  80.0  800-1000  65.2  54.0  1000-1200  76.5  59.0  1200-1500  82.0  67.5  1500-2000  79.8  65.0  2000+  82.9  65.4  800-1000 Crowns 1000-1200  6000+ Workers  "  "  Lipset, S.M. P o l i t i c a l Man, (Garden City, New York: Company, Inc., 1963), p. 221. ^Tingsten, p. 147.  Doubleday &  33  Selected Nations,  1960s, M u l t i f a c t o r P a r t i c i p a t i o n England  Low Income  Germany  New Haven, C o n n e c t i c u t ,  5.2  3.7%  5.2%  6.3  5.8  4.5  6.2  7.5  6.7  5.0  7.0  8.8  7.5  6.1  7.2  10.4  8.1  6.5  8.7  8.8  7.9  9.6  1961, G e n e r a l  Participation i n Local  Affairs:  7  USA  Italy  5.7%  High Income  Scale:  Political  8  Highly Inactive  Highly  Active  Under $2000 p e r annum  82%  4%  $2000-$5000  71  17  $5000-$8000  59  20  Over $8000  42  38  Education United  S t a t e s , 1952 and 1956 E l e c t i o n s , P r e s i d e n t i a l Vote P a r t i c i p a t i o n : Some GS  7  GS  Some HS  HS  Some C o l l e g e  College  Non-South  70%  68%  77%  87%  92%  93%  South  32  50  50  63  80  85  D i Palma, p. 144.  g Dahl, Robert,' Who Governs? (New Haven, Y a l e U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1961), p. 283. 9 Campbell, Angus e t a l . , The American V o t e r , (New York: John Wiley and Sons, I n c . , 1960), p. 477.  9  34  g United States, 1950s, Stated Attempts to Influence Others: GS Yes  HS  College  20% 29%  GS  45%  HS  College  19% 27%  34%  No Community, 80 71 1924, 55Voting Participation:"*"^ 81 73 66 Ohio College  78.1%  High School  69.6  Elementary  57.2  None  34.9  Selected Nations, 1960s, Multifactor Participation Scale England  Germany  Italy  USA  Elementary or less  6.4%  6.9%  3.4%  5.9%  Secondary  7.7  9.2  6.0  8.1  10.0  11.0  9.2  10.7  Some college  12 West Germany, 1966, Level of Interest i n P o l i t i c s : Primary Education Secondary Education Less More Less More Very deeply/deeply 6% 13% 26% 19% Rather Interested  11  23  29  43  Somewhat Interested  22  27  25  12  Hardly Interested  21  20  13  14  Not at a l l Interested  40  17  14  5  9 Campbell, Angus, et a l . , The American Voter, (New York: and Sons, Inc., 1960), p. 477. "^Tingsten, p. 158 1:L  D i Palma, p. 143.  12 Rush and Althoff, p. 102.  John Wiley  Sex 13 Norway, Selected Years, National Voting: Men Women 1909  67.5%  55.3%  1924  76.4 64.0  1933  81.8 71.2 14  Norway, Selected Years, Voting i n Local Elections: Men  Women  1910  59.8%  36.9%  1925  69.9 56.2  1934  76.8 65.0  Iceland, Selected Years, Voting i n National Elections:'' Men  Women  1916  69.1%  30.2%  1927  81.5 62.5  1933  80.4 63.2 16  Estonia, Selected Years, Voting i n Referenda: Men  13 Tingsten, p. 14 14 Tingsten, p. 15. 15  Tingsten, p. 20.  "^Tingsten, p. 26.  Women  1923  68.4%  64.8%  1933  82.9 73.9  36 Selected Nations, 1960s, Multifactor Participation Scale England  Germany  Italy  17  USA  Female  6.1%  6.1%  3.1%  7.1%  Male  8.0  8.6  5.8  8.7 18  West Germany, 1966, Interest i n P o l i t i c s : Men Women Very deeply/deeply  16%  8%  Rather interested  28  14  Somewhat interested 17  20  Notatall interested 11  37  Race 19 U.S., 1960s, Multifactor Participation Scale: Unadjusted for Other Socio-economic Factors Adjusted Negro 5.7% 7.1% Other Races  8.3  8.2 20  U.'S., 1950s, Voter Turnout: Negroes  White...  Law Governing Suffrage Restrictive Moderate  Restrictive Moderate  Voted i n a l l elections  3  10  26  34  Voted i n most elections  0  10  22  19  Voted i n some elections  12  20  24  19  Never voted  85  60  28  28  ^ D i Palma, p. 134. 7  18  Rush and Althoff, p. 102 Di Palma, p. 183  on  Campbell, et a l . , p. 278  37  The figures presented above are meant merely to indicate the general tendency of those who are less advantaged i n occupational status, income, education, sex and race to p a r t i c i p a t e less i n p o l i t i c s . This tendency holds i n many p o l i t i c a l systems, f o r a v a r i e t y of h i s t o r i c a l times, and f o r a wide v a r i e t y of forms and measures of participation.  This i s not to say that i t i s universal, nor that i t s  degree i s either constant or consistent. On the contrary I w i l l argue below that the variations are highly s i g n i f i c a n t and that those wishing to understand p o l i t i c a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n should examine these v a r i a t i o n s more c l o s e l y .  For example, I would suggest a close look at recent  tendencies i n the r e l a t i v e p o l i t i c a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n by women to determine i f the rapidly changing attitudes of women i n many- cultures have decreased sexual differences i n p a r t i c i p a t i o n . This chapter i s meant to show no more than the roughest of outlines of the bounds of the phenomena with which I w i l l deal throughout this study.  I leave to those l a t e r chapters the attempts  to d i s -  cuss v a r i a t i o n s , explain the sources of differences, and to analyze the attempts of others to explain them.  38 CHAPTER 3 I In this chapter I w i l l attempt to offer a very brief summary of the methods, findings and conclusions of empirically oriented p o l i t i c a l science with regard to the relative non-participation of the  disadvantaged  This i s , I think, a necessary, i f a b i t tedious, exercise. I t has been done before for the f u l l range of p o l i t i c a l participation research, but the most recent of these studies was published i n 1968;"*" the most complete with regard to the particular sub-question with which we are con2 cerned i n 1959.  Clearly some updating of the pattern of methods,  findings and conclusions i s needed before we proceed further and deal with the so-called post-behavioral critique of that l i t e r a t u r e .  I will  begin my next chapter with the c r i t i c a l presentation of that c r i t i q u e and w i l l u t i l i z e much of the material i n this chapter in that exercise and as w e l l i n the more elaborately analytical questions which are then raised but for the moment here l e f t i m p l i c i t .  The present chapter i s i n  general a presentation which i s c r i t i c a l largely only i n the sense of c r i t i c i z i n g the connection between conclusions and the data presented "Tlerbert McClosky, " P o l i t i c a l Participation," i n The International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, 1968 edition, v o l . 12, pp. 252-265. 2 Robert E. Lane, P o l i t i c a l L i f e , (New York: The Free Press, 1959), especially Chapter 16, pp. 220-234. The third study i s Lester W. Milbrath, P o l i t i c a l Participation (Chicago: Rand McNally & Company, 1965). There i s also, of course, the earlier summarization by S.M. Lipset, Paul F. Lazarsfeld, Alan Barton, and Juan Linz entitled "The Psychology of Voting: An Analysis of P o l i t i c a l Behavior," i n Handbook of Social Psychology, G. Lindzey, Ed., Volume I I (Cambridge: Addison-Wesley, 1954) pp. 1124-70, updated as chapter 6 of S.M. Lipset, P o l i t i c a l Man, (Garden City: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1960) pp. 183-229.  39 in the particular study i n question.  The next chapter will .draw  i n a wider range of extra-textual matters. The structure of this chapter i s largely chronological, I have proceeded i n this way because I plan i n the next and later chapters to  draw  conclusions which depend i n part on the development of  empirically based explanations of the relative i n a c t i v i t y of the less advantaged over time and, as w e l l , i n relation to specific h i s t o r i c a l periods.  However, at another point i n the later chapters, I w i l l need  as well an analytic summary of these explanations (and at that point I w i l l refer the reader back to this section).  I offer this summary now  so that the reader might consider i t i n the course of the next two chapters as the data accumulates i n other formats. The various explanations offered within empirical s o c i a l science are l i s t e d under seven headings.  The f i r s t and second headings are  perhaps the most commonly put forth, especially, as we w i l l see, i n the period 1950-65.  I will discuss these elements of explanation at  length when I consider what I w i l l c a l l the conservative understanding of the relative i n a c t i v i t y of the less advantaged.  The next two ele-  ments (3) and (4), are also put forward quite often; the l a t t e r of them has been used with much greater frequency i n the last few years than i n the pre-1965 period.  Explanations (5) and (6) are clearly of lesser  importance and are less often e x p l i c i t l y stated. Item (7) has only very rarely been mentioned by empirical s o c i a l s c i e n t i s t s ; the two or three instances which w i l l be cited later i n this chapter are a l l quite recent (post-1965).  In contrast we w i l l see that explanations of this nature  40  are central to Marxists. The seven alternative explanations of low participation by the less advantaged are: (1)  The less advantaged tend to be -uninformed, i r r a t i o n a l , uninterested or simply ignorant.  (2)  Non-participation  i n some cases i s a sign of a general feeling of  satisfaction with the functioning of the p o l i t i c a l system. (3)  Low socio-economic status i s often related to l i f e experiences which are not conducive to attitudes, such as p o l i t i c a l efficacy or feelings of c i t i z e n duty, which are supportive of at least some forms of participation.  (4)  There are a variety of structural constraints to the active part i c i p a t i o n of the less advantaged; f o r example, i n some systems a marked lack of organized p o l i t i c a l structures.  (5)  The effects of some other demographic variables with the more central measures of lack of advantage (income, race, sex, occupation and education).  For example, young adults and the elderly tend to be  somewhat less well-off than other age groups and tend as w e l l , for other and obvious reasons, to participate less. (6)  Some non-participants are expressing consciously some anti-system feelings by withdrawing their support.  (7)  The p o l i t i c a l system i s actually unresponsive to the less advantaged or may, i n some cases, actually permit or encourage acts of repression of some of the less advantaged.  41  My summary discussion of the empirical l i t e r a t u r e , which follows now, has three parts:  the f i r s t i s a b r i e f c r i t i c a l extraction of the relevant  material from the three summaries mentioned above; the second a more detailed c r i t i c a l look at several selected major studies; and the third an up-dated l i t e r a t u r e survey f o r the years 1969-1973 with some emphasis on changes i n approach and on the evolution of methodology.  This sum-  mary i s not meant to be comprehensive, but rather to o f f e r a s u f f i c i e n t basis f o r l a t e r comments and comparisons.  42 II  There can be l i t t l e doubt that i n the United States and i n -most developed Western democracies i n most times and circumstances there has been a consistent tendency  toward a positive relationship between socio-  economic advantage and p o l i t i c a l participation. that the socio-economic  Woodward and Roper found  groups which scored the highest on a composite  index of p o l i t i c a l participation were:  Executives, Professionals, Stock-  holders, those i n the "A" Economic Level, and those college-educated; those groups which scored the lowest were Laboring people, Housewives, those with only grade school education, Negroes and those i n the ";P" 3  (lowest) economic level.  As Milbrath puts i t , c i t i n g twenty-eight con-  forming studies: "One of the most thoroughly substantiated propositions i n a l l of s o c i a l science i s that persons near the center of society are most l i k e l y to participate i n p o l i t i c s than persons near the periphery."^ and further he observes that: "(N)onatter how class i s measured, studies consistently show that higher-class persons are more l i k e l y to participate i n p o l i t i c s than lowerclass persons." McClosky, however, i s somewhat more careful and precise i n his generalization than i s Milbrath; he states: 3  Julian L. Woodward and Elmo Roper, " P o l i t i c a l A c t i v i t y of American C i t izens," American P o l i t i c a l Science Review, 44 (1950), p. 877 reported i n Lane, p. 221. 4 Milbrath, p. 113; 'periphery' incorporates SES, length of time at a given residence, amount of group a c t i v i t y , urban-rural residence and integration into the community. (p. I l l ) Milbrath, p. 115. 5  43  " I n g e n e r a l , p a r t i c i p a t i o n tends to be h i g h e r among the b e t t e r - e d u c a t e d , members of the h i g h e r o c c u p a t i o n a l and income groups, the middle-aged the dominant e t h n i c and r e l i g i o u s groups, men (as opposed to women), s e t t l e d r e s i d e n t s , urban d w e l l e r s , and members of -voluntary a s s o c i a t i o n s . " I t s h o u l d be emphasized, however, t h a t the c o r r e l a t i o n s between p a r t i c i p a t i o n and some of these v a r i a b l e s a r e low and u n s t a b l e and t h a t they may v a r y from one c u l t u r a l - p o l i t i c a l c o n t e x t to another. Thus, e d u c a t i o n and socio-economic s t a t u s and p a r t i c i p a t i o n c o r r e l a t e s t r o n g l y i n the "United S t a t e s but weakly i n Norway...."** He  further cautions  as to be f a i r l y  t h a t "the v a r i a b l e s i n t h i s c a t e g o r y  l i m i t e d i n t h e i r explanatory  power," and  a r e so  that "(S)ince  the r e l e v a n t v a r i a b l e s a r e s u b j e c t to i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t s , g r a p h i c f a c t o r s may  7  F i n a l l y , i n t h i s r e g a r d he n o t e s  of o p p o s i t e f i n d i n g s w i t h r e g a r d to e t h n i c m i n o r i t i e s and r e p o r t s the c o n c l u s i o n of Campbell and V a l e n  p a r i t y i n the c o r r e l a t i o n s between o c c u p a t i o n a l l e v e l and i n Norway and  the U n i t e d  c l a s s consciousness  the same demo-  have d r a m a t i c a l l y d i f f e r e n t consequences i n d i f f e r e n t  p o l i t i c a l - c u l t u r a l contexts."  v a r i a b l e s and  broad  and  situations  r u r a l vs. t h a t the  urban dis-  participation  S t a t e s r e s u l t s a t l e a s t i n p a r t from g r e a t e r c l a s s o r g a n i z a t i o n i n the Norwegian as opposed  to  g the American working The world  class.  f i n d i n g s then a r e as c o n s i s t e n t as one  of s o c i a l phenomena.  a l i z a t i o n s but  The  g e t s i n the m u l t i v a r i a t e  l i m i t e d e x c e p t i o n s must temper the gener-  can a d d i t i o n a l l y be used as a r o u t e to a p a r t i a l  explanation  of the r e l a t i o n s h i p v i a i n d i c a t i n g some f a c t o r s which a r e n ' t p a r t of explanation. McClosky, p.  I f we  a r e to get a t what i n d e e d  256.  7  B o t h o b s e r v a t i o n s , p.  8  Pp.  256-7.  256.  the  a r e the e x p l a n a t i o n s f o r  44  n o n - p a r t i c i p a t i o n we  can u s e f u l l y b e g i n by l o o k i n g b r i e f l y a t those o f -  f e r e d by M i l b r a t h , Lane and  McClosky,  W i t h i n the main body o f h i s book M i l b r a t h makes few attempts a t explaining  c l a s s p a r t i c i p a t i o n d i f f e r e n t i a l s beyond o f f e r i n g some f i r s t -  order p s y c h o l o g i c a l explanations.  One  example h e r e w i l l  suffice:  " I t i s easy to understand why r i c h p e o p l e would be more l i k e l y to g i v e money than poor p e o p l e ; i t i s not so c l e a r why they s h o u l d be more l i k e l y to wear a b u t t o n or d i s p l a y a s t i c k e r . The d a t a do not suggest a l i k e l y i n t e r p r e t a t i o n , but one can s p e c u l a t e t h a t p u b l i c a l l y i d e n t i f y i n g one's p a r t i s a n or c a n d i d a t e p r e f e r e n c e r e q u i r e s h i g h s e l f - e s t e e m , and high-income p e r s o n s a r e more l i k e l y to have h i g h s e l f - e s t e e m . I t was sugg e s t e d by another s c h o l a r t h a t h i g h e r - i n c o m e p e r s o n s are not o n l y more l i k e l y to g i v e money, but they a l s o a r e l i k e l y to i n i t i a t e d i r e c t cont a c t s w i t h p u b l i c o f f i c i a l s (Lane, 1959), which a g a i n suggests h i g h s e l f - e s t e e m . " (p. 121) He does not seem to c o n s i d e r such obvious p o s s i b i l i t i e s as the s i m p l e s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d r e j e c t i o n o f s t r o n g commitments to any c a n d i d a t e by some lower-income  persons r e g a r d l e s s o f l e v e l s o f s e l f - e s t e e m . He o f f e r s  evidence of  the s e l f - e s t e e m / n o n - p a r t i c i p a t i o n r e l a t i o n s h i p . F u r t h e r ,  n e i t h e r he nor Lane i n the o r i g i n a l suggest the o b v i o u s , though ficult  t o demonstrate,  more to the a b i l i t y the s u p p l i c a n t .  possibility  that o f f i c i a l  no  dif-  accessibility i s related  to c o n t r i b u t e money than t o the s e l f - e s t e e m l e v e l s o f R a t h e r , and g e n e r a l l y f o r M i l b r a t h , shortcomings  are  seen to l i e w i t h and i n the i n d i v i d u a l r a t h e r than w i t h or i n h i s t o r i c a l l y conditioned systemic v a r i a b l e s .  T h i s p o s i t i o n i s an important  p a r t of the u n d e r s t a n d i n g of n o n - p a r t i c i p a t i o n common to many, e s p e c i a l l y " e a r l i e r " b e h a v i o r a l i s t s which  I w i l l d i s c u s s f u r t h e r below.  45  M i l b r a t h , g e n e r a l l y , i s f a r l e s s adept than e i t h e r McClosky o r Lane i n i n c o r p o r a t i n g s y s t e m i c a l l y , s o c i a l l y and h i s t o r i c a l l y  relevant  v a r i a b l e s i n t o h i s o v e r a l l assessment o f r e s e a r c h  However,  he  findangs.^  does r e p o r t w i t h o u t comment o r emphasis a v a r i e t y o f f i n d i n g s o f s i g -  n i f i c a n c e i n these r e g a r d s .  F o r example t h e f o l l o w i n g :  " . . . i n countries with status polarized party s y s t e m s . . . p o l i t i c a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n , especiallyv o t i n g t u r n o u t , i s h i g h e r i n communes which a r e homogeneous i n p o l i t i c s , s o c i o - e c o n o m i c s t a t u s , and economic a c t i v i t y . . . . " (p. 119) "In s o c i e t i e s with r e s i d e n t i a l segregation by SES, the normal tendency f o r h i g h SES p e r s o n s to be more l i k e l y t o p a r t i c i p a t e i s r e d u c e d . " (p. 119) "As i n d u s t r i a l i z a t i o n p r o g r e s s e d more p e r s o n s w i t h m i d d l e - c l a s s o r i g i n s were e l e c t e d t o t h e F e d e r a l Assembly." (p. 120) and, "...no r e l a t i o n s h i p s (was found) between dep r e s s i o n s and v o t i n g t u r n o u t . " (p. 120) I f t h e s e appear random h e r e i t i s because they appear so i n M i l b r a t h .  M i l b r a t h p r e s e n t s h i s d a t a i n such a way t h a t he does n o t d i s t i n g u i s h between t h e r e l a t i v e s i g n i f i c a n c e o f t h e v a r i o u s f i n d i n g s , n o r does he e x p l i c i t l y temper broad g e n e r a l i z a t i o n s by d i s c u s s i n g m o d i f y i n g f i n d i n g s . T h i s i s perhaps then a s t y l e o f p r e s e n t a t i o n problem o f a s t y l e which i s u s e f u l as a " c a t a l o g " o f b a l d f i n d i n g s , a g u i d e t o t h e l i t e r a t u r e and n o t an a n a l y s i s t h e r e o f . A more a p p r o p r i a t e c r i t i c i s m , r e l e v a n t to l a t e r d i s c u s s i o n s , might be the emphasis o f space and l o c a t i o n he seems to g i v e t o o f t - t i m e s t r i v i a l , " p u r e l y " p s y c h o l o g i c a l , f i n d i n g s . F o r example, (p. 39) he r e p o r t s the f i n d i n g t h a t "persons w i t h a p o s i t i v e a t t r a c t i o n t o p o l i t i c s are more l i k e l y to r e c e i v e s t i m u l i about p o l i t i c s and t o p a r t i c i p a t e more." A good d e a l of h i s Chapter I I I " P o l i t i c a l P a r t i c i p a t i o n as a F u n c t i o n o f P e r s o n a l F a c t o r s " i s o f t h a t o r d e r ; i t stands o f c o u r s e , l e s s perhaps as w i t n e s s to M i l b r a t h ' s shortcomings as t o the e x c e s s i v e p s y c h o l o g i s m o f e a r l y b e h a v i o r a l e x p l a n a t i o n s of p o l i t i c a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n .  46  I am not attempting to build a comprehensive summary of explanations, but merely to offer material i l l u s t r a t i v e for later discussion. In general, the e a r l i e r summarization of research on participation by Robert Lane shows greater explanatory i n c l i n a t i o n than does Milbrath.  Lane i s usually far from the s i m p l i s t i c psychologism to which  Milbrath sometimes seems prone.  As Lane puts i t elsewhere,  "If you ask a man why he believes what he does, why he i s a l i b e r a l or a conservative..., he i s l i k e l y to t e l l you about the world and not about himself...."...He might say...that he sees things that way because things are that way. "These two ways of explaining a b e l i e f , by referring outward to the world and inward to t e l l of the s e l f , are complementary features of .a t o t a l explanation for the simple reason that belief i s inevitably an i n teraction between self and world.... " ^ Thus disadvantaged persons might w e l l have low feelings of p o l i t i c a l efficacy for the  to Milbrath (and Almond & Verba)'''"'' largely  unconsidered cause that the p o l i t i c a l system systematically rejects their influence or would i f ' i t ' were given the opportunity. Likewise Milbrath's low income c i t i z e n without the ego-wherewithal to put on a bumper-sticker might be disinclined not because he doesn't understand but precisely because he does understand the way things r e a l l y are. In P o l i t i c a l L i f e , Lane's f i r s t explanation and most of the others  Robert E. Lane P o l i t i c a l Thinking and Consciousness (Chicago: Markham Publishing Company, 1969) pp. 1-2. "The world i n my view, as I hope w i l l become clearer below, has more explanatory power than 'the s e l f . Lane i s more inclined than I am to evenly balanced dualism; his acknowledgment of the existence of the world is, however, refreshing. See below  47  which follow his question "Why  are social status and p o l i t i c a l p a r t i c i p a -  tion so closely linked i n the United States?" suffer from few of the defects which I w i l l later identify as an understanding of participation common to many behavioralists.  The explanations selected by Lane i n this  brief chapter (written 15 years ago) indicate that behavioral research had even by that time seemed to have generated the basis for considerable explanatory power. Lane's analysis begins strongly, "The gains from governmental policy for lower income groups must be collective gains, gains granted to classes or groups of people, which may or may not accrue to any one individual. In contrast to t h i s , a large category of middle-income persons, businessmen, are i n a position to gain some specific i n d i v i dual advantage from government....As a consequence, the relationship between p o l i t i c a l effort and personal gain i s usually closer for businessmen than for working-class people." (p. 221) He then itemizes and stresses the means d i f f e r e n t i a l s between r i c h and poor: money, and the fact that the worker's "individual s o c i a l and occupational position (do not) l i k e l y give him, as an individual, much influence over government actions." "Poor people can exert influence only by collective action...." (p. 221) Lane then offers eleven additional possible explanations for the participation d i f f e r e n t i a l s of relative advantage.  However, many of  these explanations are, as I w i l l show shortly below, separable from the basic findings of the behavioral research which he has considered.  They  are not, i n most cases, demonstrated by that research but rather, post hoc, 'make sense of i t . ' These comments are not meant as a c r i t i c i s m of either Lane or behavioral methodology. Rather I merely want to make clear at this point a d i s t i n c t i o n between a 'report of findings' which  48  i n some cases, might be said to, with an o r i g i n a l research question, offer explanations, and an 'explanation of findings'; the former i s the research at hand, the latter can be usefully seen as a l i n k between that research and some wider understanding external, though related, to the 12 research. That is,research findings make sense i n terms of and i n relation to that wider understanding. For example, Milbrath, as was noted, rarely attempted explanations of findings; when he did he generally did 13 not go beyond first-order psychological explanations.  However, and here  we begin to deal with an additional concept; i n his f i n a l chapter Milbrath 'jumps past' explanations of findings into a presentation of an 'understanding,' again,  . an overview, an appreciation;  necessarily  general, theoretical, speculative and value-relevant. To be more clear about what i n actual practice an understanding looks l i k e , l e t us consider here a shortened statement of Milbrath's f i n a l " two paragraphs: "Recapitulation of the foregoing argument, i n brief form, may help the reader to see where i t i s leading. (1) Most citizens i n any p o l i t i c a l society do not l i v e up to the c l a s s i c a l democratic prescription to be interested i n , informed about, and active i n p o l i t i c s . (2) Yet, democratic governments and societies continue to funct i o n adequately. (3) I t i s a fact that high participation i s not required for successful democracy. (4) Howeyer, to insure responsiveness  1o  This i s only a preliminary comment, further discussion of the relationship between explanation and understanding w i l l be offered i n succeeding chapters. 13  Most Marxists would, of course, consider a l l psychological explanations as easily reduceable to social explanations. I w i l l discuss this a b i t further i n Chapters 5 and 6.  49  of o f f i c i a l s , i t i s essential that a sizable percentage of citizens participate i n choosing their public o f f i c i a l s . (5) Maintaining open channels of communication i n the society also helps to insure responsiveness of o f f i c i a l s to public demands. (6) Moderate levels of participation by the mass of citizens help to balance c i t i z e n roles as participants and as obedient subjects. (7) Moderate levels of participation also help balance p o l i t i c a l systems which must be both responsive and powerful enough to act (8) Furthermore, moderate participation levels are helpful i n maintaining a balance between consensus and cleavage i n society.(9) High p a r t i c i pation levels would actually be detrimental to society i f they tended to p o l i t i c i z e a large percentage of s o c i a l relationships. (10) Constitutional democracy i s most l i k e l y to f l o u r i s h i f only a moderate proportion of s o c i a l relationships (areas of l i f e ) are governed by p o l i t i c a l considerations. (11) Moderate or low participation levels by the general public place a special burden or responsibility on p o l i t i c a l e l i t e s for the successf u l functioning of constitutional democracy. (12) E l i t e s must adhere to democratic norms and rules of the game and have a live-and-let-live attitude toward their opponents. (13) A society with widespread apathy could easily be dominated by an unscrupulous e l i t e ; only continuous vigilance by at least a few concerned citizens can prevent tyranny. (14) E l i t e recruitment and training i s an especially important function. (15) To help insure f i n a l control of the p o l i t i c a l system by the public, i t i s essential to maintain an open communications system, to keep gladiator ranks open to make i t easy for citizens to become active should they so choose, to continue moral admonishment for citizens to become active, and to keep alive the democratic myth of c i t i z e n competence." (pp. 153-4) This statement i s not an explanatory l i n k to a wider understanding; i t i s a presentation of the elements of an understanding p a r t i c u l a r l y ungrounded i n empirical research. Not one of the f i f t e e n assertions follow from or are even, i n any obvious way, related to the findings reported i n the book. Milbrath, of course, i s aware of this and asserts i n a masterful understatement:  50 " I t would be d i f f i c u l t to prove the v a l i d i t y of the above argument with research findings. For lack of evidence, many of the asserted relationships must remain hypothetical for the time being." (p. 154) Points (6) and (14) are largely tautological; point (11) i s a truism, and point (2) i s meaningless; those remaining are a l l so general as to exceed the scope of any research conducted to that date or, for that matter, for the foreseeable future.  None can be demonstrated without  broad cross-cultural and h i s t o r i c a l comparisons being made. I t i s not my purpose to systematically critique  these assertions here, merely 14  to c l a r i f y my terminology i n the context of the pertinent data. If an understanding such as that offered by Milbrath can be said to be largely ungrounded i n empirical findings, what of the more findingsrelated explanations presented by Lane i n P o l i t i c a l L i f e .  Earlier I sug-  gested that Lane's explanations were of a form a n a l y t i c a l l y separable from the empirical research whose conclusions they were presented to explain.  The wider setting on which his explanations are based i s a  general s o c i o - p o l i t i c a l understanding which i s i n turn strongly grounded i n a wealth of empirical research. In trying to explain why the less advantaged tend to participate less Lane considers eleven possible explanations: (1)  d i f f e r e n t i a l s of leisure time and uncommitted energy are seen as having an ambiguous relation owing to empirical data showing lower  14  In general, I prefer that such statements be made a part of most studies especially those which seek to order a large corpus of research findings. Whatever the weaknesses of this or other versions of this understanding, they opened up discussion of issues which more recently have been less often discussed. Implicit consensus i s not a route to effective research. This, too, w i l l be considered again i n later chapters.  51  voter turnout among the retired i n contrast to other elderly; showing lower voter turnout among well-paid long-hour workers than among lower-paid shorter-hour workers i n the same city i n the same year; the especially low involvement of the unemployed; and the general information that "the executive or professional man...perhaps carries his occupational burdens with him rather more than the manual or c l e r i c a l worker — (p. 223)  he i s more preoccupied."  Thus "general understanding" offers an explanation and  empirical data and impressions combine  to offer a variety of  qualifications; d i f f e r e n t i a l s of economic security are seen to be less ambiguous. Lane concludes that "On the whole, i t seems j u s t i f i a b l e to say that, the lack of f i n a n c i a l worry which i s generally associated with a better income provides one cause for substantial socio-economic class differences i n p o l i t i c a l a c t i v i t y . " (p. 225)  This conclusion  i s largely based on studies which showed a relationship between feeling quite secure f i n a n c i a l l y and feeling p o l i t i c a l l y effective. I am, however, very skeptical of this form of explanation; here may well be many intervening variables between the two feelings i n question, most-particularly a ' r e a l i t y ' variable. That  •  i s , those who are f i n a n c i a l l y secure are p o l i t i c a l l y e f f e c t i v e , not because theyfeel well-off, but rather because they are well-off. Further, this view must be tempered by Lipset's well-documented assertion that those of insecure income tend to be more p o l i t i c i z e d to the l e f t (and that many of these same groups tend as w e l l to higher voting rates).  15  S.M. Lipset, P o l i t i c a l Man (Garden City: Doubleday & Co., 1960) pp. 243-248 and 224-225  Inc.,  52  (3)  the higher stake i n government policy f e l t by those who property —  own  the policy benefits attendant to prosperity are more  v i s i b l e and t h i s , as Lane sees i t , i s suggested (but not proved) by "the fact that the proportion of the working class vote Republican i s larger than the proportion of the middle-class who Democratic." (4)  (p.  vote  226)  the d i f f e r e n t i a l distribution of the complex of attitudes of s e l f confidence —  this i s the quite well documented variation i n f e e l -  ings of p o l i t i c a l effectiveness and i s commonly taken to be i n turn related to and caused by lack of education and status.  This finding  i s rarely explained by d i f f e r e n t i a l s i n responsiveness by public o f f i c i a l s or by p o l i t i c a l systems. The remaining seven explanatory factors are similar i n nature and effect and include d i f f e r e n t i a l s i n child-rearing  (unclear as to degree  or e f f e c t ) ; d i f f e r e n t i a l s i n role expectations and 'sense of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for nation a f f a i r s ; variations i n d i s t r i b u t i o n of cross-pressures (espec i a l l y the tendency to identify with interests and values of higher classes than one's own);  d i f f e r e n t i a l s of effect of inter-strata contact; d i f -  ferentials i n distribution of p o l i t i c a l l y relevant s k i l l s ; and  differen-  16 t i a l s i n distribution of feelings of s o c i a l alienation.  Were we to  treat a l l eleven variables in the d e t a i l we treated the f i r s t four we might come to the following general indicative and very tentative conclusions: (1)  Much of the data used as evidence i s reasonably well-founded  Lane, pp. 226-234  1  53  empirically. There are some exceptions to t h i s , e.g.,Lane's mention of the "the fringe movements - which draw...the lower socio-economic classes."  On this and other matters in Lane's list see Chapter 3, section I I .  (2) With a l l of the variables considered, the empirical a c t u a l i t i e s are 'mixed' (e.g., d i f f e r e n t i a l s i n child-rearing practices (pp. 227-8), free-time a v a i l a b i l i t y ) and/or of 'mixed' effects (e.g., different i a l s i n feelings of alienation or feelings of economic security). (3) There i s very limited consideration given to h i s t o r i c and systemic variations"'" and more especially actual systemically-rooted effects 7  (e.g., the p o s s i b i l i t y of j u s t i f i a b l e differences i n self-confidence with regard to system a c c e s s i b i l i t y ) .  Further here, because of this  there i s a general tendency to offer explanations of a limited level of generalization (that i s many of the explanations offered could themselves be explained by such variables as systematic  ( i n both  senses of the word) discouragement of participation by the ideological apparatus of society — from schools, from media, etc., — or by broad historico-systemic variables such as centralization of power or bureaucratization which might tend to deny access to r e a l power to a l l but ' a very few citizens). Such variables are, of course, far more d i f f i cult to i d e n t i f y , measure and understand and lend themselves f a r less to study using empirical methodology.  Even i f I am correct i n  the assertions of this paragraph, i t does not follow d i r e c t l y , of 17 In fairness Lane's question relates to class-relative participation in the United States only. Elsewhere, e.g., Milbrath and others to be discussed below, there i s a lesser appreciation of 'American exceptionalism and a correspondingly greater tendency to over-generalization. 1  54 course, that any lesser or greater relative commitment of i n t e l lectual energy should be relegated -to any given approach.  I t simply  means that, i f (and we w i l l deal with that ' i f at length throughout this inquiry) this i s the case, there must be'means found either to use approaches other than those customary to empirical inquiry or t r a d i t i o n a l forms of empirical inquiry must be modified to gain that higher order of generalization. (4)  Lane, and here he i s typical of many of the empirical s o c i a l scient i s t s whom I w i l l look at, has a tendency (less pronounced than i n many) to overlook the f u l l meaning and effect of s o c i a l class.  One  example here w i l l suffice for the moment: 18 "This study finds that active p o l i t i c a l roles are rarely assumed by Class I (upper class) i n dividuals, but instead such persons delegate (emphasis added) this function to those at an intermediate level of society who serve their interests i n return for various psychic (and sometimes economic) rewards. Financial p a r t i cipation, on the other hand, i s more appropriate for Class I persons....On the other hand, the lower economic groups tend to delegate (emphasis added) then, p o l i t i c a l responsibilities to those who have somewhat more education and somewhat more income than they themselves possess...to some extent, perhaps, this may explain the pragmatic s i m i l a r i t y of the major parties." ( P o l i t i c a l L i f e , p. 229) The arrangements, both described by the word 'delegate', are qualitati-^ vely different, one akin to a " h i r i n g " , the other to an "abdication". Class behaviors are profoundly variant and i t i s only rarely that they  Bernard R. Berelson, Paul F. Lazarsfeld, and William N. McPhee, Voting (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1954).  55  can be e f f e c t i v e l y described using the same language.  This i s a r e l a t i v e l y  t r i v i a l example of an appreciation of Marxism not usually common i n empirical  s o c i a l science.  I t i s meant simply as a warning to be wary of  overgeneralization i n this regard.  To t h i s point I have concerned myself with more or less differences  quantitative  i n p a r t i c i p a t i o n between s o c i a l s t r a t a (and the explanations  of those differences).  14any have asserted that there e x i s t , as w e l l , a  v a r i e t y of q u a l i t a t i v e differences.  More s p e c i f i c a l l y here i t i s often  argued that less advantaged groups and s t r a t a have been shown to be more i l l i b e r a l , less tolerant, less knowledgeable about p o l i t i c a l issues, more prone to authoritarian,  demagogic p o l i t i c a l leaders and movements, and,  i n general, less i n c l i n e d to attitudes and behaviors conducive to the support of l i b e r a l democracy.  This view i s another, and c r u c i a l element  i n Milbrath and others' understanding of d i f f e r e n t i a l s i n p a r t i c i p a t i o n . It i s largely this range of findings which allow c r e d i b i l i t y to the view that increased p a r t i c i p a t i o n can be (or, even, w i l l be) a threat to democracy (or, more obscurely, "democratic s t a b i l i t y " ) . Throughout this study I w i l l at many points c r i t i q u e largely p o l i t i c a l science's quantitative  explanations f o r and understanding of the  aspects of p a r t i c i p a t i o n d i f f e r e n t i a l s the grounds on which  I object to the treatment of the q u a l i t a t i v e differences  are d i f f e r e n t .  I do not accept that i n this case the data f u l l y j u s t i f y the reports of findings. I propose to c r i t i q u e these reports on three grounds:  56 (1)  that the conclusions are often on their face grossly over-  drawn from the given data; (2)  that the methodologies employed i n specific cases are somewhat  more limited than they are taken to be by the researchers and others; (3)  that there i s a wealth of less commonly cited empirical material  which indicates that the results i n these matters are far more mixed 19 than they are often taken to be. These are very broad generalizations and do not mean to imply that the claims i n matters of qualitative p a r t i c i p a t i o n are utterly  groundless.  There i s a wide range of. 'grounding' dependent of course on the kind and degree of claim made. Reasonably well supported (generally) i s the r e l ationship between issue f a m i l i a r i t y and education; almost t o t a l l y unr e l i a b l e i n my view i s the claim that there i s a strong relationship between "class" and "authoritarian personality." The earliest and probably s t i l l the most i n f l u e n t i a l of the a r t i cles which attempt to base this view firmly i n the findings of empirical s o c i a l science i s S.M.  Lipset's "Working-class Authoritarianism" which 20 f i r s t appeared i n 1955.. Lipset, of course, was quite aware of the "'This aspect of the critique w i l l be presented i n Chapter 4, Part I I as the data are also useful to an additional point which cannot usefully be made u n t i l that time. Readers might skip ahead and look at that section at this time as well. 20 An early version of this paper was f i r s t presented at a Congress for Cultural Freedom conference on "The Future of Liberty" held i n Milan, I t a l y , i n September, 1955. While this i s evidence for absolutely nothing, i t perhaps can be noted i n passing that both the Congress and Encounter, a quotation from which Lipset opens his discussion, were funded extensively by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency. This i n i t s e l f says nothing about the v a l i d i t y of his argument; since I do i n the next chapter discuss the Cold War i n relation to some aspects of the explanation of empirical social science, I thought i t pertinent to mention this here.  57  p o l i t i c a l implications of the argument he was attempting to document. In several places i n the a r t i c l e he laments this i n his findings as a sad truth which must nevertheless be faced and elsewhere i n his writings he makes the following reference: "As early as 1928, the American p o l i t i c a l s c i e n t i s t W.B. Munro argued that increased participation might threaten the workings of democracy since non-voting was largely located among the most ignorant part of the electorate."21 Lipset's claims are w e l l enough known to need no presentation here. The best single critique of Lipset's a r t i c l e i s that presented by 22 M i l l e r and Frank Reissman.  S.M.  M i l l e r and Reissman conclude their c r i -  tique i n this way: The sad and complex truth seems to be that no class has a monopoly on pro- or anti-democratic attitudes. Neither class, we believe, i s psychologically authoritarian, but both classes have values which could be turned i n the direction of p o l i t i c a l authoritarianism under certain conditions."23 In building to this conclusion, they offer a variety of tempered c r i t i cisms; especially pertinent here are the following: (1)  One of Lipset's major bases for asserting the relative authoritarianism of the working-class i s the response to a p o l l taken i n  "S.M. Lipset, P o l i t i c a l Man, p. 228 referring to W.B. Munro, "Is the Slacker Vote a Menace?", National Municipal Review, 17 (1928), pp. 80-86. Munro, of course, i s hardly the earliest to doubt the capacities of the masses; few before, however, were dignified (?) by the t i t l e ' p o l i t i c a l ' scientist. ^S.M. M i l l e r and Frank Reissman, "'Working Class Authoritarianism': A Critique of Lipset," B r i t i s h Journal of Sociology,(Sept.1961),pp.263-76. 2 3  I b i d . , pp. 271-2.  58  West Germany i n 1953.  The actual question asked was:  "Do you  think that i t would be better i f there were one party, several parties, or no party?"  The detailed results of that p o l l are  presented broken down by occupation arid under the following headings:  "Several parties," "One Party," "No Party," and "No  Opinion."  Ten pages later i n the study, Lipset represents the  data under one such heading "Per Cent Favoring the Existence of Several Parties," and therein there i s a moderate difference i n response indicated. However, i n "Miller and Reissman's words: "Comparison of the two classes i s d i f f i c u l t , however, because the 'no opinion' responses are particularly high among the working-class groups. If we take favourable attitudes towards the 'oneparty' or 'no party' alternatives as better indi-r cators of possible authoritarianism (than the nonselection of the multi-party system choice) then i t appears that these choices are minority positions within the working class. (Among semi-skilled workers, 35 per cent favour either a one-party or no-party situation; among unskilled workers, 38 per cent, and among s k i l l e d workers, 27 per cent, roughly the same percentage found among small businessmen and lower white collar groups)." (p. 265) Even i f the response Lipset derived v i a the arrangement of the data had been as sharp as he took i t to be, there are r e a l doubts about the usefulness of this one question as a basis for any broad conclusion about -let alone one which seems at times to place a whole s o c i a l group crossc u l t u r a l l y on the extreme pole of an authoritarianism — democratic continuum. M i l l e r and Reissman argue: "Criticism of or doubt about the practice of multi-party systems or other democratic i n s t i tutions may indicate the need for the imaginative development of new approaches and practices rather than serving as an indication of  59  anti-democratic attitudes." (2)  (p. 266)  A second of the studies which Lipset offers as supportive i s that 24 of Samuel A. Stouffer (Communism, Conformity and C i v i l Liberties) wherein "community leaders" were found more committed to c i v i l l i b e r t i e s than were the "general public." M i l l e r and Reissman suggest the p o s s i b i l i t y that the middle-class (including the community leaders) might appear more tolerant because they are less punitive rather than because they are more committed to c i v i l liberties.  They do not pretend that this 'explains away' the  response, merely that i t puts i t i n a different l i g h t .  I would  add here that the further p o s s i b i l i t y that "community leaders" are more conscious of the need to publicly  espouse the "conventional  wisdom" might produce further limitations on generalizations from these findings. Further there also may be d i f f e r e n t i a l s i n the differences between "measurable attitudes" and "situational behaviors."  (Both these factors w i l l be developed below).  Fin-  a l l y here M i l l e r and Reissman note a finding by Bordua regarding 25 class differences on questions similar to those asked by Stouffer: "Bordua offers an intriguing finding concerning the determinants of intolerance and authoritarianism. I f r e l i g i o n i s held constant, class 24 Samuel A. Stouffer, Communism, Conformity and C i v i l Liberties, (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1966) f i r s t published i n 1955. We w i l l consider this work further shortly below. 25 Reference i s to David Joseph Bordua Authoritarianism and Intolerance, A Study of High School Students, unpublished Ph.D. thesis, Department of Social Relations, Harvard University, 1956, p. 228 (cited i n footnote 9 df M i l l e r and Reissman, p. 274).  60  d i f f e r e n t i a l s i n p o l i t i c a l tolerance and authoritarianism are i n s i g n i f i c a n t . " (3)  M i l l e r and Reissman also present a c r i t i q u e of Lipset's use of Fscale based data on the grounds that such scales have limited app l i c a b i l i t y to the working class. This can be related to one of -my above comments on Lane. One empirical basis for this claim i s from an e a r l i e r study by Reissman who found that  working-class  respondents low on authoritarianism did not have more 'peopleoriented' responses to an independent open-ended question than did those who were high on authoritarianism.  However, middle-  class respondents who had scored high on the 'authoritarian' scale did have a response s i g n i f i c a n t l y different from those who scored low.  One gets the impression then that the 'authoritarianism' scale 26  -might -measure something different i n the different class groups. (4)  Lipset uses to a considerable extent d i f f e r e n t i a l s i n child-rearing practices as a basis for arguing for working-class  intolerance.  M i l l e r and Reissman sharply tenuate the usefulness of his claims 27 by a re-examination of the very studies which Lipset cites. What we are l e f t with i n the way of evidence after a l l this i s l i t t l e more than the following from Lipset: "The poorer strata everywhere are more l i b e r a l or l e f t i s t on economic issues; they favour more welfare state measures, higher wages....But when liberalism i s defined i n non-economic terms — as the support of c i v i l l i b e r t i e s , internationalism, etc., — the correlation i s reversed. The Study cited (on page 268) i s Frank Reissman Worker's Attitudes Towards Participation and Leadership, unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, Columbia University, 1955. I w i l l offer further doubts about the F-scale below and i n the next chapter. 27 M i l l e r and Reissman, pp. 269-70.  61  more well-to-do are more l i b e r a l , the poorer are more intolerant. In support of this categorical assertion Lipset cites but two studies. On a re-reading of these sources i t i s found that  29  Smith, to whom he  refers i n both cases, did not deal with class levels at a l l , rather his data was concerned with relative information (and i n one case education) levels.  In the f i r s t of these studies, Smith used no c i v i l l i b e r t i e s  questions, merely indicators of "internationalism." In the second on questions regarding women's rights (equal pay for equal work),  Anti-  Semitism, and greater power for the U.N. i t was found that there was no relation between liberalism-conservatism and either education or information levels.  On only two questions (one on women and one on freedom of  the press) was there any 'expected' difference on even the information l e v e l variable. Lipset's broad conclusion hardly seems supported by the data reported. Lipset's study was critiqued here at length because i t has been most often i n turn been cited as the empirical grounding for doubts about the effects on democracy attendant to a r i s e i n the participation of the r e l a t i v e l y less advantaged. Other studies commonly referred to i n this regard include that by Stouffer, and those done later by Prothro and 28 Lipset, P o l i t i c a l 'Man, p. 92 29  G.H. Smith, "Liberalism and Level of Information," Journal of Educational Psychology, 39 (1948), pp. 65-82; and "The Relation of 'Enlightenment' to Liberal-Conservative Opinions," Journal of Social Psychology, 28 (1948), pp. 3-17.  62  Grigg  , by McClosky  and the several major U.S. presidential years  32 voting studies.  In the following section of this chapter, we w i l l  discuss their and some other major findings on participation, i n a l l cases both with regard to quantitative and qualitative strata differentials i n participation.  In some cases, we w i l l offer comments on the generaliza-  b i l i t y of those findings.  Ill  The f i r s t of the studies to be considered b r i e f l y here i s that by Samuel Stouffer mentioned above i n our discussion of Lipset.  Stouffer's  study i s a careful and i n t e l l i g e n t l y conceived piece of research.  The  research was conducted i n the summer of 1954 i n the hope of providing some information for those "responsible citizens" who were taking a "sober second look" at McCarthyism and the Communist threat.  As Stouffer put  James W. Prothro and Charles M. Grigg, "Fundamental Principles of Democracy: Bases for Agreement and Disagreement," Journal of P o l i t i c s , 22 (May, 1960) pp. 276-94; reprinted i n Charles F. Cnudde and Deane E. Neubauer, Empirical Democratic Theory (Chicago: Markham Publishing Company, 1969) pp. 236-51. 31 Herbert McClosky, "Consensus and Ideology i n American P o l i t i c s , " American P o l i t i c a l Science Review, 58 (June, 1964), pp. 361-82; also reprinted i n Cnudde and Neubauer, pp. 268-302. Also relevant i s Herbert McClosky, Paul J. Hoffman and Rosemary O'Hara, "Issue Conflict and Consensus Among Party Leaders and Followers," American P o l i t i c a l Science Review, 54 (June, 1960), pp. 406-427. 32 Particularly Bernard R. Berelson, Paul F. Lazarsfeld and William N. McPhee, Voting (University of Chicago Press, 1954) and Angus Campbell, P h i l i p E. Converse, Warren E. M i l l e r and Donald E. Stokes The American Voter, (New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1960).  63  i t i n his f i r s t chapter: "...so today do some alarmed citizens f e e l that the country cannot r i s k the luxury of f u l l c i v i l l i b e r t i e s for nonconformists. But there are others who disagree. They are convinced that our protection from Communist espionage and sabotage can be safely entrusted to the F.B.I, and other branches of• an a l e r t government, and that the diminishing risks of conversion of other Americans to Communism can be met by an a l e r t public opinion." (p. 14) Lest such words seem shocking to the reader, and they might well have been at the time —  the whole work was quite bold i n i t s assumption that  tolerance was a good thing, Stouffer f e l t constrained to add  immediately  that: "the stark fact remains that for unknown years the free Western world must l i v e under a menacing shadow. Vigilance cannot be relaxed against either p e r i l from without or varieties of p e r i l s from.within." I think an appreciation of the times —  the fieldwork was done while the  Army-McCarthy hearings were being conducted —  i s necessary to appreciate  that any of the findings of this or any other such study should hardly be taken prima facie as immutable.  The tone of the comments, and Stouffer  himself can be presumed to be a r e l a t i v e l y enlightened "community leader," would hardly be appropriate today —  their tone i s unmistakably  paranoid,  time has shown the F.B.I, more inclined to and adept at domestic espionage than has been the "menacing shadow." These comments do not i n any way devalue Stouffer's findings, they merely place the whole study i n an h i s t o r i c context.  The study u t i l i z e d  a large national random sample and a somewhat smaller and quite carefully derived selected sample of "community leaders" i n middle-sized American cities.  The community leaders were composed of mayors, school board  64  presidents, library board presidents, Republican and Democratic County Chairmen, labour union and Chamber of Commerce presidents, newspaper editors, and leaders of specified s o c i a l , p a t r i o t i c and c i v i c organizations.  Newspaper editors were the editors of the largest paper i f there  was more than one paper and so forth, thus assuming a prestigious group to be compared against the population at large.  The findings indicated  a considerable difference i n level of tolerance between the "leaders" and the "general public".  The extent of the difference i s most apparent  i n the differences i n scores on the "scale of willingness to tolerate nonconformists."  The average number of "Community Leaders" " r e l a t i v e l y  more tolerant" on the scale was 66%; the average of the population crosssection for the same c i t i e s 32%.  The bulk of the cross-section (50% of  the total) f e l l into the category of " i n between" r e l a t i v e l y tolerant and r e l a t i v e l y intolerant.  When one examines the details of Stouffer's  Guttman Scale construction contained i n the appendix, i t becomes apparent that one of the two questions depending on religious tolerance must be answered ' l i b e r a l l y ' i n order'for the respondent to be placed i n 33 the " r e l a t i v e l y more tolerant"  category.  - This i s especially  To "qualify" for the " r e l a t i v e l y more tolerant" category, a respondent must be i n either rank group 5 or rank group 4; to qualify for rank group four, the respondent must give the tolerant response to 2 out of 3 of the following: "Should an admitted Communist be put i n j a i l , or not?" "There are always some people whose ideas are considered bad or dangerous by other people. For instance, somebody who i s against a l l churches and religion. "If such a person wanted to make a speech i n your c i t y (town, community) against churches and r e l i g i o n , should he be allowed to speak, or not?" and l a s t l y , "If some people i n your community suggested that a book he wrote against churches and r e l i g i o n should be taken out of your public l i b r a r y , would you favor removing this book or not?" (pp. 263-4) (continued on following page)  65  unfortunate as no control for r e l i g i o n was u t i l i z e d .  (Recall the comments  of M i l l e r and Reissman discussed above*) The one religious question for which data was produced separately showed the sharpest difference between "leader" response and "cross-section" response (of the four questions detailed i n this way).  Also indicative i s the considerable differences  found between "church-goers" and "non-church-goers" (pp. 140-152). This does not refute that there i s a considerable leader-citizen relative difference on this scale i t merely indicates that there are at least two reasons for not taking the degree of difference to be anything l i k e "66"-"32." The combining of categories i s quite arbitrary and i t would make j u s t as much sense to combine rank groups 0, 1 and 2 on the one hand and groups 3, 4 and 5 on the other.  (This would, as well,lessen  the weighting of the "religious" factor as i t i s between groups 3 and 4 that respondents are divided by this particular factor.)  Or, one could  look at a combined category of those " r e l a t i v e l y moderately or highly tolerant" (rank groups 2, 3, 4, 5) and the numerical balance i s then: "leaders"  95%  "cross-section"  82%  Such a grouping makes no more or less sense than any other.  Again, however,  this does not dispel the fact that the responses d i f f e r , but i t certainly modifies the sorts of generalizations that might be made therefrom. However, a further consideration i s also worth mentioning here with regard  25 (continued from previous page) The Guttman Scale had a coefficient of reproduceability of .96. Figures are then presented i n most of thejbook grouped into three categories "more tolerant","in-between" and "less tolerant." The r e l i gious question might have been the dividing l i n e for the more Catholic lower status and educational categories.  66 to the degree of differences between the "leaders" and the national cross-section.  There i s , I think, one weakness i n the handling of the  two separate samples.  In Stouffer's words:  "The leaders...were not told that they were chosen as representative of a particular group, but rather that they were chosen simply as "prominent members of the community." In this way, i t was hoped their responses would come i n terms of their individual opinions rather than the " o f f i c i a l l i n e " of their particular group — labor, business, Republican... or whatever." (p. 246) People called on as "prominent members of the community" would, i t would seem,be more l i k e l y (than i f they had been otherwise addressed) to be inclined to answer as they would think the "community" would have i t rather than as they themselves candidly f e l t . I t might well be the case that "leaders" are more inclined than ordinary citizens to speak as they think others would want to hear^.them even i f they were not reminded of their "respectability." F i n a l l y , we come to the finding i n the Stouffer study which bears on the kind of meanings which Milbrath, Lipset and others have read into the whole study. The overwhelming bulk of the data presented relate to the "leader" vs. "cross-section" dichotomy which i n i t s e l f says very l i t t l e about whole-strata or any kind of class categories (the "leaders" are a very particular sub-group). The relevant finding i s a breakdown by education of the national cross-sectional sample (I have inserted a t o t a l of the "tolerant" extreme and the "in-between" positions):  67  Less Tolerant In-Between More Tolerant Combination 2 & 3 College Graduates  5  29  65  95  Some College  9  38  53  91  H.S. Graduates  12  46  42  85  Some High School  17  54  29  81  Grade School  22  62  16  78  This finding should not be minimized; there was i n mid-1950s America a significant difference by education with regard to measurable attitudes of willingness to tolerate certain kinds of non-conformity. There was, however., a far less sharp strata difference on  another,  This was the scale scores of the national cross-section on the perceptions of an internal communist threat.  The highest percentage "seeing a r e l -  atively great threat" was as follows: Grade Some H.S. School H.S. Graduate  Some College College Graduate  More Interested in.Issues See Relatively Great Threat  37  40  40  35  28  In-Between  47  42  45  46  46  See Relatively L i t t l e Threat  16  18  15  19  26  N =  792  576  758  319  308  Less Interested i n Issues  •  -  See Relatively Great Threat  19  26  22  28  22  In-Between  62  56  54  47  47  See Relatively L i t t l e Threat  19  18  24  25  31  1050  446  440  141  68  N =  68  I t i s unfortunate  that the data were not broken down by  measures of s o c i a l s t r a t a . i n d i c a t i o n of occupational  There i s one, but only very  other  indirect,  (or class) breakdown i n the study.  That i s  i n the attitudes of l o c a l labor union leaders on the 'tolerance s c a l e ' and on four of the p a r t i c u l a r questions within that scale.  On  the  tolerance scale the union leaders scored "62%", the average of commun i t y leaders "66%".  One  of the larger differences was  tolerance question; on tolerance of suspected difference.  on the r e l i g i o u s  communists  there was  The labour leaders were not i n this case (see p.  no  245)  distant and perhaps bureaucratic labor "executives," but elected l o c a l leaders whose attitudes should not too often be d r a s t i c a l l y d i f f e r e n t from those of their rank-and-file members. may  Labor union members, then,  have been more tolerant than non-members, not l e s s .  This i s , of  course, highly speculative, but does i n d i c a t e that Stouffer's study s i n g l y i s not conclusive evidence of 'working-class  authoritarianism.'  In  sum,  Stouffer's study does contain some evidence of the p o t e n t i a l for s t r a t a based differences i n the " q u a l i t y " of p a r t i c i p a t i o n , i t ' s r e s u l t s are not so clear-cut i n this regard as they are generally taken to be.  Evidence  on the other side of the scale of this question then weighs r e l a t i v e l y heavier than i t has for Lipset and  others.  There are several other important studies bearing on the p o t e n t i a l for "qualitative" p a r t i c i p a t i o n that should be b r i e f l y considered here. The f i r s t i s the well-known study by Prothro and Grigg, who wider range of questions  than did Stouffer and who  by income (and a v a r i e t y of other v a r i a b l e s ) .  consider a  did break down response  They considered  ten s p e c i f i c s  69  of democratic principle characterized as:  "only informed vote, only  taxpayers vote, bar Negro from o f f i c e , bar Communist from o f f i c e , AMA right to block voting, allow anti-religious speech, allow s o c i a l i s t speech, allow communist speech, bar Negro from candidacy, and bar Communist from candidacy,"  (p. 243, Cnudde and Neubauer).  The difference by education  was considerable, the difference by income was far less sharp with the largest gap on the religious question (with no d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n made with regard to religious background).  The average difference for the nine  questions (excluding that on free religious speech) was 7%. The overall response (Prothro and Grigg were primarily concerned with the absence of consensus) indicated no strong overall conformity to specific democratic norms. This contas ted with an almost univeral agreement on more general democratic norms, for example, the right to free speech. A l l groups supported the general.statements.  Prothro and Grigg's conclusion most relevant to our  concern here i s the following: "Education, but not community (Ann Arbor or T a l l a hasee) or income, held up consistently as a basis of disagreement when other factors were controlled. We accordingly conclude that endorsement of democ r a t i c principles i s not a function of class as much (of which income i s also a c r i t e r i o n ) , but of greater acquaintance with the l o g i c a l implications of the broad democratic principles." (p. 248) Again i t seems i t i s not appropriate to take this study as hard evidence of anything approaching a hypothetical working-class authoritarianism. The most supportive possible interpretation for those who wish to demonstrate the "undemocraticness" of the less advantaged i s as follows: persons of lower income levels i n certain locales i n the United States, without controlling for r e l i g i o n which might w e l l make a difference,  70  tended i n the 1950s to show a somewhat (from -1% to 20% only i n the case of religious speech averaging 8.5%)  greater likelihood of showing i n a  readily measurable way, attitudes which can be characterized as less democratic.  Further, i f this difference were controlled for difference  i n education, i t would presumably decline further i n significance. Another of the careful, effective, and often cited studies of this 34 nature i s that by Herbert McClosky.  McClosky's central concern i s  similar to that of Prothro and Grigg; he i s interested primarily i n the degree of consensus on the various aspects of democratic ideology between a group identified as the " p o l i t i c a l i n f l u e n t i a l s " and the general public. His findings are not applicable, at least not without great caution, to more generalized or other s o c i a l divisions. As he puts i t at the outset of his a r t i c l e : "I mean them ( " p o l i t i c a l i n f l u e n t i a l s " and other terms of similar meaning) to refer to those people who occupy themselves with public a f f a i r s to an unusual degree, such as government o f f i c i a l s , elected o f f i c e holders, active party members, p u b l i c i s t s , officers of voluntary associations, and opinion leaders. The terms do not apply to any definable s o c i a l class or the usual sense, nor to a particular status group or profession...."Articulates" or " i n f l u e n t i a l s " can be found scattered throughout the society, at a l l i n come levels, i n a l l classes, occupations, ethnic groups, and communities, although some segments of the population w i l l doubtless y i e l d a higher porportion of them than others." (p. 363) Some of the basic findings include the following: "On 'totalitarianism,' a scale measuring the readiness to subordinate the rights of others to the pursuit of  Page references are to American P o l i t i c a l Science Review a r t i c l e of 1964, op. c i t .  71  some collective p o l i t i c a l purpose, only 9.7 per cent of the p o l i t i c a l actives score high compared with 33.8 per cent of the general population." (p. 364) "On a scale of willingness to flout the rules of poli t i c a l integrity, the proportions are 12.2 per cent and 30.6 per cent respectively." (p. 364) However, on "responses to items expressing support for a series of general statements of free speech and opinion, there i s not a great discernable difference (as i s the case for Prothro and Grigg with regard to general assertions.) For example:  "I believe i n free  speech for a l l no matter what their views might be": 86.9%; general electorate 88.9%.  influentials  (p. 366) On some more specific  applications of free speech and fundamental rights differences emerged, but on others there were none, e.g., "no matter what crime a person i s accused of, he should never be convicted unless he has been given the right to face and question  his accusers:  i n f l u e n t i a l s , 90.1%; gen-  eral electorate, 88.1%. Particularly interesting are the findings on "social and ethnic equality" questions which showed no difference on three questions and only a small difference on two and on "economic equality" which showed the general electorate considerably more "democratic" than the i n f l u entials.  Probably most interesting when considered i n the l i g h t of our  rather than McClosky's concerns are the following (grouped by McClosky under the heading of "expressions of p o l i t i c a l cynicism") (p. 371): Political Influentials Both major parties i n this country are controlled by the wealthy and are run for their benefit  7.9  General Electorate  32.1  Political Influentials  General Electorate  77.1  58.9  The laws of this country are supposed to benefit a l l of us equally, but the fact i s that they're almost a l l " r i c h man's laws"  8.4  33.3  A poor man doesn't have the chance he deserves i n the law courts  20.3  42.9  Item Most p o l i t i c i a n s can be trusted to do what they think i s best for the country  One can very easily interpret a l l of these responses as indicating that, i n one sense at least the general electorate i s more "democratic" than are the i n f l u e n t i a l s .  That i s , there seems to be a healthy distrust of  authority expressed and a general streak of egalitarianism and i n c l i n a tion to due process. What could be of clearer benefit to democracy than an apparent doubt that i t s present actuality i s not l i v i n g up to i t s democratic p o t e n t i a l i t i e s ? kinds of questions —  I t would be most interesting to try these  and a variety of variations on them —> i n a sample  to be s t r a t i f i e d by occupation and/or income. Perhaps a scale of "democratic cynicism" could be developed. Even, perhaps, more intriguing i s the following response which e l i c i t e d the widest d i f f e r e n t i a l i n the study: Item (grouped under ' p o l i t i c a l f u t i l i t y ' )  Influentials  Electorate  Nothing I ever do seems to have any effect upon what happens i n p o l i t i c s  8.4  61.5  Needless to say " p o l i t i c a l i n f l u e n t i a l s " could hardly respond otherwise, nor l i k e l y could a r e a l i s t i c general public.  I t would be interesting to  see how this question fared i n an income or occupational breakdown and i t would be useful to attempt to develop the l i n e of question further. For example, attempt to discuss levels of desire for greater influence, levels of belief that "people l i k e oneself should have more p o l i t i c a l  73  effect," and relative levels of belief i n equality of influence. I am convinced that the range "democratic" attitudes has not been f u l l y explored and that questions pursued to date have had a tendency to get responses which skew "against" the less advantaged.  Further I suspect  (and w i l l present some indications i n the next chapter) that questionphrasing carries a good deal more weight than i s often considered to be the case. I have, to this point, looked b r i e f l y at some of the most central of the studies of d i f f e r e n t i a l s i n "qualitative" participation and, v i a several of the best secondary analyses, at some of the basic data on d i f f e r e n t i a l s i n quantitative participation.  I would l i k e to turn now  to look c r i t i c a l l y at three generally excellent works which within their broad research and analysis present findings and come to conclusions which encompass i n single works both aspects of participation.  As  e a r l i e r , I have chosen these works as they seem to be representative of the d i s c i p l i n e , have been widely referred to, and are s t i l l widely accepted i n many regards. The f i r s t work to be b r i e f l y considered here i s Voting by Berelson, Lazarsfeld and McPhee. Its methodology and locus, repeated-interview "panel" study of 1000 Elmira, New York citizens i n the 1948 U.S. Presi d e n t i a l elections, are too well-known to need any elaboration. What I primarily want to do here i s to itemize and comment on some of the most relevant findings and then look at the speculative conclusions which Berelson comes to i n his well-known f i n a l chapter. evant findings are as follows:  The selected r e l -  74  26% of Republican voters interviewed and 32% of Democratic voters interviewed f e l t that "Jews are generally dishonest i n business dealings;" while 43% of the Republicans and 31% of the Democrats believed that "Negroes are generally lazy and ignorant."  (p. 190)  "Not only do many of the so-called i s o l a t i o n i s t and hypernationali s t attitudes form a common cluster with some i l l i b e r a l c i v i l rights opinions, but both sets of attitudes rest partly on certain persona l i t y characteristics rather than on p o l i t i c a l considerations as such.  For example, people who f e e l that they "have to struggle  for everything i n l i f e " are more l i k e l y than their counterparts to be anti-Semitic (37 to 23 %) or anti-foreign-born (42 to 25%). Thus i t may be that opinions on such style issues are i n good part expressive or symbolic of matters of personal temperament and private experience having l i t t l e or nothing to do with the r e a l i t i e s of the issues..."issues of frustration"...attract opposition from, among others, frustrated personalities found i n a l l parts of the population."  (p. 191)  A neuroticism index ("admittedly a crude and inadequate measure of 'neuroticism'" p. 373, appendix B) was constructed from one fourpart question with each part scoring equally:  agreement with the  following i s taken as the measure of neuroticism: I have to struggle for everything I get i n l i f e . Prison i s too good for sex criminals; they should be publicly whipped. A l o t of people around here ought to be put i n their place. I often find myself worrying about the future. Most people were found to be at least a l i t t l e neurotic.  75  (4)  "The 'joiners' the better-educated, the better-off, the men,  the less  troubled (as measured by neuroticism index) — these are the people who pay most attention to the p o l i t i c a l campaign as presented through newspaper, magazines, and radio." (5)  (p. 241)  "Less than half the voters agreed with their own party's position on major Position issues l i k e Taft-Hartley and price control."  (6)  "Party preference does not particularly affect the voter's perception of where the candidates stand on the issues."  (7)  (p. 233)  "Partisans tend to perceive the candidates stand on the issues as favorable to their own stand."  (8)  (p. 213)  (p. 233, seems to contradict (6))  "Only about one-third of the voters are highly accurate i n their perception of where the candidates stand on the issues" and "accuracy of perception i s affected by communication exposure, education,interest and cross-pressures...."  (9)  (p. 233)  Consistent and concentrated media exposure was found to be con-^ ditioned by...membership i n community organization, education, class, sex, and (crudely) freedom from personality disorders.  (p, 241)  What might reasonably be concluded from these findings (given a proper appreciation of methods underlying them)?. Is i t that a l o t of people