Reviews: The Study of Government: Political Science and Public Administration, The Psychology of Politics, The Politics of Communication: A Study in the Political Sociology of Language, Socialization and Legitimation, The Structure of Social Science: A Philosophical Introduction, Political Learning, Political Choice and Democratic Citizenship, The Political Character of Adolescence: The Influence of Families and Schools, Mathematical Approaches to Politics, Funktionsanalyse Und Politische Theorie, The Collected Works of Walter Bagehot. Vols. V–VIII the Political Essays, The Conservative Nation, The House of Commons: Services and Facilities, Marketing Boards and Ministers: A Study of Agricultural Marketing Boards as Political and Administrative Instruments, Studies in Social Science and Planning, Politics by Pressure, The Problem of Party Government, Modern Social Politics in Britain and Sweden: From Relief to Income Maintenance, Comparative Revolutionary Movements, Mass Political Violence: A Cross-National Ca
| Author | J. P. Barber,U. Semin-Panzer,W. J. Rees,A. Lyttleton,Leonard Tivey,Shawn W. Rosenberg,B. G. Stacey,David Miller,V. C. Funnell,C. J. Hughes,H. M. A. Schadee,H. J. Eysenck,F. Castles,R. M. Punnett,David Howell,I. C. Wheare,Ian Bellany,D. K. Adams,A. P. Brier,W. H. Greenleaf,R. V. Sampson,Bhikhu Parekh,W. H. Morris-Jones,Kenneth Medhurst,Roy E. Jones,Oey Hong Lee,K. R. Minogue,Alan Ryan,Geoffrey Pridham,Dennis Kavanagh,R. G. S. Brown,A. L. Reid,N. T. Boaden |
| DOI | 10.1111/j.1467-9248.1975.tb00088.x |
| Published date | 01 December 1975 |
| Date | 01 December 1975 |
| Subject Matter | Reviews |
REVIEWS
THE STUDY
OF
GOVERNMENT:
POLITICAL
SCIENCE AND
PUBLIC
ADMINISTRATION.
By
F.
F.
RIDLEY.
(George
Allen
and
Unwin.
Pp.
236. f6.50;
paper
E3.35.)
Here is an academic checking his intellectual toolbox, reviewing his work over the last decade,
and defending his approach to his professed subject. The advocacy is explicit: in the study of
government and administration ‘the
focus
.
. .
should
be
institutional, the method comparative,
the purpose practical’. Professor Ridley confesses his own ‘impatience with the fact that as
political science grew more scientific,
so
it often
became
divorced from real politics and lost its
political purpose’. In support of his argument for returning to a more traditional approach, he
offers a collage of material that has already appeared in various journals, as well as some that is
new.
The focus (he claims) should
be
institutional because institutions, rather than political
or
administrative behaviour, are the characteristic means through which a polity gives tangible
expression to its political theories and values. Moreover, political reform usually has to start with
formal changes
in
laws and institutions. Political scientists do of course look at other things-
voting behaviour, political cultures, policy analysis- but students of government ignore institu-
tions at peril of losing their academic identity and becoming second-rate sociologists
or
worse.
The method should be comparative, because there is not much practical value in looking at
one pattern of institutions without at least being aware of alternatives. But this does not neces-
sarily mean constructing grand theories
of
comparative administration, which are of little use to
the practical reformist. The emphasis
on
utility is the key here. Even simple descriptions of other
people’s institutions can at least suggest ideas, while middle-range theories about why
X
seems
to work better than
Y
in specified conditions offer a useful starting point for reform. Conse-
quently,
Professor
Ridley favours comparison with societies broadly similar to
our
own, parti-
cularly with Western
Europe.
If the study of government should
be
focused on formal institutions, the study of public ad-
ministration, which is the subject of the second part
of
the book, should be firmly grounded in
traditional political science,
unless
it too is to lose its identity as a discipline with a defined field
of study. A distinction, however, is drawn between public administration as a discipline and the
range of subjects that would have to be taught in a professional course for public administrators,
or
in policy science
or
public affairs. There is the place for economists, management and organiza-
tional theorists and specialists in particular areas of public policy, but all in the context of political
and legal institutions.
Underlying the whole book is a conviction about the service role of universities. The place for
political studies as a liberal arts subject is not denied; nor does Professor Ridley dismiss those
who strive after purer methodologies,
or
grand theory
for
theory’s sake, although he is acid about
their achievements
to
date. But, he argues, we cannot afford to finance either of these
on
a
large
scale. Society is entitled to expect most
of
the political scientists (including public administra-
tionists) whom it supports to contribute something useful, be it in professional training, providing
intellectual foundations for institutional reform,
or
promoting public knowledge
of
civics. His
own suggestion is, expectedly, practical and institutional; the encouragement of middle range
theory and teaching
in
public affairs by establishing a few centres
of
excellence.
For
its purpose the book is a shade long. The best bits, and the most relevant to the argument,
are either new
or
recent. Some reprinted material on France and Germany is unnecessarily de-
tailed for the point
it
makes about the value of simple comparative studies. Tangentiality is an
obvious risk when previously published work is used
so
much for illustration. Another is repeti-
tion: a reader who can just
see
the reasons for discussing the French prefectorial reforms twice
in the first half
of
the book is likely
to
lose patience when he meets the history of American public
REVIEWS
51
5
administration for the third time in the last hundred pages. There is a short index, but no biblio-
graphy or references (for which the reader will have to look up the original articles).
There are plenty who will dismiss Professor Ridley’s philosophy as old-fashioned and
unscientific. But,
unless
the arguments for
a
personal viewpoint are myopic or inconsistent, the
reader can only agree or disagree, neither being an appropriate stance for a reviewer. Professor
Ridley’s defence of traditional approaches to his subject will give heart to many academics who
have begun to wonder
if
they should not be ashamed of their pragmatism. His message for ‘the
practitioner and the citizen’, for whom the book
is
also intended, is less immediate.
University
of
Hull
R.
G.
S.
BROWN
THE PSYCHOLOGY
OF
POLITICS.
By
W.
F.
STONE.
(Collier-Mucmillun.
Pp.
291.
S5.50.)
People who work in the general field of politics, be they active politicians, psephologists philoso-
phers of social thought, sociologists, or political scientists, seldom pay much attention to what
psychologists have been doing, or are doing, in this particular bailiwick. This
is
a pity; whatever
politics may be about, it is surely about people-their wants and needs, their votes, their attitudes,
their reactions. And it is an error (although a widespread one) that you can seriously discuss the
behaviour of peoplein themass
wi
thout payingattention to psychological
causes
in the individual.
Economists, to take but one example, make up human nature to suit their simplistic purposes;
economic man does not behave as any living man ever did or could behave, and predictions
based on economic man are doomed to failure-and outside metereology few scientific disciplines
have managed such a unique record of predictive failure as economics. The rational man of the
philosophers of the enlightenment served a similar purpose, and give rise
to
similarly erroneous
notions. Psychologists do not claim to be perfect; they
know
full well how little is in fact known
about such things as the development of attitudes,
or
the determination of voting behaviour.
But they do deal with human beings as they are, not as they might be, or ought to be, and what
they have to say about politics, therefore, may be worth listening to. Some of their findings may
indeed reinforce the impression often given that they merely state in incomprehensible language
what most people know anyway from their experience, but that is not always or necessarily
so.
Recent work on the genetics
of
social attitudes has shown, for instance, that Gilbert and Sullivan
were right when they wrote that ‘every boy and every girl that’s born into this world alive, is either
a little Liberal, or else
a
little Conservative’. There is a strong genetic component in peoples’
social attitudes, predisposing them not only towards the conservatives or radical side, but also
determining their tough-or tender-minded-expression of these major attitudes. This most
social scientists would not have regarded as likely,
or
even common-sensical!
Stone’s book, borrowing its title from one
of
mine written twenty years ago, gives a free ride
over some at least of the country cultivated by psychologists. He explicitly sets out
to
write in
language that is understandable and non-technical, and on the whole he has succeeded; non-
psychologists will not find the book difficult to understand. Unfortunately the ground he covers
(as is often true with American psychologists) is almost exclusively American; there is practically
no mention of work done anywhere but in the U.S.A.
No
doubt he would say (in injured tones)
that no work
done
outside the U.S.A. was worth mentioning, but this
is
not true; academic
jingoism is no more attractive than jingoism in any other form, and a broader treatment would
have been welcome.
What does Stone deal with? He is concerned a good deal with social attitudes, the way they
originate, the way they are learned, the way they influence voting behaviour and other kinds of
political expression. He deals with personality, in
so
far as that in turn influences attitudes and
political expression. He discusses the famous research on the ‘Authoritarian Personality’, but
typically he does not mention that the theoretical basis for all this American work was in fact laid
516
REVIEWS
by E. R. Jaensch in his famous book
Der
Gegentypus.
There is a chapter on ‘Machiavellism’, a
new and interesting typology rather reminiscent of tough-mindedness. Political action
is
also dis-
cussed, in terms of participation, leadership, the changing of political attitudes, and political
choice.
Is this a good book? It is rather like the curate’s egg-good in parts. Readers who come new
to
this
field
will
benefit from reading it, and will 6nd it quite attractive. Readers who know
the field well will find that on many points the discussion is selective, and the conclusions drawn
out of line with studies not mentioned. Probably the good outweighs the bad; offhand
I
cannot
think
of
any other book that undertakes to do what this one has undertaken to do, and as the task
was worth doing, and was done reasonably well, one ought perhaps to be grateful for the final
product. It is only when one considers how much better it could have been done that one feels
rather more chary of praising the book.
On
the whole, then, two and a half cheers may perhaps
be
the reaction of social psychologists. This may be rather a heavy-handed reaction to
a
rather more
light-hearted book. Perhaps more psychologists will now get on with the job of persuading out-
siders that what they are doing is worth while, interesting, and of relevance to anyone interested
in
politics. This book will certainly stimulate the appetite; that is not an unworthy occupation.
H.
J.
EYSENCK
THE POLITICS
OF
COMMUNICATION:
A
STUDY IN
THE
POLITICAL
SOCIOLOGY
OF
LANGUAGE, SOCIALIZATION
AND LEGITIMATION.
By
C.
MUELLER.
(New
York:
Oxford University
Press.
Pp.
226.
f4.60.)
This book is about the basis of the legitimacy of the political order in advanced capitalist nations,
particularly the
U.S.A.
Its author is critical of functionalist and Marxist theorizing, with the
notable exception of Marx and Engels analysis of language
as
practical consciousness. He asserts
that capitalist nations are economically stable because they satisfy the material needs of their
people, they promote ‘consumerism and affluence’ among the greater proportion of these people,
and they can control economic development while sustaining economic growth. The government
and dominant
groupsinsuchnationsobtain
themassloyaltyofmembersofthemanualandwhite-
collar working class, and of the technocratic sections of the middle class, by the promise of even
more affluence and leisure and, secondarily,
of
even more governmental provision of welfare,
educational and other services. He admits that if the government and economy fail to deliver
these enticing
goods,
this situation could change, with the conservative passive multitudes pos-
sibly becoming more politicized.
Mueller claims that parliamentary institutions have exhausted their functions. Elected mem-
bers of such bodies can be expected to continue supporting executive decisions by nod
or
acclamation. Further, traditional political ideologies are no longer plausible. Potential political
instability, he argues, resides in values and beliefs not in the economic base; potential zones of
conflict are to be found among the educated non-technocratic sections of society whose loyalties
to the capitalist system are breaking down, and not among the lower classes.
For
Mueller, the
key issue facing government and dominant groups alike is the management
of
the crisis in values
and beliefs or, put another way, theeffective political socialization and conditioning of all social
strata.
As
there is no effective ideological justification of political authority
or
the capitalist
social order in sight, information and communication must
be
manipulated from the top in the
public interest (which is defined by the most articulate and best financed groups in society).
Rather than being an isolated scandal, Watergate is symptomatic of what is really happening in
all capitalist nations.
For
Mueller, language and socialization have a decisive bearing on the political values
of
an
individual or
group.
He accepts as authoritative Basil Bernstein’s interpretation
of
language and
To continue reading
Request your trial