POLS 373 Foundations of Comparative Politics Lecture: Introduction to Theory in Comparative Politics Lecture Date: October 17, 2006

POLS 373 Foundations of Comparative Politics

Lecture: Introduction to Theory in Comparative Politics

Lecture Date: October 17, 2006

2

Introduction to Theory in Comparative Politics

Theory plays an absolutely essential role in the social sciences, although it’s not always clear--especially to students-- what this role is.

3


To start off our discussion of theory, we will begin with an exercise. Consider the following statements (arguments) about violent crime …

4


Argument No. 1. A major source of violent crime lies in predictable human behavior. In places where the risks of getting caught are minimal—where, for example, the police presence is limited and ineffective—and where the potential rewards are high, individuals are likely to commit more crimes in general. This is especially true in poorer communities, where people may have limited access to jobs, education and skills training.

Violent crime specifically is more likely (1) when the use of violence is a particularly efficient and/or necessary “tool,” and (2) where the use of violence to achieve one’s ends entails relatively limited risk compared to the alternatives.

All of this is clearly demonstrated in the United States, where violent crime is disproportionately concentrated in the inner cities. In the inner cities, law enforcement is relatively weak and ineffectual, poverty is high, and the use of violence is not only necessary given the general availability of firearms, but also relatively free of risk.

5


Argument No. 2. Capitalism causes violence--the violence of one individual to against another. Not directly, but through a unrelenting process that divides societies into the “haves” and “have-nots,” and that glorifies competition and efficiency, while reducing individuals to abstractions—to anonymous buyers and sellers whose claims on each other are determined solely by their capacity to pay.

In this way, capitalism alienates people from each other, their families, and their communities, thus setting the stage for anti-social, increasingly violent behavior among ordinary people, against ordinary people.

Violence is a response to the “soulessness” and hopelessness engendered by an inherently exploitative economic system.

Of course, violence is not unique to capitalism, nor are all capitalist societies equally violent. Where the most destructive, alienating, and exploitative aspects of the capitalist process are mitigated, intra-societal violence is lessened. But where the forces of capitalism are unleashed and where vast segments of society are left unprotected, violence thrives.

6


Argument No. 3. People and societies are responsible for their own actions and decisions, but they do not exist or act in a social vacuum. Their behavior, in other words, is partly determined by the “environment” in which they live.

This environment, which we might call “culture,” may encourage certain practices and values that encourage criminally violent behavior among certain groups of people.

More specifically, in some places, a “culture of violence” has been created. In this “culture of violence,” members of the community learn to resolve problems and conflicts primarily through the use violence.

Violence, in other words, becomes a dominant and largely accepted norm within the community. Importantly, cultures of violence are partly a response to objective conditions, such as a lack of jobs or economic opportunities, pervasive institutional discrimination, and so on. Over time, however, these responses become deeply embedded within a community, taking on a life of their own. Thus, even if objective conditions change, the use of violence may not diminish.

7


Summary of Arguments

Argument #1: A major source of violent crime lies in predictable human behavior.

Argument #2: Capitalism causes violence.

Argument #3: Crime reflects a “culture of violence.”

8


Theory in Comparative Politics

Key points: Theories, approaches or “arguments” in the social

science differ in important ways. Some overlap, but similarities are “skin deep”:

differences are generally fundamental

9



Theoretical differences can be categorized in a number of ways. For example …

Argument No. 1 focuses on what some comparativists call micro-level factors

Argument No. 2 focuses on macro-level factors Argument No. 3 fits somewhere in the middle; appropriately,

therefore, we can say it concentrates on meso-level factors Note: meso-, as a prefix, simply means “in the middle”

10


Theory in Comparative Politics Another way to classify the statements is in terms

of the three theoretical traditions discussed in chapter three:

Argument #1: fits into rational choice framework.

Argument #2: fits into a structural approach.

Argument #3: fits into a cultural framework.

11



Which approach best reflects your current understanding of criminal violence? Are a rationalist, a structuralist, or a culturalist? Which “hat” do you already wear?

12



The importance of theory/theorizing should already be apparent, but in case it is not, a few more points …

13



One basic reason theory is important: Making sense of the world requires it

That is, unless we have some way to simplify an extremely complex and “messy” reality, we’re not likely to develop any coherent, much less accurate picture of “how the world works”

But why is this?

14



… in part, because there are millions and millions of potentially relevant “facts” out there in the world

Moreover, there are dozens of possible ways to interpret these facts

If we don’t have some way of making the task of selecting and interpreting facts easier, we’ll end up being intellectually paralyzed

15



This leads to one basic definition of theory:

A theory is some kind of simplifying device that allows you to decide which facts matter

and which do not.

16


Theory in Comparative Politics As a simplifying device, we can think of theory as a filter

(or a pair of sunglasses). This is a good starting point for understanding the nature of theory, but not quite enough.

17


Theory in Comparative Politics A better metaphor?

We might also think of theory as a photographic lens: Basic point: Different types of “lenses” provide

different ways to “see” reality

18


19


Facts and Theory

But, really, why can’t we just rely on the “facts” to tell us whether an explanation is right or wrong?

Why bother to “theorize” at all if the facts are all out there for all of us to see and understand on our own?

20


Facts and Theory Short answer: Knowing the “facts” tells us

little or nothing about the world. As one writer puts it, “a fact is like a sack,

it won’t stand up till you’ve put something in it.”

21


Facts and Theory If this were not the case—that is, if facts were

“spoke for themselves,” if just by finding them we knew everything we needed to know--there would be no need for theory

Understanding the world, in other words, could be achieved through the simple process of observation

22


Facts and Theory Unfortunately, facts don’t speak for

themselves, which is one reason why theory is so important.

To see this, let’s consider yet another example …

… the genocide in Rwanda

23


Rwandan Genocide: Here are some facts:

Approximately 800,000 people, mostly “ethnic” Tutsis were killed in the span of 100 days

The area occupied by Rwanda has rich volcanic soil, but is densely populated

Rwanda was a former colony of Germany and a protectorate of Belgium

Violence between the Tutsi and Hutu had occurred in the past

Rwanda politics, since independence in 1959, had been largely dominated by small groups of elite

24


The Rwandan Genocide--some more facts:

Most of the killings occurred in villages or towns, and many of the killers were “ordinary people”

The massacre was precipitated by the assassination of the Rwandan President (the airplane he was flying in was shot down)

During the colonial period, the Tutsi dominated the government even though there were the minority group in Rwanda

The concepts of “Hutu” and “Tutsi” are not strictly ethnic, but socioeconomic as well

25


The Rwanda Genocide--Some Questions:

Which facts explain the Rwanda Genocide? Which are central to an explanation? Which are largely irrelevant?

How do we know what facts to focus on in the first place?

26


Facts and Theory

Repeating Key Point:

There is no way to know which facts are relevant or not without some prior sense of ordering, selecting, and interpreting.

Facts, to put it simply, only tell us that something happened, but they don’t tell us why it happened.

By themselves, facts don’t provide an explanation or understanding of the event

27


Facts and Theory

Still, in practice, most people don’t recognize--or care about--the distinction between facts and theory. Instead, most simply assume that the facts they select “tell the story”

Despite what people “practice” or what they think, theory always matters: People theorize whenever they puts facts together to explain an event or process

28


Facts and Theory

Yet, just because we all theorize does not mean we are equally adept at it. Some of us, for example:

theorize in an extremely superficial or arbitrary manner. jump to conclusions ignore or dismiss “facts” that don’t fit into or don’t jive with our

understanding of the world fail to see or acknowledge logical contradictions in our thinking confuse “observation” or correlation with causation never (ever) think about the assumptions upon which our views are based worst of all, regard our theories or theorizing about the world as self-

evidently true (meaning we don’t need to “prove” or support them with empirical evidence or logic)

29


Facts and Theory

So how can bad theorizing be avoided?

A crucial first step toward “good theorizing” is simply to become much more aware and self-critical of how you think about the world

Think carefully about what informs your views—why you think the way you do in the first place

Do not presume that your views are correct, much less unassailable Instead, assume that you always have something new to learn Similarly, listen carefully to what others have to say. If you disagree, try

to identify clearly the key weakness in the competing view (don’t just say it’s wrong)

30


An amended definition of theory

Theory is a simplified representation of reality and a framework within which facts are not only selected, but also interpreted, organized, and fit together so that they create a coherent whole

31


Embedded within our amended definition are the following key points: Theory necessarily simplifies reality, but is not separate from reality

(i.e., theory and reality may be mutually constitutive) Theory helps us to determine what facts are important, meaningful,

relevant. Theory guides our interpretation of the “facts” (What do the facts

“mean”?) Theory tells us how to organize the facts--how do different facts relate

to one another? Which are primary and which are secondary? Theory allows us to develop “whole” arguments, i.e., arguments that

stick together firmly from beginning to end.

Documents

POLS 373 Foundations of Comparative Politics Lecture: Introduction to Theory in Comparative Politics Lecture Date: October 17, 2006