A Critical Review of E.E.Schattschneider Contribution to the Literature of Political Science
A Critical Review of E.E.Schattschneider Contribution
to the Literature of Political Science
Thesis: The topic of Power has long been area of contestation among contributors in political science. Theories such as the ‘one face’ of power, the ‘agenda setting’, and ‘three dimensional view of power’ have been fronted. This paper will demonstrate the valuable contributions of E.E. Schattschneider and the critiques of his views by Robert Dahl and Steven Lukes as relates to the subject of political power.
Introduction
Political science is a social science discipline that concerns the study of governments or states, political policies and public policies, systems as well as political behavior. Many commentators have contributed to the literature of political science and its subfields such as political theory, political ideology, political philosophy, political economy, comparative politics, policy study & analysis, and international relations (Baumgartner et al, 2009, 21). Political scientists employ both scientific and humanistic perspectives and tools together with a host of methodological approaches in the examination of the process, systems, and political dynamics of all regions and countries across the world. Elmer Eric Schattschneider is one of the American political scientists who contributed significantly to the literature of political science (Esquith, 1996, 45).
Schattschneider’s contribution
In his article titled “Intensity, Visibility, Direction and scope.’ American Political Science Review Vol. 51, No.4 (Dec., 1957), 933-942”, Schattschneider tackles the subject of political strategy in details. The author is of the opinion that strategy is the driving force of politics (Taylor & House, 1984, 74). Schattschneider holds that all political strategies run on the assumption that there is something that can be done about politics, there are choices, and that people think about and do what makes difference. In addition, a political theory assumes that there something to be talked about and that what people think, say and do is bound to have ramifications (Schattschneider, 1957, 78).
According to Schattschneider’s concept of political strategy, politics is very important to people and it carries the suggestion that our world is not a safe place to live. As such, strategy stems from the point when people launch an offensive to the achievement of great ends (Renwick, 2010, 7).
Schattschneider perceives “politics” as a direct response to conflict. He sees politics as a means through which fights that arise over how best the community should be governed can be settled peacefully through reason and logic. He further believes that politics relies primarily on persuasion as opposed to power or awe (O’Halloran, 1994, 45). As such, the search for common ground allows disputing parties to agree freely to coexist peacefully, even if temporarily. In this respect, strategy entails application of intelligence so as to achieve great results.
Schattschneider believes that the fact there are varied interpretations of politics demonstrates that people have some degree of freedom (Schattschneider, 1957, 15). However, he insists that political scientists still have come with a uniform a theory of political action and organization or simply a theory of politics.
The assumption of political strategy is that the system is not static but dynamic. Schattschneider is of the opinion that the dynamics of politics originates from chaos or strife. Accordingly, political strategy delves in the exploitation, use as well as suppression of conflict. The author argues that the most significant strategy of politics concerns the scope of conflict. The results of any conflict can be determined by the degree of involvement of the audience, which is the scope (McBetg et al, 2007,56). The scope of a conflict is thus an element of the scale of political organization together with the extent of political competition. Political parties represent large-scale organizations while pressure groups constitute small-scale organizations, both which determine the outcome of the political game. Schattschneider explains that winning groups often strive to issue containment or restrict participation in a given policy issue through limitation of the scope of the conflict (Rosenof, 2003, 45). On the other hand, losing groups strive to broaden participation (issue expansion) in any given policy issue. This conclusion receives backing from a number of authors such as Cobb & Elder, 1983; Baumgartner, 1989; and Baumgartner & Jones 1993. A democratic society, according to Schattschneider, survives because of its ability to manage conflicts usually at their point of origin. He suggests that one of sure ways of stopping the emergence of conflict is to eliminate any breeding ground for it together with making sure no public agency with powers to do something about it is in place.
Schattschneider argues that sectionalism is an effective tool for suppressing certain types of conflicts. Thus all legislative procedure has tools for managing the flow of particularly explosive materials into the apparatus of government. He further explains that any form of political organization has a basis favoring the exploitation of some types of conflict and the submersion of others because of what Schattschneider refers to as the “mobilization of bias” (Gibson, 2008, 89).
Critique of Schattscheneider’s Views
Robert Dahl and Steve Luke are arguably the greatest critics of Schattscheneider’s view in political science. The critique of these two authors relate to Schattscheneider’s views on the nature of political power. The theories of elitism and pluralism are at the core the divergent opinions about political power among the different political scientists. The elitist theory refutes political equality and perceives the majority as both passive and apathetic (McBeth et al, 2007, 145). Pluralist theory acclaim for a decentralized system of power ruled by both bargaining and consensus where a number of interest groups equally took part in the policy process with power dispersed widely.
According to Schattschneider, power is not limited to decision-making agenda setting because there is the ‘second’ face of power where ‘some issues are organized into politics while others are organized out’ (Schattschneider, 1957, 56). Thus, powerful A strives to limit the values and practices of the decision-making process meaning that power is indeed exerted in setting the agenda, something overlooked by pluralists.
In the view of Dahl, political power is an essentially decision-making process (pluralist conception). As such, the powerful are the ones whose opinions hold sway, whether in legislature or executive. Power is thus understood in terms of its consequences – if party B has not been forced to do anything contrary to his own interest then party A lacks power. Power is an attribute of individuals, practiced through behavior and linked with domination. However, Dahl has been criticized for ignoring the political power which rests within the agenda setting. Dahl’s account does not take into consideration political power that may exist but remain unexercised.
On the other hand, Steven Lukes has a radical and contemporary approach where he holds that political power is in the ability to shape preferences, curving a crucial distinction between actual and perceived interests using Marxist theory to show such concepts. Lukes holds that power lies in party A’s ability not only to have B do something but also in ‘influencing, shaping or determining his very wants.’ The author’s view is thus three-dimensional where power is conceptualized by taking note of the struggles involved in the decision-making arena, the actions and lack of action within agenda setting as well as the actions and inactions in the forming of perceived political interests. Contrary to Schattsneider’s view, Lukes believes that both decision-making and non-decision-making still rely in an assumption that power (as relating to conflict) could be observed.
In my opinion, Schattschneider’s argument is ‘well-informed by classical political thought.’ Schattschneider’s idea of politically is typically Aristotelian and go against easy categorization in the political science of his time. While other contributors such as Dahl can be said to both overuse and misuse the concept of apathy, Schattschneider does well to dismiss the idea altogether. This is because to reject by rational does not necessarily equal being apathetic. ]
Conclusion
Schattschneider contribution to the literature of political science is rich as he employs concepts carrying exact critical meaning such as “mobilization of bias”, “suppression”, ‘rejection,” and “absentation” in the identification of the systematic removal of identifiable groups from the political process. Furthermore, Schattschneider holds that normal operations of the current political systems constantly reeds then out and then congeal in an obviously biased political agenda, which is in itself a rather difficult “inequality” to deal with (Deluca, 1995, 104).
References
Baumgartner, R. F., Berry, M. J., Hojnacki, M., Leech, L. B., & Kimball, C. D. (2009). Lobbying and Policy Change: Who Wins, Who Loses, and Why. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Deluca, T. (1995). The Two Faces of Political Apathy. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Esquith, L. S. (1996). Political Dialogue: Theories and Practices. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
Gibson, M. L. (2008). Motivations for Change in Support for Social Policy Bills in the United States Congress; 1972—2002. Michigan: ProQuest.
McBetg, K.M., Shanahan, A. E., Arnell, J. R., & Hathaway, L. P. (2007). The Intersection of Narrative Policy Analysis and Policy Change Theory. Retrieved from: http://www.montana.edu/polisci/Faculty/Shanahan/psj_intersection.pdf
O’Halloran, S. (1994). Politics, Process, and American Trade Policy. Michigan, University of Michigan Press.
Renwick, A. (2010). The Politics of Electoral Reform: Changing the Rules of Democracy. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Rosenof, T. (2003). Realignment: The Theory That Changed the Way We Think About American Politics. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
Schattschneider, E.E. (1957). The American Political Science Review. Intensity, Visibility, Direction and Scope. Retrieved from: http://www.apsanet.org/media/PDFs/PresidentialAddresses/1957AddrSCHATTS.pdf
Taylor, J. P., & House, W. J. (1984). Political Geography: Recent Advances and Future Directions. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
