Critical Review of E.E.Schattschneider Contribution to the Literature of Political Science
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). 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).
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). 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).
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).
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). 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). 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). 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). 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 (McBeth et al, 2007). 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).
Contrary to Dahl, who can be said to both overuse and misuse the concept of apathy, Schattschneider dismisses the idea altogether. Thus to reject by rational does not equal to be apathetic. Accordingly, Schattschneider employs concepts carrying exact critical meaning such as “mobilization of bias”, “suppression”, ‘rejection,” and “absentation” so as to identify the systematic removal of identifiable groups from the political process (Deluca, 1995). In addition to Dahl’s identification of the existing political inequalities in the United States under the two-party system, 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).
Conclusion
According Jerome M. Mileur, 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.
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.
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
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.
Taylor, J. P., & House, W. J. (1984). Political Geography: Recent Advances and Future Directions. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.
