MPS-101 / OSOU

MPS-101: Political Theory

Brief Contents
Block Unit
Block Unit
No No
1 Nature and Signifcance of 1 Definition of Political Theory and its
Political Theory Scope of Study
2 Significance of Political Theory
3 Approaches to the Study of Political
Theory: Normative, Empirical
Behavioural and Post-Behavioural,
4 Approaches: Marxist, Feminist

Block Unit
Block Unit
No No
2 Political Ideology 5 Socialism
6 Marxism
7 Liberalism
8 Neo- Liberalism

Block Unit
Block Unit
No No
3 Debates on Basic 9 Rights
Concepts 10 Liberty
11 Equality
12 Justice

Block Unit
Block Unit
No No
4 Contemporary Theory of 13 Concept of Democracy and
Democracy Citizenship
14 Elitist Theory of Democracy
15 Nationalism: Meaning and Nature
16 Multiculturalism
 ODISHA STATE OPEN UNIVERSITY, SAMBALPUR
Programme Name: Master of Arts (Political Science) Programme Code: MAPS

PCourse Name: Political Theory Course Code: MPS-101

Semester: I Credit: 4 Block No. 1 to 4 Unit No.1 to 16 Pages: 1-239

EXPERT COMMITTEE

Prof.Surya Narayan Misra (Chairman) Prof. Amareswar Mishra (Member)

Former HOD of Utkal University, former Professor of Political Sceince,
Bhubaneswar. Utkal University, Bhubansewar

Prof. Gitanjalii Dash (Member) Dr. Antaryami Beriha (Convener)

Former Professor, Dept. of Political Science Academic Consultant,
Fakir Mohan University, Balasore OSOU, Sambalpur

COURSE WRITERS

Dr. Nityananda Barik Prof. Dasrathi Bhuyan

Assistant Professor, Fakir Mohan University Professor Berhampur University

Dr. Sushant Kumar Jha Dr. Kshipra Sharma

Assistant Professor Delhi University Assistant Professor Delhi University

Dr. Arun ku. Nayak Dr. Manas Behera

Assistant Professor, Govt Degree college Tripura. Assistant Professor Ramadevi University
Bhubaneswar

Dr. Minakshi Biswas Dr. Pratima Sarangi

Assistant Professor, West Bengal State University. Associate Professor, Dept. of Public
Administration Utkal University.
Dr. Aditya Kumar Mishra Dr. Prabira Setty
Assistant Professor, Nayagarh Auto. College. Assistant Professor Delhi University

EDITORIAL COMMITTEE

Dr. Manas Behera Prof. Dasrathi Bhuyan

Assistant Professor Utkal University Professor, Berhampur University

Dr. Santosh Kumar Dr. Antaryami Beriha

Assistant Professor, Punjab Central University Academic Consultant, OSOU

Printed and Published by

Registrar
Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur
(cc) OSOU, 2022. Political Theory made available under a Creative Commons
Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0
http://creativecommons.org/licences/by-sa/4.0
Printer :
 MPS-101 / OSOU

MPS-101 Political Theory

Content

Block/Unit Page No.

BLOCK-1 Nature and Significance of Political Theory 1 -64

Unit-1 Definition of Political Theory and its Scope of Study: Objectives, Introduction, Meaning
of Politics, Definition of Political Theory, Nature of Political theory, Scope of Political theory

Unit-2 Significance of Political Theory: Objectives, Introduction, The necessity of Political

Theory: Historical Context, Relevance of Political Theory: Philosophical Context, Resurgence of
Political Theory: Revival Context, Importance of Political Theory: Societal Context.

Unit-3 Approaches to the Study of Political Theory: Normative, Empirical Behavioural and Post-
Behavioural: Objective, Introduction, Normative Approach, Empirical Approach,
Behavioural Approach, Post-Behavioural Approach.

Unit-4 Approaches: Marxist, Feminist: Objectives, Introduction, Marxist Approach, Feminist

Approach,

BLOCK-2 - Political Ideology 65-125

Unit-5 Socialism: Objective, Introduction, Socialism: Meaning and Definition, Evolution of

Socialism and Socialist School of Thoughts, Socialism Today and Tomorrow.

Unit-6 Marxism: Objective, Introduction, Concept of Marxism, Main Idea of Karl Marx in
Political Theory, A Critical Appraisal

Unit-7 Liberalism: Objective, Introduction, Origin and Development, Core Theme of Liberalism,
Liberalism, Government and Democracy, Types of Liberalism, Neo-Liberalism, Liberalism in
the Twenty-first Century.

Unit-8 Neo-Liberalism: Objective, Introduction, Liberalism, Neo-liberalism-Definition

&Features, Neo-liberalism and the state, Neo-conservatism and Neo-liberalism, Nationalism and
Neo-liberalism, Contradiction of Neo-liberalism, Manufacturing consent in favour of Neo-
liberalism.
 MPS-101 / OSOU

BLOCK-3 - Debates on Basic Concepts 126-184

Unit-9 Rights: Objectives, Introduction, Concept of Rights, Concept of Negative and Positive
Rights, Major Theories of Rights, Three Generations of Rights, Conception of Human Rights:
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR).

Unit-10 Liberty: Objective, Introduction, Nature of Liberty, Concept of Negative liberty and
Positive liberty, Different Aspects of Liberty, Safeguards of Liberty.

Unit-11 Equality: Objectives, Introduction, Equality vs. Inequality, Meaning of Equality,

Characteristics of equality, Dimensions of Equality, Different conceptions of equality, Debates
on Equality.

Unit-12 Justice: Objectives, Introduction, Meaning and Definition, Historical Evolution of the
Concept of Justice, Dimensions of Justice, Types of Justice, Diverse Perspectives on Justice,
Amartya Sen's View of Justice: Compare and Contrast with Rawls’s theory of justice.

BLOCK-4- Contemporary Theory of Democracy 185-239

Unit-13 Concept of Democracy and Citizenship: Objective, Introduction, Democracy:

Conceptual Analysis, Characteristics, Types of Democracy, Approaches to Democracy,
Citizenship, How to acquire citizenship, Citizen and Democracy, Citizen Obligation to state.

Unit-14 Elitist Theory of Democracy: Objectives, Introduction, Meaning of the Elite, Definitions
of Elite, Historical Background of the Elitist Theory of Democracy, Different Approaches of the
Leading Elite Theorists, Main Assumption of the Theory, Development of the Theory,
Explanation of the Theory, Criticism of Elitist Theory, Merits of Elitist Theory of Democracy.

Unit-15 Nationalism: Meaning and Nature: Objective, Introduction, The Concept of Nationalism,
Nationalism vs. Patriotism, Meaning and Definition of Nationalism, Nationalism: the history of
an ideology, Nationalism and the serving of political interests, The impact of nationalism,
Varieties of Nationalism.

Unit-16 Multiculturalism: Objectives, Introduction, Two Theories of Multiculturalism,

Justification of Multiculturalism, Bhikhu Parekh's View, Differentiated and Multicultural
Citizenship, Models of Multiculturalism or Multicultural citizenship, Critique of
multiculturalism.
 Block-1
Nature and Significance of Political Theory

Unit-1: Definition of Political Theory and its Scope of Study

Unit-2: Significance of Political Theory
Unit-3: Approaches to the Study of Political Theory: Normative, Empirical
Behavioural and Post-Behavioural,
Unit-4: Approaches: Marxist, Feminist
 MPS-101/OSOU

UNIT-1: DEFINITION OF POLITICAL THEORY AND ITS

SCOPE OF STUDY

Structure
1.1 Objectives
1.2 Introduction
1.3 Meaning of Politics
1.3.1Ancient view
1.3.2. Contemporary view
1.3.3. Liberal view
1.3.4. Marxian View
1.3.5. Post-modern view
1.4.- Definition of Political Theory
1.5. Nature of Political theory
1.6. Scope of Political theory
1.7. Conclusion
1.8. Exercise
1.9. References

1.1- OBJECTIVES

After going through this Unit you will gather knowledge on the following aspects:
• The meaning of Politics and political theory
• Different views on the conceptualization of Political theory
• Theorization of political theory
• Nature, features of political theory
• Scope of political theory

1.2. INTRODUCTION

It is said that the study of politics began with Ancient Greek Philosophers. They were
Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle who viewed politics and political though about 2500
years ago. The Greek city-states gave ample Knowledge and ideas for political
thinking. After them, Roman thinkers like Polybius and Cicero provided theory and
practice on political through. Some Christian Philosophers like St. Augustine and
Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 1
 MPS-101/OSOU

Thomas Aquinas during the medieval period spoke about the state and its relationship
with the church they viewed the relationship between religion and politics. Some
modern political thinkers analyzed politics and different theoretical aspects of
politics, state, Government etc. Those thinkers were Machiavelli, Bodin, Hobbes,
Locke, Rousseau, Hegel, Marx, Bentham, Mill, Green, Barker, MacIver, Laski,
Lenin, Gramsci etc. In the contemporary period, the political ideas of Robert Nozick,
and John Rawls are quite impressive and acceptable.

In general, it is assumed that politics continued as a part of general philosophy for a

long period. Such was established as a separate and distinct discipline and subject up
to the last decade of the 19th century. Due to the emergence of democracy and
democratic ideas, the interest or common people in the study of politics has increased
owing to revolutions in Europe, national liberation movements in Asia and Africa and
socialistic movements in Russia and China. Due the globalization, and Scientific
technological developments states are becoming classer the each other. They are
competing and giving birth to transnational and international politics. However, the
present period is witnessing. "Identity politics, cultural politics, politics of Feminism,
Politics of Environment", and many more. Here, scholars, and political scientists feel
that "Politics as a subject of study is developing and ever charging".

1.3. MEANING OF POLITICS

Aristotle, a Greek philosopher, opined that man is by nature a political animal. He

meant that politics is an essential human activity. To Aristotle, people can express
their true nature as reserving virtuous beings though participation in a political
community. So human beings and politics are associated with each other. Politics can
be considered as a collective activity, involving people who accept a common
membership. The necessity of politics arises from the collective character of human
life. As we are human beings and social creatures, politics has become our part of life.
There is no option to leave rather than accept. Therefore, it is said that we have no
choice but to practice politics. In the study of politics, we found difference views.
They are the ancient view, contemporary view, liberal view, Marxian view, and post-
modern view. Some ideas relating to the above views are as follows :

1.3.1. Ancient View

Plato and Aristotle, the great two political Philosophers made the foundations of
political thinking. Plato’s book 'The Republic and Aristotle's book 'Politics' gave on
political ideas and political thinking. Such political thinking was associated with the
subject matter of politics and political science. Generally, politics came from the
Greek word 'polis' which meant the meaning or 'City State'. So, politics is linked with

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 2

 MPS-101/OSOU

the state, government and people. Greek, the then time, was a small city-state where
there were no boundaries between the social, political, moral and personal life of
people. Greek Philosophers never made a distinction between the state and society.
Politics was a subject that included the study of every aspect of society.
Thus, the following aspects are concerned with the ideas of Greek
Philosophers on politics.
1) There is no distinction between the state and society. The State is a
community of communities or association of associations.
2) The state is not manmade but is a natural creation. It is the most perfect form
of social organization and has a separate and independent existence of its own.
3) Politics, state and citizens were studied on a moral basis and thus politics was
sacrificed for idealistic ethics.
4) Greek philosophers were primarily concerned what 'ideals' rather than actual
politics. Aristotle was an exception, and he is regarded as the first political
scientist for his empirical studies.
5) They never believed in the equality of men/women by birth.
6) They laid less emphasis on human nature in politics.

1.3.2. Contemporary views

It is realized that due to the difference between Liberal and Marxist writers
controversial issues are found in the meaning of politics and political theory. There
were disagreements on the fundamentals of politics between Liberal and Marxian
ideologies. Let us discuss views on the ideological Phenomenon of politics.

Derived from the Greek word 'politikos' and 'Polls', the French word 'Politique' and
Latin word 'Politcus' political means relating to citizens, affairs of the State, relating
to making, running or toppling of government or political power or authority or
concerned with public policy formulations. It is concerned with structure, affairs of
government, the State and citizens. It is used in different senses like political theory,
thought, philosophy, science, power, career, leadership, opinion, pressure, policy,
participation and so on. We have chosen 'politics' rather than 'political science'. The
use of the word 'science' with 'political' reflects the inferiority complex of 'political
scientists'. Some writers make a distinction between theoretical and practical politics.
In the present study, this distinction has been discarded because theory and practice
are inter-related aspects of the same thing. Politics cannot be studied by
differentiating between theory and practice. There is no simple alternative to theory
or practice and the two must be intertwined.

Lipson has given a good liberal account of politics by clarifying its meaning. He
differentiated between society, politics, State and government and regarded politics to

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 3

 MPS-101/OSOU

be something wider in scope than the State. The State is only an aspect of politics.
Politics includes many things which do not come under the study of the State. He
further maintains that government is smaller in scope than the State. He has explained
all these relationships by the following scheme of the circle. He maintains that
politics is wider than the State. About the State he writes, it is the institution through
which the processes of politics are organised and formalised.

Thus, the study of politics is wider than the study of the State and government. In the
present century, to confine politics to the study of the State and government is most
unfair because politics includes the study of communities, associations, states and
governments and many other social processes. Catlin maintains that politics is the
study of the political aspect of organised human society.

In 1948, under the auspices of UNESCO, at its Paris meeting, a new organisation
named the International Political Science Association was formed. At this meeting, it
was decided that the subject should be divided and sub-divided into the following
four fields with their sub-divisions:
1. Political Theory : (a) Political theory (b) History of political ideas.
2. Political Institution : (a)The Constitution; (b) National government; (c)
Regional and local government; (d) Public administration; (e) Economic and
social functions of government; (f) Comparative political institutions.
3. Parties, Groups and Public Opinion : (a) Political parties; (b) Groups and
associations; (c) Participation of the citizen in the government and the
administration; (d) Public opinion.
4. International Relations: (a) International politics; (b) International
organisation and administration : (c) International law.

In 1957, the annual convention of the American Political Science Association in New
York City discussed the systematic study of politics in the universities of America. Its
panels and discussions were classified under nine headings; American National
Government; Comparative Government; Constitutional Law; Political Parties;
Political Behaviour; Public Administration; State and Local Government;
International Law and Relations; and Political Theory. This may be regarded as the
essence of the systematic study of politics.

Much has changed during the last 50 years in the arena of political. The battle cry of
second-wave feminists - 'personal is political' - gave birth to systematic feminist
political theory and politics. Ecologists gave the slogan - 'save mother earth' and
'global warming (climate change)' and it aroused concern for the environment and
sustainable development and gave birth to a new kind of humanitarian green political

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 4

 MPS-101/OSOU

theory. Forces of globalisation changed the whole scenario and new concepts like,
human rights, global justice and politics-of global concern emerged.

1.3.3. Liberal Views

State and politics are aspects of the social process which are used to maintain peace,
law, order and justice in society and safeguard the life, liberty and property of the
individuals. If society is regarded as a market society, then essentially there will be
conflict and class struggle. To resolve or minimise this conflict, some social power
and process are required. This social power is the State and the social process is
called politics. Politics is to serve the general interest or the common good in society.
Politics is there to contribute to the general welfare of the masses and the
development of society. Thus, politics, according to the liberal view, has two
dimensions — firstly, it is there to resolve conflict, maintain law and order and peace
and pave the way for peaceful, orderly change in society, reconcile the various
competing and conflicting interests, and secondly, it is there to serve the common
good or general interest of society as a whole.

According to the liberal view, politics is a human activity, a dimension of the

social process, which is there, on the one hand, to resolve conflict, maintain unity in
diversity, law and order and peace in society and, on the other, to serve the general
interest or common good of society, bring about peaceful change, and maintain rights
and liberties of the individuals. Thus, politics has a utility, a positivity of its own.
The main points of liberal views on man/woman, society and politics are as
follows :
1. Man/woman as an individual is the centre of the study of politics. Each
individual becomes a member of society to further his interest.
2. Society is a crowd of alienated individuals. It is a market society and here an
individual serves his interest through competition, free contract and exchange.
Society thus is a free society and man/woman becomes a member of any social
group only for his/her interest or choice.
3. Because of the conflict of various interests, there is a disorder in society and
politics is required to resolve the conflict, and maintain unity, cooperation and
order in society by coordination and reconciliation of diverse interests.
4. Politics serves the general interest of society.
5. Politics is a process to bring about peaceful change in society.
6. Politics and the State do not belong to any single class. These are essential to
establish unity in diversity and social stability

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 5

 MPS-101/OSOU

7. There is a difference between the State and society. The State is more limited
than society and it is there to serve the general interests of society. Politics is
only a dimension of the social process.

1.3.4. Marxian Views

Marxism maintains that the mode of production is basic in socio-political analysis.
This sub-structure determines the class division and class relations in a society.
Politics and the State cannot be discussed in isolation from this economic base of
society and the basis of politics should be seen in the economic system (mode of
production) of society. Politics is the study of class relations and class struggles in
society. The economic interests of the various classes are reflected in politics. As
Fyodorov writes: "The State and politics are, in the final analysis, an expression of
the economic requirements of society and its social groups.". "Politics is
fundamentally determined by economic base or sub-structure and it is not something
above class. According to the Marxian view, politics cannot be understood
independently of the economic system and because of this politics is regarded as an
aspect of political economy.

Unlike Hegel, Marx never regarded politics and the State to be everything in the
social process. It is only a dimension of the social process and is not equal to society
as a whole. Politics cannot end the class division of society, nor can it end the class
struggle. Politics cannot serve the common interest of all the classes in a society
because the interests of the different classes are antagonistic and there is no common
interest in a class-divided society.

Lenin regarded politics as a study of relations between classes which are engaged in a
power struggle. He formulated the idea that every economic struggle of the working
class before the revolution should be used to increase consciousness among the
working class.

In short, Marxian views on man/woman, society and politics are as follows:-

1. Man/woman cannot be understood in isolation from social circumstances.
Man/woman must be understood in the totality of his/her social relations.
Marxism does not see any basic conflict between man’s/woman's self-interest
and social interest.
2. Society is an ever-growing and living organisation, The sub-structure of
society is a mode of production. In this mode of production, the political,
legal, social, moral, ideological and cultural superstructure rests. Based on
relations of production class division of society is determined and in the

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 6

 MPS-101/OSOU

scientific study of social classes, rather than individuals and groups, are the
most important.
3. Class struggle in society is fundamental. In a class-divided society, class
struggle will never end. Class struggle, rather than harmony, is the key notion
in Marxian social analysis.
4. Society and politics cannot be scientifically understood without associating
these with economic structure, and the mode of production. Politics is the
study of class divisions; class struggles and class relations in society.
5. Politics is only a dimension of the social process. In a classless society,
politics will also decline.
6. Politics cannot end the class struggle. The interests of different classes are so
antagonistic that neither can these be reconciled nor can any harmony exist.
There cannot be any common interest for all the classes.
7. Only revolutionary politics is the correct politics because it is a way for the
emancipation of the working class.

So far, liberal and Marxian views of politics have been discussed. The main
difference between the two views is that according to the liberal view, politics is there
to resolve conflict, maintain order, peace and justice, serve the common good of the
whole society, help the development of human personality, and safeguard the rights
and liberties of individuals. Whereas according to the Marxian view, politics is a
reflection of class struggle and politics cannot resolve the conflict, it is used by
owners of the means of production for safeguarding their interests.

1.3.5. Post Modern View

This view denies fixed human nature and universal, foundational moral norms. This
view believes in deconstruction and builds its formulations on differences. This view
rejects the idea of absolute and universal truth and usually emphasises discourse,
debate and democracy. Post-modernists rejected the possibility of the realisation of a
perfect socio-economic and political order and set of laws that may lead to
domination and unfreedom of 'the other'. They emphasise the difference. Having
rejected grand theories, post-modernism does not provide a viable alternative to
political theory. In a way, it rejects the already existing views on politics without
suggesting a new view. However, the impact of this view can be seen in the politics
of identity, politics of NGOs and the supporters of cultural politics.

1.4. DEFINITION OF POLITICAL THEORY

Different scholars and political scientists defined political theory from a different
points of view. But definitions vary on grounds of understanding. It can be defined in
both a 'broad and narrow sense.

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 7

 MPS-101/OSOU

George Sabine, in a broader aspect, views 'Political theory as anything about politics
or relevant to politics". In the narrow aspect, "political theory is the disciplined
investigation of political problems."

To quote Sabine, "Political theory is, quite simply, man's attempts to consciously
understand and solve the problems of his group life and organization. It is the
disciplined investigation of political problems not only to show what a political
practice is, but also to show what it means. In showing what practice means, or what
it ought to mean, political theory can alter what it is."

Arnold Brecht, in a broader sense, defines, "Political theory means a thinker's

entire teaching on a subject". In the narrow sense, "Political theory is defined as the
expression of a thought".

William T Bluhem views “Political theory as an explanation of what politics

is all about, a general understanding of the political world, a frame of reference to
understand and explain a political phenomenon to be able to give a value judgement
and also to be able to predict”.

According to Greek thinkers, politics is the total study of man, society, state,
morality etc.

Lipset says, the study of politics, however, remained a general field which
dealt with all aspects of human behaviour.

Max weber defines "Politics for us meaning striving to influence the

distribution of power either among states or among groups within a state".

Gettell defines it as "It is the study of the state in the past, present and future,
of political organisations and political theories". "It deals with mankind viewed as
organised political units."

Paul Janet opines“Political Science is that part of social science which treats
the foundation of the state and the principles of government”.

Laski defines "The study of politics concerns itself with the life of men in
relation to organised states".

In the words of Germino, "Political theory is the most appropriate term to

employ in designating that intellectual tradition which affirms the possibility of

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 8

 MPS-101/OSOU

transcending the sphere of immediate practical concerns and viewing man's societal
existence from a critical perspective."

George Catlin's "Political theory includes political science and political

philosophy. He also said: "Political Science is the science of power".

David Easton: "Political Science deals with the authoritative allocation of

values in a society".

Laswell and Kaplan: "Political Science as an empirical enquiry is the study of

shaping and sharing of power".

V.O. Key: "Politics as power consists fundamentally of relationships of

superordination and subordination, of dominance and submission, of governors and
the governed. The study of politics is the study of these relationships".

Max Weber: "Politics means striving to influence the distribution of power,

either among states or among groups within a state".

Sheldon S. Wolin views the characteristics of 'Political' as follows: "Of all the
authoritative institutions in society, the political arrangement has been singled out as
uniquely concerned with what is 'common' to the whole community. Certain
functions such as national defence, internal order, the dispensing of justice, and
economic regulation, have been declared the primary responsibility of institutions,
largely on the ground that the interest and ends served by these functions were
beneficial to all of the members of the community."

In the words of Germino, "Political theory is the most appropriate term to employ in
designating that intellectual tradition which affirms the possibility of transcending the
sphere of immediate practical concerns and viewing man's societal existence from a
critical perspective."

David Held views "Political theory as a network of concepts and

generalizations about political life involving ideas, assumptions and statements about
the nature, purpose and key features of government, state, and society, and the
political capabilities of human beings."

W.C. Coker says "When the political government and its forms and activities
are studied not simply as facts to be described and compared and judged about their
immediate and temporary effects, but as facts to be understood and appraised in

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 9

 MPS-101/OSOU

relation to the constant needs, desires and opinions of men, then we have a political
theory."

Andrew Hacker opines "Political Theory is a combination of a disinterested

search for the principles of good state and good society on the one hand, and a
disinterested search for knowledge of political and social reality on the other."

John Plamentaz defines political theory in functional terms and says: "The
function of political theory has come to be restricted to the analysis and clarification
of the vocabulary of politics and the critical examination, verification and justification
of the concepts employed in political argument."

1.5. NATURE OF POLITICS AND POLITICAL THEORY

World politics is related to politics which has been derived from the Greek word
'Polis'. It meant 'city state', Generally, Political means issued concerned with political
power and decision-making in society. Private and personal affairs are not political.
The feminist political theory advocates that personal is also political. The meaning of
politics has changed from time to time and place to place. As we know that Marxism
links politics and economy and has named the subject Political Economy. In present
times there are two distinct and separate subjects namely, political science and
Economics.

The word theory has been derived from the Greek word "Theoria', which means a
well-focussed mental look at something to grasp it. Understanding theory on a
theoretical base is a difficult task. We can understand the meaning of theory in two-
part, like broader and narrow parts. In its broader meaning, theory means a thinker's
entire teaching on a subject. In its narrow meaning theory may be considered as a
proposition designed to explain something with reference to data or interrelations not
observed directly. Only description cannot be considered a theory part. The theory
covers both values and facts. It is concerned with observation, explanation, inter-
relation, generalizations, conceptualization, cause and effects, ideology, value
judgements, solutions and predictions.

Political theory is a discipline which suggests ways for maintaining law, order and
peace in society. It is concerned with the general welfare of the citizens of the. State.
It is a disciplined investigation of political problems. Political theory plays an
important role during the period of social turmoil and change. Political theory is
interchangeably used with concepts like political thought, political philosophy,
political ideology, political analysis, politics, theory of the State and political science.

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 10

 MPS-101/OSOU

Different writers have used different concepts. George Sabine has used the name
political theory, Political theory according to Catlin, combines both political science
and political philosophy.

The debate regarding the demise and revival of political theory 1t was during 1950-
1970 and the debate on the demise of political theory was hot. The debate was
spearheaded by David Easton, A. Cobban, R. A. Dhal, P. Laslett and virtually all
American so-called political scientists, who had faith in positivism. It was maintained
that political theory based on classics was either declining or was dead or was in a
'dog-house state'. This new American wave rejected both elements of philosophy and
history in political theory. This short-lived wave had certain specific features:
1. Their basic thrust was on science and the collection of first-hand data
through field research.
2. This whole debate gave birth to the American Science of Politics.
3. The philosophical basis of this new trend was positivism or empiricism.
4. It gave birth to empiricism in political theory.
5. Behavioural approach is the most important product of this new trend.
6. The main emphasis was on value-free, fact-oriented research.

Politics or politics is associated with the following subject matter :

1. Political science and political theory
2. Political science and political philosophy.
3. Political science and political ideologies.

Political Theory and political science differentiation have been arising due to
intellectual perceptions. Political science provides generalizations and laws about
politics and political behaviour. Political theory refers to political phenomena,
processes, institutions and actual political behaviour. political theory, to some extent,
gives ideas, concepts, and theories for analysis, description, explanation and criticism
which in turn are incorporated into political science.

Political philosophy can be considered a part of normative political theory. Political

Philosophy can express the present inter-relationship can express the present inter-
relationship between concepts. Political philosophy is dealt with the critical
evaluation of political beliefs, paying attention to both inductive and deductive forms
of reasoning.

Political theory is considered as are part of political science. The history of political
theory is purely linked with fundamental ideas of political science. Therefore,
political theory is based upon the political phenomenon, processes and institutions

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 11

 MPS-101/OSOU

and on actual political behaviour by subjecting it to philosophical or ethical criterion.

Say to say, political theory gives an analytical study of ideas and doctrines which are
the main part of political thought.

1.6 SCOPE OF POLITICAL THEORY

Fredrick Pollock, a philosopher, divided politics into two branches they are
theoretical politics and practical or applied politics. Theoretical politics refers to the
fundamental characteristics of the state without reference to its activities or means by
when its ends are realized. It gives theoretical education about government and
administration. It provides the theoretical meaning of law-making and discusses the
relation between state and international law. Practical or Applied Politics refers to the
state in action. It gives good ideas about state formation. Applied politics gives real
knowledge about the working of administration and functions of the government. It
discusses law-making along with the power of the judiciary. it describes the real
relations among states.

Political theory is closely related to why and the institutions of the government and
the whole political system in which the government operates. The contents of
political theory cover the understanding of what is 'political' to linking political with
what is 'non-political' and integrating and coordinating the results of the numerous
social sciences for knowing its nature. Its scope is not limited to what it constitutes,
but to what exists in the periphery and beyond.
Sheldon Wolinincludes the following in the contents of political theory.
i) A form of activity centring around the quest for competitive advantage
between groups, individuals or societies.
ii) A form or activity is conditioned by the fact that it occurs within a
situation of change and relative scarcity.
iii) A form of activity in which the pursuits of advantage produce
consequences of such magnitude that they affect in a significant way the
whole society or a substantial portion of its.

According to Sabine, the political theory includes (a) " factual statements about
the postures of affairs that gave rise to it" (b) Statements of 'What may be roughly
called a causal nature", and (c) Statements that "something ought to happen or is
the right and desirable things to have happened". Political theories according to
Sabine, constitute three elements. These are the factual, the causal and the
valuation. Thus, political theory is concerned with three types of statements.
These are (1) Empirical statements, (2) Logical statements, and (3) Evaluative
statements.

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 12

 MPS-101/OSOU

An empirical Statement is based on observation, through sense experience

alone. The logical statement is based on reasoning. The evaluative statement is
based on value judgement. The political theory relies only on empirical and
logical statements. Correct observation and correct reasoning by different scholars
would lead to similar conclusions. Therefore, empirical and logical statements are
capable of verification. But evaluative statements are based on individual or group
preferences which differ from person to person or group to group. Evaluative
statements are incapable of verification. At the same time, there is no reliable
method of determining what is right or wrong, or good or bad. It cannot
scientifically discover the universal trust in human values.

The post-1970s gave rise to four distinct views while witnessing new
development in political theory. These are as follows:-
(i) With Rawls, Political theory, as a branch of moral philosophy has been
described as essentially normative. Accordingly, the task of political
theory is not only to develop general principles for evaluating the social
structures but also to design appropriate institutions, procedures and
policies.
(ii) Political theory is primarily contemplative and reflective enquiry
concerned to understand human existence in general. So understood, it is
neither a branch of moral philosophy nor normative in its orientation.
(iii) Political theory is primarily concerned to articulate the self-understanding
of a particular community and that is necessarily municipal in its scope
and interpretive in its orientation.
(iv) Political theory needs to be tentative, exploratory, conversational, open-
minded, ironic and sensitive. Such scholars draw inspiration from post-
structuralist and post-modernistic writers.

Political theory is related to polity and is a part of political science. Thus, the
subject matter has been considered as the scope of political theory. However, some of
the points are outlined below as the scope of the polity.

(1) Study of state and Government:-State and government has always been the
central focus of enquiry in Politics. It analyses the state in its fundamental condition,
essential nature, and various forms of manifestation and development. Government is
the agency through which powers of the state can be exercised. Politics being a
scientific enquiry investigates the actual working of the government by essentially
analysing the law making, law application and law adjudication functions.

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 13

 MPS-101/OSOU

2. Study of Political institutions and Constitutions: The scope of Politics also

includes the study of various Political institutions and constitutions. Various Political
institutions like legislature, Judicial, and bureaucracy executive are studied at length
on the basis of their actual role in society. It also makes a thorough study of the
constitution which is regarded as the supreme law of the land. It studies the
comparative governments and polities of various states to enable political scientists to
evolve a sound and workable universal principle for the conduct of government.

3. Study of Political Philosophy: Political Philosophy is concerned with the critical

and speculative consideration of the fundamental principles used by Political
scientists. Great Political philosophers like Plato, Aristotle, Machiavelli, Bodin,
Hobbes, Locke, Rousses; Hegel, Marx, Mill, Gandhi etc. have expressed their views
on the origin, nature, functions and ends of the state, government and society. Based
on their ideas, Political theory defines concepts. Political Philosophy projects the
value and ideas the Political institutions strive to attain.

4. Study of Theoretical Concepts: Politics also includes in its scope, the study of
some theoretical concepts which are very much fundamental for the understanding of
the nature of Politics. Theoretical understanding of concepts like law, liberty,
equality, justice, rights, sovereignty, separation of powers, representation, democracy,
Political Obligation etc. has paved the way for greater precision and scientific in
Politics. It also includes some issues like nation-building, election, methods of
representation, issue of development, citizenship etc.

5. Study of Political Dynamics: Political dynamics refers to the forces and processes,
at work in government and Politics. The study of such Political dynamics has become
very significant in modern days because it influences and explains political actions in
society These include the study of political parties, pressure groups, interest groups,
lobbies, propaganda, public opinion etc.

6. Study of Public policy: Public Policy means the broad policies of the government
which affect the people at large. How public policies are made, what are their positive
and negative aspects, and the faction which influences public policy are some of the
integral questions which are answered under the study of public policy?

7. Study of Political power: An important area of study of Politics has been the
study of power and leadership. Politics is all about power. There is a struggle for
power and leadership in society. Power begets power. It is a means to an end. Power
is a value which every politician seeks for. A person who holds power has an
advantageous position in society over his adversaries. What is power, what are its

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 14

 MPS-101/OSOU

dimensions, and its use and abuse all are studied in totality within the scope of
politics?

8. Study of Political system and political Analysis: The scope of Polities also
includes the concept of the political system and political analysis. According to David
Easton, "A Political system is that system of interaction to be found in all independent
societies where authoritative allocation of value are made and implemented". This
concept of the Political system has replaced the state as a subject of enquiry in
polities. The study of the Political system adds more scientific character to the study
of politics because one has to understand the inputs, outputs and conversion process
of how decisions are made in every political system, be it a family or tribe or state.

1.7. SUMMARY

Political science is a social science and it studies society from a special stand point.
Mankind is regarded as an organized political unit in society. In modern usage, the
term politics has acquired a new meaning. It is used to describe the political activities
of the people. Politics refers to the current problems of government which are more
economic than Political. The politics of one country differs from the politics of
another country, but political science remains the same everywhere. Political science
is concerned with the study of the state, its origin, growth, and forms of
manifestations.

To sum up, one may say that political theory is an overview of what the political
order is about. It is a symbolic representation of what is 'Political'. it is a formal,
logical and systematic analysis of the processes and consequences of Political
activity. It is analytical, expository and explanatory. It seeks to give order, coherence,
and meaning to what is described as 'political'. Political Theory, thus, is a theory
about what is 'political' the science and philosophy of something that is 'political'.

1.8. EXERCISES
1. Discuss the meaning of Political theory.
2. Define political theory and discuss its views.
3. Discuss the scope of political theory
4. Discuss the supportive points for theorizing political
5. Discuss nature of political theory

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 15

 MPS-101/OSOU

1.9. REFERENCES

Agarwal, R.C.,(2006), Political Theory: Principles of Political Science, S.Chand&

Company Ltd. New Delhi.

Barry, Norman, P. (1989), An Introduction to Modern Political Theory, Macmillan,

London.

Bhargava, Rajeev &Acharya, Ashok, ( 2008), Political Theory: An Introduction

(Eds), Pearson Longman, Delhi.

Farely, Colin, (2004), Introduction to Contemporary Political Theory, Sage, London.

5. Gauba, O.P, (2019), An Introduction to Political Theory, 8th edition, National Paper
Backs, New Delhi.

Gauba, O.P. (2017), Political Ideas, Ideologies, Issues in Contemporary Political

Theory, Part-I, 3rd Edition, N.K.N. Publishers Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi.

Held, David, (1993), Political Theory Today (Ed), Polity Press, Cambridge, UK.

Jain, M.P. (2019), Introduction to Political Theory, Book Age Publications, Delhi.

Kapur, Anup Chand, (2010), Principles of Political Science, S. Chand & Company
Ltd, New Delhi.

Mohanty, Manoranjan, (2000), Contemporary Indian Political Theory, Samskriti,

New Delhi.

Ray Amal, & Bhattacharya, Mohit, (1998), Political Theory: Ideas and Institutions,
The World Press Pvt. Ltd. Calcutta, 12thEdition.

Verma, S.P., Modern political Theory, Vikas Publishing House Pvt. Ltd., Noida (UP),
2015

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 16

 MPS-101/OSOU

UNIT-2: SIGNIFICANCE OF POLITICAL THEORY

Structure:
2.1. Objectives
2.2. Introduction
2.3. The necessity of Political Theory: Historical Context
2.3.1 Medieval age
2.3.2. Modern age
2.3.3. Contemporary age
2.4. Relevance of Political Theory: Philosophical Context
2.5. Resurgence of Political Theory: Revival Context
2.6. Importance of Political Theory: Societal Context
2.7. Summary
2.8. Exercises
2.9. References

2.1. OBJECTIVES

After reading this Unit you will have idea and knowledge on the following aspects:
• The contextual aspects of the relevance of political theory from the beginning
• Need for Political theory and its analysis in a philosophical context
• Revival context for the resurgence of political theory from the decline of
political theory
• Essene of political theory on the societal context for the welfare of the
individual and group
• Eminent political scientists’ views on the sustainability of political theory

2.2. INTRODUCTION

Greek political studies focussed on constitutions. These made generalizations about

the relations between human nature and political associations. To Aristotle, "element
of democracy is essential to the best kind of balanced constitution, which he identifies
'Polity'. Aristotle viewed political change, as he gathered ample knowledge of many
constitutions. He opined that; revolutions always arise out of some demand for
equality.

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 17

 MPS-101/OSOU

Polity specifies an organization where rules are made and decisions are taken for the
whole community, and authority is exercised over each member of the community.
So polity means to a state as an organization that occupies a unique position among
social institutions. Aristotle analyses political association and political activity using
two variables, namely, the exercise of sovereign power and activity for self-
sufficiency. Political activity can be meant as the activity of the political association
and the political association as the sovereign association having for its end. So, it is
an act involving the exercise of sovereign power for securing self-sufficiency in the
polis. Aristotle viewed political as all activities involved in the exercise of supreme
power for securing good life and self-sufficiency of the community. So, everything
related to the community and city was political. To him, all decisions of the
community were considered political.

The meaning of political has been reflected in the modern state. Political has been
identified among all activities and functions of the state. Even it includes all public
affairs. The political coves over the activities, functions, decisions, rules, orders, and
policies of the state end its government. A group of people exercise these functions
over others as they possess the power of the state through election or selection, or any
means. Thus, such exercise and dominance by some groups in the state for
controlling, managing and ruling all other living can be considered political.

Political specifies public functions and public affairs including law, justice, security,
currency regulations, etc. Some modern political scientists like, Max Webber and
Harold Lasswell define political. To them, politics encompasses all political relations,
activities and interactions among the people and their group. Power is the central
aspect of every political action, political activity and interaction among these people
and groups. So, political means the exercise of power in society.

2.3. NECESSITY OF POLITICAL THEORY: HISTORICAL CONTEXT

Today, the concern of political theory has been taken into consideration on both the
nature and proper ends of the government. The growth and evaluation of political
theory can be analysed on the ground of three aspects, namely, classical political
theory, modern political theory and contemporary political theory.

2.3.1. Medieval age - Classical political theory

Classical and medieval political theory refers to the tradition of philosophy that
originated in Athens two and a half millennia ago and spread throughout Greece and
Rome. This tradition dominated Western European political thought until the
sixteenth century and continues to inform modern political thought in so far as

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 18

 MPS-101/OSOU

modern political thought is defined by its opposition to its classical and medieval
foundations. Yet this tradition holds our interest, not because it is old or historically
important, but rather because it claims to be simply true. The classical paradigm,
according to Sheldon Wolin, relating to political theory, consisted of the following:
(i) Classical political theory aimed at acquiring reliable knowledge about
matters concerning the people, a philosophical pursuit to establish a
rational basis for belief; a politically inspired pursuit to establish a
rational basis for action.
(ii) It sought to identify the political with the public, the common: the Greek
polis, the Roman res publica, and the medieval age usage of commonweal
all denoted a sharing of what was common among the people as partners.
(iii) Its basic unit of analysis was always the political whole, the body-politic,
the inter-related structure denoting activity, relationship, and belief:
activity relating to the ruling, warfare, education, religious practices;
relationships involving those between social classes, between the rulers
and the ruled, between the superiors and the inferiors; belief, such as
justice, equality, natural law and the like.
(iv) The classical political theory emphasized order, balance, equilibrium,
stability and harmony in the realm of politics. In the process, it developed
words like conflicts, anarchy, instability and revolution.
(v) Classical political theory laid stress on comparative studies for supplying
a more comprehensive explanation of political phenomena and a wider
range of alternatives. In this process, it developed words like monarchy,
aristocracy, democracy, and their variants and a set of concepts such as
law, citizenship, justice and participation to explain the differences and
similarities between them.
(vi) The classical political theory emphasized ethical values. For example,
Plato advocated the ideal state; Aristotle, a state that can achieve the best
possible.
(vii) Classical political theory projected itself as the best form of polity is the
ideal.

2.3.2. MODERN AGE – LIBERAL POLITICAL THEORY

Classical political theory was historical, philosophical, and normative idealistic,
whereas modern political theory is liberal. The liberals are divided into two groups:
(i) the individualistic, the elitist and the pluralist, and
(ii) the Marxist, including the dialectical-materialist on the other.

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 19

 MPS-101/OSOU

Modern political theory has a number of trends like institutional structural, scientific,
positivistic, empirical, behavioural, post-behavioural and Marxist. Modern political
theory, beginning with the liberal stance from the 15th-16th centuries and later
expressing itself in the institutional-positivist, empirical-behavioural and post-
behavioural trends, called the whole classical tradition dull. Modern political theory
with its western liberal-democratic shade attempted to build a science of politics;
objective, empirical, observational, measurable, operational and value-free. Its
features can be summed up as under:
(i) Facts and data constitute the bases of the study. These are accumulated,
explained and then used for testing the hypothesis.

(ii) Human behaviour can be studied, and regularities of human behaviour can
be expressed in generalisations.

(iii) Subjectivity gives way to objectivity; philosophical interpretation to

analytical explanation; purpose to the procedure; descriptive to
observational; normative to scientific.

(iv) Facts and values are separated; values are so arranged that the facts become
relevant.

(v) Methodology has to be self-conscious, explicit and quantitative.

(vi) Inter-disciplinary synthesis is to be achieved.

(vii) Values are to support facts, substance to form, theory to research, and status
quo to social change.

2.3.2. Contemporary age contemporary Political theory

At the beginning of the 21st century, major new political challenges have arisen at
the same time as some of the most enduring dilemmas of political association remain
unresolved. The collapse of communism and the end of the Cold War reflect a victory
for democratic and liberal values, yet in many of the western countries that nurtured
those values. Contemporary political theory is intended to foster such systematic
normative reflection. The series proceeds with the belief that the time is ripe for a
reassertion of the importance of problem-driven political theory. It is concerned with
works that are motivated by the impulse to understand, think critically about and
address problems in the world, rather than issues that are thrown up primarily in
academic debate.

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 20

 MPS-101/OSOU

Highlighting the characteristic features of contemporary political theory, David

Held refers to the following:
(i) Contemporary political theory has been viewed as the history of political
thought, involving an attempt to examine the significance of text in its
historical context.
(ii) It has sought to revitalise the discipline as a form of conceptual analysis,
and in the process, find a political theory as a systematic reflection upon,
and classification of, the meanings of the key forms and concepts such
as sovereignty, democracy, justice and the like.
(iii) It has been developed as the systematic elaboration of the underlying
structure of our moral and political activities; the disclosure,
examination and reconstruction of the foundations of political value.
(vi) It has been revitalised as a form of the argument concerned with abstract
theoretical questions and particular political issues.
(v) It has been championed as, a critique of all forms of foundationalism,
either the post-modernists or the liberal defenders. It, accordingly,
presents itself as a stimulant to dialogue and conversation among human
beings.
(vi) It has been elaborated as a form of systematic model building influenced by
theoretical economics, rational choice theory and game theory; it aims to
construct formal models of political processes.
(vii) It has developed as the theoretical enterprise of the discipline of Political
Science. As such, it attempts to construct a theory based on observation
and modest empirical generalisations.

Contemporary political theory is mainly concerned with the explanation, investigation

and ultimately, the comprehension of what relates to concepts, principles and
institutions. Brian Barry says that political theory attempts to "study the relation
between principles and institutions". John Rawls thinks that political theory can seek
truth alongside scientific-empirical methods. Robert Nozick believes that
contemporary political theory can solve many political problems by combining
classical ends with empirical means. David Held sums up by saying that
contemporary political theory is: "first, the philosophical concerned, above all, with
the conceptual and normative; second, the empirical-analytic concerned, above all,
with the problems of understanding and explanation; third, the strategic concerned,
above all with an assessment of the feasibility of moving from where we are to where
we might like to be. To these, one must add, the historical, examination of the
changing meaning of political discourse its key concepts, theories, and concerns over
time.

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 21

 MPS-101/OSOU

2.4. RELEVANCE OF POLITICAL THEORY: PHILOSOPHICAL CONTEXT

Political science and political theory share many aspects. Both deal with matters
related to politics. They are scientific in their discussion of understanding what is
related to politics. Both take the help of history in so far us the latter helps in
understanding politics. But there is much which sets them apart. Political science is
more a science than a theory. Political theory is more a theory than science. Political
science adopts scientific methods for its study in empirical, positivistic, and
observational. Political theory is normative, philosophical and idealistic. Political
Science abhors what is ideological and value-laden, whereas political theory is both
ideological and value-laden. Accordingly, Political science is direction free while
political theory is a direction with an aim. Political theory is all about politics. It is a
symbolic representation of what is 'political'. In its nature, it is a formal, logical, and
systematic analysis of processes and consequences of political activity.

Political theory is an elaborate and consistent exercise aiming to achieve a better

world of politics. The political theory requires the philosophical analysis of concepts
and principles and the empirical understanding of political possesses and structures.

John Plamenatz, in his essay entitled "The Uses of Political Theory", elaborates on
the significance of political theory. According to him, political theory has its uses
which may be stated as follows:
(i) Political theory is a serious and difficult intellectual activity and the need
for this kind of exercise in modern times.
(ii) It is a study of values, norms, and goals, though it does not produce the
same kind of knowledge as empirical political theory does.
(iii) It is a study of theories which have, historically, powerfully, powerfully
influenced men's images of themselves and society, and profoundly
determined their social and political behaviour.
(iv) It has an element of socially conditioned ideology. This ideology may be
an illusion.
(v) It produces a coherent system of political principles which can guide us to
appropriate political action.

C. Wright Mills writes, "Political philosophies are intellectual and moral

creations. They contain high ideals, easy slogans, dubious facts, crude
propaganda, and sophisticated theories."
He describes the significance of political theory, as:

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 22

 MPS-101/OSOU

(i) It is itself a social reality; it is an ideology in terms of which certain

institutions and practices are justified and others attacked.
(ii) It is an ethic, an articulation of ideal, which, at various levels of
generality and sophistication, is used in judging men, events, and
movements and as goals and guidelines for aspirations and policies.
(iii) It designates agencies of action, the means of reform, revolution, and
conservation. It contains strategies and programmes that embody both
ends and means.
(iv) It contains theories of man, society, and history, or at least
assumptions about how society is made up, and how it works. It tells
us how to find out where we stand and where we may be going.

David Easton mentions three useful functions of political theory which are as follows:
(i) To identify the significant political variables and describe their mutual
relations. To ensure this, an analytical scheme is essential. This would
render-research meaningful and arranges facts leading to generalisation.
(ii) The existence, and wide acceptance of and consensus by workers in the
field, on a theoretical framework, would enable the results of the various
types of research to be compared. It would help in the verification of
conclusions drawn by the earlier researchers and may also reveal the area
of research which require more empirical work.
(iii) Finally, the existence of a theoretical framework, or a least, a relatively
consistent body of concepts, makes research more reliable.

M.P. Jain explains the significance and relevance of political theory as follows :
1. It helps in formulating the concepts, models and paradigms.
2. It makes the study of subjects systematic.
3. It helps in clarifying different socio-economic and political ideologies.
4. It gives us the theories of men/women, society, the state and history.
5. It tells us about the past, present and future of politics in a rational way.
6. It is an agency of reform, revolution and conservation.
7. It tells the common citizen about his/her rights and liberties and makes
him/her understand the concept of justice, liberty and equality.
8. It evaluates the ongoing politics and suggests changes.
9. It guides the action of both power holders and powerless masses. It tells
them their limits.
10. It sets the goals, norms and values of political systems.
11. It helps the comparison of different political systems and helps in
evaluating our system.
12. It suggests ways to shape and improve political institutions.

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 23

 MPS-101/OSOU

Jain also outlines certain features of political theory which possess relevance in
society. These are as follows:-
1. It is concerned with society, the state, government and citizens in general.
2. It describes analyses, explains, evaluates, prescribes and predicts the political
phenomenon.
3. It is a mixture of theory, philosophy, science and ideology.
4. It studies politics concerning other social sciences economics, sociology,
psychology, history and ethics.
5. It is concerned with both facts and values.
6. Its ultimate aim is to build a good society, the state and human beings.
7. It is a dynamic discipline and suggests ways to change society. Thus, it acts
as a guide to practical politics.

2.5. RESURGENCE OF POLITICAL THEORY: REVIVAL CONTEXT

The political theory had declined in the last several years. The whole political
scientists and scholars tried to revive the theory. In consequence, a large number of
scholars from Europe migrated to America and many of them began serious research
work on political theory and their interest did not lie in the study of political theory in
the traditional way. They arrived at the conclusion that the traditional method of
analysing political phenomena and theory was not adequate for new reforms of
political theory. The main resurgence was found in the United States due to the deep
involvement of the American Political Science Association and Rockefeller
Foundation. They encouraged the empirical approach to the study of political theory
leading to its resurgence.

With the advancement of society, people need more theories to organize, justify and
rationalize their actions. Man advocates some theory for himself and others. Up to the
Second World War political science generally meant the study of the state and
different political organisations and institutions such as legislature executive,
judiciary political parties, pressure groups etc. The subject was restricted within the
activities of these organisations and institutions. Political theory revolved around
these traditional conceptions. This traditional outlook considerably shadowed the
content and scope of political theory, Particularly in the field of policy- making. The
political theory had no spectacular role to play. But the real scope of political theory
is much broader than the one envisaged by traditional thinkers.

Another reason for the resurgence of political theory is pluralism. Pluralism wants to
emphasise that in any society numerous individuals cherish different tastes, interests

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 24

 MPS-101/OSOU

and values. Pluralism has a clear liberal lineage. The state authority cannot impose
any decision upon the people against their wishes. In any liberal society or pluralist
society, there can exist a number of institutions and organisations to cater for the
interests and values of individuals. After the 1950s, states of Europe and America
could not ignore the variety of individuals' interests. Political scientists also wanted to
propound the doctrine that there might be conflict among individuals so far as their
tastes and interests are concerned.

Behaviouralism constitutes a very important aspect of the resurgence of political

theory that took place at the beginning of the fifties the last century. Behaviouralism
is a belief that social theories can be constructed based on observable facts and
behaviours, quantifiable data and facts. Behaviouralism further maintains that various
segments of human behaviour are both observable and quantifiable.

In the 1960s behaviouralism was faced with increasing challenges and criticisms from
several corners of the academic world. In the 1970s a major challenge came from
John Rawls’ “A Theory of Justice” which was published in 1971. In 1954, Karl
Popper wrote the book “Open Society and its Enemies”. In this book, he characterizes
democracy as a welfare society, enlightened society and made other modifications to
it. He was a critic of communism and called them enemies of an open society. Berlin
wrote books like, “Two concepts of Liberty” in the year 1958, “Does Political Theory
Still Exist” in the year 1962 and Concepts and Categories” in the year 1978. He
accepted the notion of dead or dying of political theory. In that context, the writings
proceeded to revive the pollical theory. Wolin's masterpiece, in the book "politics and
vision: continuity and innovation in western political thought" in 1960 not only
defends classical tradition from the attack of behaviourism but also explains the
beauty and usefulness in the tradition of political theory from Plato to contemporary
times.

Since the 1970's similar approaches are being made by theorists. Since then, political
theory including critical political theory has been alive and has been using scientific
politics to achieve progress. Thus, political theory has not been killed by empirical
analysis but has helped to progress better.

2.6. IMPORTANCE OF POLITICAL THEORY: SOCIETAL CONTEXT

The study of political theory is essential as it deals with the subject matter of state and
government. Broadly the necessity of political Theory is valuable to society and
individuals. It enlightens theoretical prospects for the development of human beings.
Thus, there is a specific necessity for a political theory which is presented below.

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 25

 MPS-101/OSOU

Control of social life: Just as the knowledge of the environment helps us

understanding the causes of global warming, climate change, ecological imbalance,
and its preventive measures; so political science gives us the knowledge to know the
causes of conflict and violence in society and gives us the insight to prevent this
unrest in society after finding the remedies of political instability and various types of
social crisis.

Social criticism: Normative and classical political theorists were more concerned
about right and wrong, good and evil in social life. When they see anything wrong in
society and the state, they have made constructive criticism based on logic or
reasoning. Plato, Aristotle, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Hegel, Machiavelli, Marx, Mill
etc have brought out the evils of contemporary society. After pointing out the
prevailing ills in society they have given their ways for its social reconstruction.

Social Reconstruction: After finding out the social evils that prevailed during their
times, the political theorists have given their ways of social reconstruction. We cannot
accept any of these views as the final truth. Because, the opinions of these theorists
vary from person to person, group to group and society to society. It is the emotional
preferences of these people. After analyzing all these views, we can conclude the
reconstruction of society.

Future planning: Political theory is based on generalization which becomes possible

through the handwork of political experts. Scientists try to give even political
behaviour. The scientific base, and for this they use the newest techniques. Their
work is always to generalize new systems and scopes. In this way, they form the
newest theories for the solution of problems in new circumstances. They can even
forecast to a great extent. Thus, keeping in view the interest of the country and the
society it is possible to frame future planning.

Concept construction: Scholars of political science do research by collecting facts to

formulate new theories. The political system evolved by David Easton is based on
Input-Output analysis. Under this system inputs are collected in the form of demands
and supports and through the political process output is obtained. This work is
possible through decision-making and policy determination.

Knowledge of political reality: Political scientists make study social, economic and
political situations, the need of society, assumptions, and tendencies and expose the
political realities. To frame theory, the social survey undertaken by him gives first-
hand knowledge of society. Through analyzing the facts and events the scholar

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 26

 MPS-101/OSOU

exposes the bad practice and superstitions prevalent in the society so that discipline,
amiability and sentimental unity are formed in society.

Guidance to Disciples and Followers: The theory experts create confidence among
their disciples and followers through the theory formulated by them. The theories
formulated by Marx, Lenin, and Hegel have inspired many. Theories of The
communist political theory propounded by Marx and Engels created self-confidence
among the followers and disciples of Marx.

Useful in solving the problems: The socio-economic and political problems of the
society are solved through theories. We use theories for solving these problems.
These theories pave the way for the solution of numerous problems in society.
Theories act as an important guide for the establishment of democracy, determination
of the rights and duties of a citizen, relationship between individual and state,
separation of power, economic development, change in social systems, determination
of law and order and pace, etc

Provides Legitimacy to the Governments: All the government systems of the past
and present are based on one theory or the other. When a person establishes his
authority over an administration and brings about change in it, he takes the protection
of a theory to establish its rightness. Hitler and Mussolini took shelter from Nazism
and Fascism viewpoints to establish their dictatorship. Theory provides-rightness for
establishing democracy, secularism, nationalism, theocracy and peculiar class-
administration.

Conceptual and analytical clarity: Political theory helps to understand the concepts
and terms used in a political argument and analysis: like the meaning of freedom,
equality, democracy, justice and rights. These terms are not only frequently used in
daily conversation, but also political theory discourse. An understanding of these
terms is important because it helps to know the way how these terms have been
employed, the shifts in their definition and their usage in the structure of the
argument.

Inspire political movements: A particular theory inspires the revolutionaries to

launch a political movement endangering their lives. To justify their revolution they
take shelter from a theory. If they are not inspired by an ideal, they cannot put their
lives at stake. The revolutionaries of India were inspired by nationalism and
nationalistic assumptions. Gandhi followed the theory of truth and non-violence for
launching the national movement in India, and Lenin followed the theory of Marx for
starting a revolution in Russia. Thus theory also inspires movements.

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 27

 MPS-101/OSOU

History of Political Thought: Political theory offers a detailed and elaborate study of
books or particular political philosophies, from Plato to contemporary times, from a
historical perspective. These books provide us with normative statements about the
desirability of certain types of institutions, governments and laws, which are usually
accompanied by rational arguments.

Formulation of Public Policy: On the basis of past and present political theories, we
can formulate public policies. While providing justice we refer to a number of
theories of justice propounded by theorists. Similarly, scientific analysis of political
institutions would help us in making valuable public policies.

2.7 SUMMARY

Political theory is gaining importance every day due to its significance and usefulness
for humanity. The fast-changing political scenario needs theoretical explanations.
Political theory aims at comprehending the world in which it comes into being. It tries
to identify its salient character, understand its crisis, and assesses its capacity to
resolve that crisis. Political theory contributes to the capacity of man to understand
himself and after himself, his polity and history. It exhorts man to take command of
his common affairs. In short, it explains, illuminates, understands, evaluates,
enlightens, and alters. Political theory builds a model of the highest political order,
serves as a guide to the systematic collection and provides an analysis of political
data. As a science, the political theory describes political reality without trying to pass
judgement on what is being depicted. As a philosophy, it describes rules of conduct
which help secure good life.

2.8. EXERCISES

1. Discuss the development of Political theory

2. Discuss important thinkers’ views on the growth of political theory
3. Discuss the viewpoints for the resurgence of political theory
4. Discuss the significance of political theory in the society
5. Discuss features of political theory with suitable view points thinkers

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 28

 MPS-101/OSOU

2.9. REFERENCES

Agarwal, R.C.,(2006), Political Theory: Principles of Political Science, S.Chand&

Company Ltd. New Delhi.

Barry, Norman, P. (1989), An Introduction to Modern Political Theory, Macmillan,

London.

Bhargava, Rajeev & Acharya, Ashok, ( 2008), Political Theory: An Introduction

(Eds), Pearson Longman, Delhi.

Farely, Colin, (2004), Introduction to Contemporary Political Theory, Sage, London.

Gauba, O.P, (2019), An Introduction to Political Theory, 8th edition, National Paper
Backs, New Delhi.

Gauba, O.P. (2017), Political Ideas, Ideologies, Issues in Contemporary Political

Theory, Part-I, 3rd Edition, N.K.N. Publishers Pvt. Ltd. New Delhi.

Held, David, (1993), Political Theory Today (Ed), Polity Press, Cambridge, UK.

Jain, M.P. (2019), Introduction to Political Theory, Book Age Publications, Delhi.

Kapur, Anup Chand, (2010), Principles of Political Science, S. Chand & Company
Ltd, New Delhi.

Mohanty, Manoranjan, (2000), Contemporary Indian Political Theory, Samskriti,

New Delhi.

Ray Amal, & Bhattacharya, Mohit, (1998), Political Theory: Ideas and Institutions,
The World Press Pvt. Ltd. Calcutta, 12th Edition.

Verma, S.P., Modern political Theory, Vikas Publishing House Pvt. Ltd., Noida (UP),
2015

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 29

 MPS-101/OSOU

UNIT-3: APPROACHES TO THE STUDY OF POLITICAL

THEORY: NORMATIVE, EMPIRICAL,
BEHAVIOURAL AND POST-BEHAVIOURAL

Structure
3.1 Objective
3.2 Introduction
3.3 Normative Approach
3.3.1 Origin of the Normative Approach
3.3.2 Central Idea of Normative Approach
3.3.3 Components of the Normative Approach
3.3.4 Importance of Normative Approach
3.4 Empirical Approach
3.4.1 Features of the Empirical Approach
3.4.2 Evaluation of Empirical Approach
3.5 Behavioural Approach
3.5.1 Measurable or Quantifiable data for research
3.5.2 Origin of Behaviouralism
3.5.3 Characteristics Given by David Easton
3.5.4 Limitation of Behavioural Approach to study politics
3.6 Post-Behavioural Approach
3.6.1 Origin of Post-Behaviouralism
3.6.2 Post-Behavioural Movement
3.6.3 David Easton and Post-Behaviouralism
3.7 Summary
3.8 Exercise
3.9 Reference

3.1 OBJECTIVES

After studying this Unit, you will be able to understand:

• Know the meaning, origin components and central ideas of the Normative
Approach

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 30

 MPS-101/OSOU

• To know the meaning, and evolution, of the Empirical Approach

• Origin, Characteristics and Limitations of Behaviouralism Approach
• Outline the origin, and characteristics of Post Behavioural Approach

3.2 INTRODUCTION

In simple terms approach means criteria. A criterion is used to explain or analyse the
political questions and data. Since the questions and data are larger in number and
varied in nature each political scientist or philosopher analyses them in his way by
applying his standpoint and method. According to Van Dyke the word “approach is
defined to denote the criteria employed in selecting the questions to ask and the data
to consider in political inquiry”. Thus, the approach is a scientific way of studying a
subject. Political scientists use it to analyse and categorize data, facts, events,
problems etc. Classification of Approaches may be based on the fact-value problem.
This leads to the division of classification into the normative approach and empirical
approach. Various approaches to studying political theory have been discussed below.

3.3 NORMATIVE APPROACH:

The normative conception in political theory is also known as a philosophical theory

and ethical theory. It is based on the belief that the world and its events can be
interpreted in terms of logic, and purpose and ends with the help of the theorist’s
intuition, reasoning, insights and experiences. It is a project of philosophical
speculation about values. The questions, which are asked by normativism, would be:
what should be the end of political institutions? What should inform the relationship
between the individual and other social organisations?

There are several aspects of their philosophical reflection of politics (or practical
philosophy) which build up a normative theory: there is no separation between ethics
and politics (thus between ‘ought’ and ‘is’, they are mutually dependent), and the
nature of political theorizing is both descriptive (e.g. Aristotle’s Constitution of
Athens) and prescriptive (Plato’s The Republica and The Laws, Aristotle’s Politics),
politics has a teleological character and as an actor is concerned with telos, which is
primarily defined as the good life of the political community. It means that the
authority should do it or adopt relevant policies or decisions. Or it ought to do it.
Therefore, normativeness talks about preference. The word preference is not different
from should and ought. The word normative is derived from the Latin term “normal”,
meaning principles, rules, and norms. Normative relates to norm or standard. The
normative approach believes that there are certain standards, rules and guidelines
which must find their application in political science. The state’s function should be

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 31

 MPS-101/OSOU

based on certain norms, standards and precepts to achieve the goal. Therefore norms
are several principles which an authority cannot deny.

3.3.1 Origin of the normative Approach:

Normative political theory was developed in ancient Greece and provided the
foundations for political research. Normative political theory is as old as a reflection
of politics and we can easily regard Plato and Aristotle as their founders. The thought
of a good society or an ideal state and the entire structure of such a state is built upon
the concepts like ‘should’, ‘ought’, ‘preference’ etc. Plato said that any state or
society ought to be or should be ideal or good and he elaborated on the criteria of
good or ideal in his ‘The Republic. His great disciple Aristotle followed the path of
Plato and explained the ideal state.

3.3.2 Central Idea of Normative Approach:

The normative approach poses questions based on ‘norms’ or ‘standards’ in the study
of political science. The undercurrent of the normative approach includes questions
about the nature of man. Is the nature of man good, bad or a combination of both?
Whether the man is a rational being or irrationality overrides his actions. Is gender
equality an absolute value or do there exist basic gender differences that need
consideration? These are some of the fundamental posers that influence the normative
approach. While the empirical political theory is concerned with 'what is,' normative
political theory is concerned with 'what ought to be.' In other words, normative
political theory is concerned about how the world should be and focuses on the
exploration of values and what should be done based on those values.

The central idea of the normative approach is that study of politics or analysis and
functions of the state are to be viewed in the light of “what ought to be” rather than
“what they are.”It wants the realisation of certain universal values, norms or
principles through, the machinery of the state. Instead of asking how social policy
decisions have come to be made, it asks instead about how they ought to be made.

Thus we can say that values, principles or eternal ideas relating to politics or the
function of the state constituted the central idea of the normative approach to the
study of politics. In other words, this approach says that norms or principles are to be
followed in practice and such norms aim to make the political organisation acceptable
to all or the majority of people.

3.3.3 Components of the Normative Approach:

In the normative approach emphasis is given to “what is good and what is not good”.
For example, when a policy-maker formulates a policy and takes a decision he must

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 32

 MPS-101/OSOU

see to what extent the policy or decision will produce desired results. The concept of
goodness is linked with anticipation. Sometimes expectations of the people may not
tally with the real results. But that does not matter. The expectations fall in the
category of “ought to be”. Good also relates to the attainment of welfare objectives of
the state. The term good starts to examine the policy, decision and function of
authority.

The normative approach put forth certain norms and principles and if they are made
binding on the authority, people can judge the success or failure of the authority. In
other words, norms are easy of locating the responsibility. These norms or principles
have immense value and importance so far as the determination of policy and
decisions and their implementation is concerned. ‘Is’ or ‘what’ is happening, is
important no doubt but every authority must follow these norms and ideals. Values,
norms etc. are always subject to change and a responsible authority must take this
change into account and also will act accordingly. That is the normative approach
though pays heavy emphasis on norms it proceeds with the change.

3.3.4 Importance of Normative Approach:

It is now clear that in the normative approach there is a lot of importance on norms,
values, ideals, and ideas which cannot be thrown into the wind. They have importance
and a large number of political scientists and statesmen still believe that the norms
have immense importance.

In the writings and thoughts of every philosopher, there is an important place for
ideals and principles and this place is very much important. Utilitarianism proposed
that the state authority must follow the principle of pleasure and pain or in general the
policy of utility while making policy or taking decisions. Utilitarianism has not been
strictly followed or it is ignored, but it still holds good as a policy of liberalism.

Norms are always norms and they always act as guiding stars. Plato’s ideal state,
philosopher king, Aristotle’s polity, Marx’s classless state or society, his communism,
Rousseau’s moral state etc. still haunt us. We all know that all these can never be
achieved but we still hope that we must try to achieve them because they are our
ideals.

The normative approach criticises the functions, principles and policies of the existing
states as did Plato in his “The Republic.” Even today the same approach is followed.
The criticism by the supporters of the normative approach has not always succeeded
in changing the prevailing course of action of the state or the un-normative principles
of the authority.

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 33

 MPS-101/OSOU

It is alleged that the normative approach to the study of politics is a part of norms,
ideals, values and principles which is not relevant to the reality of the social and
political situation. But this criticism is not reasonable. An individual should decide on
certain principles which he wants, to follow, and a state should also decide or set up
certain ideals, norms and principles which it should apply while taking decisions.

All these are declared in various forms such as constitution, laws and general policy
decisions. After deciding the principles or general objectives the state proceeds to
implement them. This can be demonstrated by the Constitution of India in its
Preamble. The rise of the welfare state and its increasing popularity have added new
feathers to this approach. The welfare objectives on the one hand and ideals, norms,
and principles on the other hand are always at par. The welfare objectives pay more
importance to “ought to be or should be.” The function of the state is not a static one.
In a dynamic society, it should also be dynamic and there should be certain ideals,
principles and norms before it.

The normative approach encourages the efficiency of the state. Once the norms and
ideals are declared the authority of the state should arrange for their implementation.
Any inconsistency between promises and performance will call for a valuation of the
activities. If the inconsistency stands at a minimum level that will be an indication of
the efficiency of the state.
i. Idealistic and Prescriptive: The emphasis in this approach is on norms and
ideals. It does not concern itself with things as they are. It does not adopt a
realistic view of political actions, and institutions. Through the ages, Political
thinkers have focused their ideas and theories on what they perceive to be the
ideal for the state. They prescribe certain forms of conduct rather than
describe events or facts. This approach was inclined to ignore “What is” and
gave more importance to “What should be”. Therefore it is prescriptive that
Plato, Hegel and Green etc. are some of the idealist thinkers.
ii. Value Oriented approach: - Normative thinkers emphasized ethical and
moral values such as good-bad, just, unjust etc. It is a value-loaded approach.
It was more concerned with setting standards for organizations and the
governance of society.
iii. Optimistic and utopian: - Normative theories are based on assumptions. It
believes that a better system is possible. Accordingly, normative thinkers
suggest the ways and means achieve this better system. In that sense this
approach is optimistic. i.e. Plato’s concept of the Ideal State.
iv. Institutional formal and legal approach: - Normative approach suggests
that political Science is the study of State and government. It studies the
formal, Legal Structures of the Political system. e. g., the Study of the origin

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 34

 MPS-101/OSOU

of the State, functions of the State, Structure of the government, provisions

about the rights etc.
v. Dominated by Philosophy and History: - From Plato, Aristotle (ancient
Greek thinkers) to Rousseau used the Philosophical deductive method in
adopting the normative approach to make a political enquiry.
vi. Source of guidance for empirical researchers: Normative principles are a
source of guidance for empirical researchers, and provide their studies with a
purpose.
vii. The good in life: Normative theories remind us to seek the good in life such
as justice, morals etc.

Evaluation of the Normative Approach:-

Critics of normative theories have pointed out the following drawbacks to the
approach:-
i. Cannot be verified: Ideas and theories formulated by philosophers cannot be
verified. Most of the theories are based on assumptions. It has no historical
evidence.
ii. Too much theoretical: - Political Philosophers emphasized philosophical
principles than the reality of Politics. Hence there is a gap between the
normative theorists’ ideal world and the real world.
iii. Lack of universally acceptable definition: Philosophers have not even
reached a universally acceptable definition of the term philosophy.

3.4 EMPIRICAL APPROACH

The Industrial revolution and other social problems pressed Political Scientists for a
solution. During this stage, the interest in philosophical speculation declined. In the
beginning, the empirical approach was viewed as a supplement to the normative
approach. But after the 1940s the empirical approach monopolized the study of
Politics. Graham Wallas, Arthur Bentley, and Charles Merriam are some prominent
advocates of the empirical approach. GrahmWallas in his book “Human Nature in
Politics “introduced greater realism and psychological dimension in political studies.
Arthur Bentley in his book introduced the sociological dimension in politics.

3.4.1 Features of the Empirical Approach

The important Features of this approach are as follows:-
i. The modern approach: Though the Empirical approach emerged in the 20th
Century its tradition can be traced back to the earliest days of Political
thought. It can be seen in Aristotle’s attempt to classify constitutions,
Machiavelli’s realistic account of statecraft and Montesquieu's theory of

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 35

 MPS-101/OSOU

government and law. In the 20th century, it monopolized the study of Politics.
In that sense it is modern.
ii. Importance of Scientific Method: Empiricists Studied Political Processes
using scientific techniques such as survey, research, observation, experiment,
measurement etc. A normative approach to electoral studies may philosophize
on why people should vote, whereas an empirical approach would conduct
surveys and interviews of voters to find out the actual voting process. The
goal of empiricists is to develop a science of Political behaviour.
iii. Value-free: The empirical approach does not bother with morals, ethics and
values. It is a rational approach. It restricts itself to what is and was rather than
what ought to be. Empiricists draw a line of difference between fact and
value. They take a value-neutral attitude.
iv. Inter-disciplinary: While studying Political issues empiricists welcome
social Sciences like sociology, Psychology and Economics. It believes that the
political behaviour of man is only one aspect of his total behaviour and so the
inter-disciplinary Study would help Political analysis. For example, when we
study the voting behaviour of the people, we also study one’s loyalties to
caste; religion and political party economic conditions require to be examined.
v. Descriptive: It is descriptive. It means it seeks to analyze and explain where
the normative approach is `prescriptive‟ in the sense that it makes judgments
and offers recommendations.
vi. Emphasis on informal processes of Politics: In the modern approach,
greater emphasis has been put on informal processes of Politics and less on
Political institutions in isolation.
vii. Realistic: It gives scientific orientation to Politics. Empirical theories are
realistic. These theories are not based on assumptions but facts. For example,
a normative philosopher may believe that an ideal state is one where Capital
Punishment (death penalty) is banned. On the other hand, an empirical thinker
may produce statistical evidence to prove that countries that practice capital
punishment show lower instances of killings than countries where the death
penalty is not practised. The death penalty saves several innocent lives by
taking the life of a hardened criminal.
viii. The behavioural approach: Behaviouralism is a further refinement of some
aspects of the empirical Method. It emphasized the Study of man’s Political
behaviour instead of the State. It aimed at, “the development of a science of
the Political process”. Political-Science was in danger of becoming abstract
and remote from reality. Therefore the behavioural approach completely
abstains from “armchair” speculation. It requires the research to be systematic.
Its theory is subjected to empirical verification. They identify problems and
try to find out solutions.

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 36

 MPS-101/OSOU

ix. Broadening of Frontiers of Politics: New Political terms and Phenomena are
found a place in the study of Politics i.e., Power, influence, authority, Political
behaviour, Political culture etc.
x. Made Politics More dynamic: - The empirical approach has enabled political
Scientists to take their theories beyond Political institutions. Today Political
Scientists focus a lot of attention on the political behaviour of individuals, and
groups.
xi. Fulfils the shortcomings of the old approaches: - It does not neglect the
institutional element but tries to approach the institutions in their fullness as
they work e.g. the normative theories gave us the ideal of democracy.
Resolving questions such as:- Is a presidential or parliamentary system more
conducive to democracy in Indian conditions? What percentage of Indians are
casting their vote and how many are doing so freely? it can be achieved only
after fact-finding by employing empirical techniques.
3.4.2 Evaluation of the Empirical Approach:
i. Critics say that an entire value-free approach is not desirable because
civilization would stagnate if political science divorced itself from morality.
ii. Although in the initial years the empirical approach generated a lot of
excitement amongst Political academics. But now several of these academics
are becoming disillusioned with the empirical approach. The main reason for
this is that the approach appears to have failed to deliver on its biggest
promise to find a solution to world problems.

3.5 BEHAVIOURALISM APPROACH

“Political science could be, should be, and would be a scientific discipline.” “Hard
facts should be found (empiricism) and should be summarized in formal propositions
(theory building).” Positivist background: The need of collecting empirical data and
of testing theoretical propositions against the data.

Traditional political science was accused of being “merely descriptive,” and even
worse, “narrowly descriptive and” being only normative (and biased) focusing on
Ideas instead of facts (i.e., studies on constitutions). Until the middle of the twentieth
century, the discipline of political science was primarily qualitative – philosophical,
descriptive, legalistic, and typically reliant on case studies that failed to probe
causation in any measurable way. The word “science” was not entirely fitting. In the
1950s, the discipline was transformed by the behavioural revolution, led by advocates
of a more social scientific, empirical approach. Even though experimentation was the
main thing of research in the pure sciences and psychology, the method remained a
mere curiosity among political scientists. For behaviouralists interested in individual-

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 37

 MPS-101/OSOU

level political behaviour, survey research was the methodology of choice because
experimentation could not be used to investigate real-world politics. The consensus
view was that laboratory settings were too artificial and that experimental subjects
were too unrepresentative of any meaningful target population for experimental
studies to be valid. Further, many political scientists viewed experiments, which
typically necessitate the deception of research subjects -- as an inherently unethical
methodology.

Among those who have contributed to the development of behavioural political

science, the names of Arthur A.F Bentley and Charles Merriam stand out as the most
important. The University of Chicago produced eminent political scientists like
Leonard White, Harold Gosnell, Quincy, Wright, Almond, Avery Leiserson, Herbert
Simon and David Truman, most of whom became famous as the pioneers of the
behavioural revolution in political science. In 1953, David Easton argued that
political science had not made any progress in 2,500 years. Political science could
neither define its terms nor tell which data was relevant. For the Solution to this
problem, political scientists adopted the scientific method. Laboratory experiments
gradually acquired legitimacy for scholars working at the intersection of the two
disciplines. David B. Truman, Robert A. Dahl, David Easton, HeiszEulau,
Kirkpatrick, Malford Q. Sibley etc. have understandingly analysed this movement.
They were the major advocates of behavioural views.

3.5.1 Measurable or quantifiable data for research:

Behaviouralism is an approach which insists that social theory can be and should be
constructed only based on observable behaviours because only such behaviour
provides measurable or quantifiable data for research. Thus a social/political theory
can be constructed with the help of measurable data provided by the behaviour of
individuals.

3.5.2 Origin of Behaviouralism:

Behaviouralism came into existence as a reaction against the traditional approaches of
political inquiry and partly as a result of the quest in search for a more ‘Scientific
Method’ of acquiring empirical knowledge during the political analysis.

Behaviouralism, to the analysis and explanation of political phenomena, is

particularly associated with the work of American political scientists after the Second
World War, but its origins can be traced back to the works of Ludwig Von
Bertallanty, Graham Wallas and Arthur Bentley. Both GrahamWallas (Human Nature
in Politics) and Arthur Bentley (The Process of Government), both published as early
as 1908. They were inclined to lay greater emphasis on the informal processes of

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 38

 MPS-101/OSOU

politics and less on political institutions in isolation. The concept of general systems
theory had its origin in the writings of Ludwig Von Bertallanty, a biologist in the
1920s. Charles E. Merriam was another pioneer of the behavioural approach. He is
famous as the founder of the ‘Chicago School’ which made a substantial contribution
to the behavioralists movement. In the article ‘The Present State of The Study of
Politics’ published in American Political Science Review (1921) and in his book
‘New Aspects of Politics (1925), Merriam criticized contemporary political science
for its lack of scientific rigour. George E. Catlin in his ‘Science and Method of
Politics’ (1927) advanced the case for a value-free pure science. He treated ‘power’ as
the essence of politics and argued that analysis of power should not be inclined in
favour of any particular value system. Harold D. Lasswell, (1902- 78), in his
celebrated work ‘Politics: Who Gets What, When and How’ (1936) proved to be a
landmark in the empirical approach to politics as the study and analysis of power.
Despite these early attempts, Behaviouralism in political science was systematically
developed only after the Second World War, particularly through the writings of
American Political Scientists. David B. Truman, Robert Dahl, Evron M. Kirk-patrick,
David Easton, and Heinz Eulau; are some of the most prominent personalities of the
Behavioral movement in political science. Behaviouralism became popular with
social scientists in the post-war (after World War II) years for both negative and
positive reasons. (a) Negatively, behaviouralism set itself against 'mere' description,
‘raw' (barefoot) empiricism, 'simple' factionalism; against metaphysics, abstract,
speculation, and deduction from 'first principles'; against 'grand' interpretations of
history. (b) Positively, it favoured studying successful sciences to learn and know
how to apply proper scientific modes of thought and methods of research; focusing
attention on actual observable behaviour.

Thus Behaviouralism aims to produce a body of knowledge that aspire to provide

‘verified principles' of human behaviour through the use of methods similar to those
of natural sciences. This methodological identity and the essential unity of human
phenomena could lead to the integration of social sciences and the development of the
unified science of society.

Characteristics of Behaviouralism

i. Study of individual behaviour. Instead of studying the political institutions,

the behavioralists study and analyse the behaviour of the individual
ii. Inter-disciplinary. The study of politics is not possible in a limited field. The
study of the political activities of the individual is possible only in the social
atmosphere. Therefore, a political scientist needs to achieve knowledge of the
other social sciences. Moreover, he is dependent on other sciences for the
scientific technique of enquiry. Therefore, behaviouralists emphasize

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 39

 MPS-101/OSOU

interdisciplinary study. The inter-disciplinary is based on the assumption that

the social reality is one and different disciplines study different aspects of this
reality for the sake of convenience. A comprehensive understanding of this
reality requires combined efforts of all disciplines.
iii. For analysis, it emphasizes the scientific method. Behavioralism
emphasises the collection of statistics, instead of facts, and their evaluation
through scientific methods.
iv. It is capable of predicting. Behavioralists agree that if a student of politics
adopts a strictly analytical method for organised development of political
knowledge instead of a wholly explanatory method, politics can be made
capable of making predictions.
v. Politics should concern itself primarily with observable behaviour. The
main topic of the study of politics should be the behaviour of the individual or
the group which can be observed, only that should be studied.
vi. Data should be quantified. Each behaviour of political actors should be
collected in such statistics which can be measured and their conclusion may
be drawn from various sides.
vii. Its values are beyond the scope of measurement. The topics of political
science, which are related to values, e.g. democracy, liberty, equality and
justice, are beyond the limit of legitimate enquiry because such values cannot
be established as true or false based on science.

3.5.3 Characteristics Given By David Easton:

Scholars of ‘social science’ aim to build up a body of scientific knowledge which
could be used for controlling the social environment or for the scientific management
of society. According to Easton, (1962), the intellectual foundations of
Behaviouralism consist of eight major tenets. The eight characteristics features of
behaviouralism as given by David Easton are as follows: (1) Regularities; (2)
Verification; (3) Techniques; (4) Quantification; (5) Values; (6) Systematisation; (7)
Pure Science; and (8) Integration.

1) Regularities: The behaviouralists hold the opinion that human behaviour, despite
its differences, shows some remarkable uniformity in political behaviour, which
can be generalised and formulated in a systematic theory. The generalisations
reached in Pol. Science can predict political phenomena. Though political
behaviour is determined by so many factors and is not always uniform, it has been
observed that human beings behave in certain respects in a more or less similar
manner on different occasions. Voting behaviour is the most striking example in
this respect. It has been observed that the voters belonging to a particular caste,
social status, and economic position of profession vote for the same individual or
political party in successive elections. From this, some generations can be made

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 40

 MPS-101/OSOU

and the regularities in political behaviour can be predicted. Therefore political

behaviouralists contend that in political science results can be explained and
predicted. So behaviouralists claim that Political Science may not be comparable
to physics and chemistry regarding the exactness of its results but certainly it may
become comparable to astronomy or biology.
2) Verification: The behaviouralists do not accept anything granted like the
traditionalists. They do not believe in abstract political theory, rather they verify
and test everything. Anything which cannot be verified or tested can be termed
only as dogmatic and not scientific. They believe in empirical or scientific results
only which can be achieved after scientific verification.
3) Techniques: Behaviouralists emphasise the adoption of correct techniques for
acquiring and interpreting scientific data. Only then valid, reliable and
comparable data can be achieved. For this purpose, they suggest the use of
sophisticated tools-like the multivariate analysis, samples, surveys, mathematical
methods, simulation etc. Vigorously objecting to it the traditionalists point out
that data in social sciences can never be objective and that technique should not
be exalted at the cost of content.
4) Quantification: The behaviouralists argue that a researcher cannot properly
explain political phenomena nor can he safely predict a political result for the
future without measurement and quantification. For example, David Easton has
observed: "Precision in the recording of data and the statement of their findings
require tables, graphs and curves are drawn in behavioural research."
Quantification in the opinion of the traditionalists, on the other hand, is an
unattainable goal and requires extremely precise concepts and matrices which
Political Science does not possess.
5) Values: There is a difference between behaviouralists and traditionalists on the
question of value neutrality. While behaviouralists believe in the value-free study,
traditionalists believe in the value-laden study. They contend that any value which
cannot be tested empirically is an ethical value. For example, democracy, equality
or freedoms are excellent values to uphold, but their truth or falsity cannot be
proved scientifically. Scientific inquiry to be objective, therefore, must be value-
free. On the other hand, if one prefers to vote for B instead of A, that value can be
verified and measured. This value is, therefore empirical. Consequently,
behaviouralists reject only ethical values and not empirical values. According to
them, Political Science is a scientific study of politics in its functional aspect,
carried through empirical methods and has nothing to do with moral or ethical
questions. On the other hand, the traditionalists hold the opinion that significant
political issues invariably involve moral and ethical values and Political Science
cannot refuse to show concern with questions of right and wrong, even if it might
not be possible to resolve them 'scientifically.'

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 41

 MPS-101/OSOU

6) Systematization: Behaviouralism believes that research in Political Science must

be systematic which means that it must be "theory-oriented and theory-directed",
that theory and research should form as "closely interrelated parts of a coherent
and orderly body of knowledge" and that "research, untutored by the theory, may
prove trivial and theory, unsupported by data, futile".
8. Pure Science: Behaviouralists, by and large, insist on what they call the “pure
science approach”. This means that whatever research they make, that should be
applied to solving the problems of mankind. Therefore they apply the scientific
theory to social problems. Behaviouralists also make research on social problems.
9. Integration: Finally, behaviouralists believe that social and political phenomena
cannot be studied in isolation. It is difficult to draw the exact dividing line
between man's social, economic, political, cultural and other activities and they
can be understood only in the wider context of the entire social life of the society.
Therefore, behaviouralists believe in an integrated approach and for this purpose,
political scientists have to study other social sciences like sociology, history,
economics, anthropology etc. because the study of political phenomena requires
one understanding of how the economic, cultural and other phenomena in society
are unfolding themselves. In other words, it means an interdisciplinary approach.

3.5.4 Limitations of Behaviouralism Approach to Study of Politics:

Despite its contributions to the school of politics, it has been criticised strongly on the
following grounds:

1) Behaviouralism is concerned more with Techniques than Results: Wasby has

criticised that behaviouralists give too much importance to the techniques and
methods and do not anxious at all about the theoretical importance of the subject.
The behaviouralists have selected only such topics for research in which better
techniques are available and they have ignored the rest. Besides that, they have
not concerned about the results.
2) Behaviouralism as pseudo-Politics: According to Christian Bay behaviouralism
is not true or real politics, it is pseudo-politics.In his article, “A Critical
Evaluation of Behavioural Literature”, makes a distinction between politics and
pseudo-politics. Politics should aim at the promotion of universal interests. But
the behaviouralists only look to the American interests as they consider the
American institutions as the best and they use their methods to prove these
institutions as better than the institutions of other countries. Therefore
Behaviouralism is pseudo-Politics.
3) Study of politics can never be value-free: The critics of behaviouralism
challenges that politics can never be value-free. The very selection of subjects
for investigation is determined by values. As a political concept behaviouralism is
quite good no doubt, but it does not augur for a good or highly desirable society.
Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 42
 MPS-101/OSOU

4) Behaviouralismemphasises the importance of behavioural effects at the cost

of institutional effects: American behaviouralists have in total ignored the
effects of the institutions upon society and concentrated their efforts only on the
behavioural aspect of the individuals and groups confined mainly to America.
Even the voting behaviour upon which the American behaviouralists lay special
emphasis ignores many aspects such as the invalidation of votes on account of
their being defaced or the loss of a vote for not getting oneself registered.
5) Difficulties in studying ever-changing behaviour: It is very difficult to study
the ever-changing behaviour of man because the emotions, ideas and thinking go
on changing continuously. Therefore, absolutely no correct prediction can be
made about the behaviour of man. Furthermore, it is very difficult to measure the
role of various factors governing the behaviour of man.
6) Behavioural research depends too much on other sciences: Political Science is
depending upon other social sciences particularly sociology and anthropology and
borrowing so much from them. The interdisciplinary approach can help
understand many political problems but it cannot solve all the complexities of
human behaviour.
7) No emphasis on Applied Research: The behaviouralists give much importance
to the political behaviour of man in research but do not apply that research to the
current problems. There it is not much useful.
8) Limited knowledge: Behavioural experiments provide only limited knowledge
regarding the political behaviour of man. It does not provide real knowledge to
solve the urgent problems facing the world at large.
9) Demarcation of boundaries amongst different social sciences: There must be
clear-cut boundaries amongst different social sciences because sociologists,
anthropologists, economists and historians have no adequate knowledge of
Political Science. Scholars belonging to other social sciences cannot be allowed to
dominate Political Science. Prof. Sibley has already warned of this danger.
10) Towards democracy is not clear: The approach of the behaviouralists towards
democracy is not clear and up to satisfaction. They talk about democracy but a
very common sense idea about democracy reveals that the idea of democracy is
not separate from value judgment and ethical explanation. Leo Strauss has
levelled another charge against behaviouralism. He says that so far as the
behaviouralist literature is concerned it appears that the behaviouralists are
supporters of liberal democracy. It is because they pay maximum importance to
the opinions of individuals. But in the ultimate analysis, it will be found that they
are profoundly conservative. We generally criticise the traditionalists for their
biasness towards institutions and organisations. But the behaviouralists suffer
from the same shortcoming which is biasness.

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 43

 MPS-101/OSOU

11) Behaviouralismemphasises static rather than current situations:

Behaviouralists have been concentrating their study mainly on static subjects
rather than on the current problems. In the beginning, they justified this step by
saying that they were filling the gap left by institutionalism but now it cannot be
justified as the burning problems such as the threat of nuclear war, hunger,
famine, undernourishment etc. The behaviouralists have so far ignored all these
urgent problems because that does not suit their study.
12) Limitations of use of scientific methods in Politics: Scientific methods,
particularly as used in natural sciences, cannot be applied to social sciences,
including Political Science.

3.4 POST BEHAVIOURAL REVOLUTION

After the emergence of the behavioural revolution, human civilisation all over the
world was expecting much from the Behaviourailsts. They engaged themselves
involving in developing tools and techniques instead of solving practical and day-to-
day social as well as political problems. The result was that some of the
Behaviourailsts moved from mainstream Behaviouralism and started a revolution
against it. This revolution is known as post-behaviouralism as it tried to reform
Behaviouralism by removing the drawbacks of the Behaviourailsts.

3.6.1 Origin of Post-Behaviouralism:

The 1960s was a turmoil period in world politics. During this period Behaviouralism
approach emerged and that brought a revolution in political science in particular and
social science in general. Behaviouralism emerged as a protest movement against
traditionalism and it is considered a turning point in the history of the subject of
Political Science. They also developed some new research techniques which they
borrowed from other disciplines. The main focus of their study was individual
behaviour. They wished to bring the discipline of political science and politics close
to society. Society had expected much from the Behaviourailsts so they were popular
for about a decade till the mid-sixties. They laid stress on interdisciplinary research
and the use of scientific tools and techniques of research and value-free study of
political problems. In due course of time, some of the Behaviourailsts went out of
their fold and a new phase in political science started. The Post Behavioural
revolution was led by David Easton and some other Behaviourailsts who put a lot of
emphasis on Future-Oriented and Action Oriented research. It is known as Post-
Behavioural revolution which laid stress on various new methods for the study of
political problems.

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 44

 MPS-101/OSOU

3.6.2 Post-Behaviouralism Movement:

Post Behaviouralism is a protest movement against Behaviouralism which emerged
with some of the Behaviourailsts like David Easton who was originally one of the
leading advocates of behavioural revolution. According to them the Behaviourailsts
instead of studying political problems of the society began to waste their time in
developing tools and techniques and on such concepts as value-free investigation of
political problems. They also felt that the Behaviourailsts were doing irrelevant
research and not touching problems of social change, and even of revolution. So,
along with David Easton, some Behaviourailsts announced a new revolution in 1969
popularly known as Post BehaviouralismRevolution that represented a shift of focus
from strict methodological issues to a greater concern with public responsibilities.
Now a question arises about whether post Behaviouralism was a reform movement or
another revolution in Political Science. But the advocates of Post Behaviouralismlike
David Easton, Austin Ranney, and Peter H. Markel announced that Post
Behaviouralism is a new revolution but not Anti-Behaviouralism because Post
Behaviouralism are not opposing Behaviourailsts but is adding to what is already
being propagated, with certain modifications.

David Easton, therefore, appealed to Behaviourailsts and all political scientists that
they should welcome it and takes initiative by calling for the establishment of a
federation of social scientists which should identify major political issues, evaluate
the viewpoint of others as well as actions suggested by them and come out with
alternative suggestions and solutions.

Peter H. Merkel is of the view that though there has been criticism against
Behaviouralism, Post- Behaviouralism doesn’t constitute a new wave of
methodological innovations but in it, there is a trend to study political science on
normative lines, which has been condemned by the Behaviourailsts.

There is a general view that Post Behaviourailsts did not wish to bring any new
revolution. It wanted to reform the behavioural approach and end that sense of
frustration among the people that the Behaviourailsts had by the type of political
research conducted on rigorous scientific lines borrowed from other disciplines. The
advocates of Post Behaviourailsts wanted to say against Behaviouralism that the
Behaviourailsts had failed to appreciate the problems of new liberated colonies and
study such series of problems of those countries as poverty, racial discrimination,
political instability, poor economy, ethical conflicts, social and economic
backwardness, illiteracy etc. They were talking of systematic maintenance when the
world outside was in a state of disarray

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 45

 MPS-101/OSOU

They were also avoiding the study of such problems as the use of nuclear weapons
and experiments; civil wars, authoritarian as well as rigid religious fundamentalist
regimes etc. which were threatening democracy and world peace. The post
Behaviourailsts questioned the very reasonability of carrying out objective research
which couldn’t predict situations and problems which the society was likely to face.
They favoured both relevance and action in research. So, Post Behaviouralism was a
reform movement and as such, it tried to remove the drawbacks of the Behaviourailsts
which had come to light in the actual conduct of their research, which was different
from the objectives with which it started. On the other hand, Post Behaviouralism did
not entirely reject the achievement of the behavioural revolution, rather, it wanted to
use the achievements of that revolution for the well-being of the masses, and the
future reconstruction of society and the world.

The two main demands of post behaviouralism are- relevance and action. They
argued that in political science, a substance must come before techniques.
Contemporary political science should place its main emphasis on social change.

3.6.3 Features of Post-Behaviouralism:

1) Opposition to value-free social science: According to the advocates of
Behaviouralism, no value should be allowed to enter the process of
investigation of social science. But these types of arguments were criticized
by post-Behaviourailsts who opined that values are an inextinguishable part of
the study of politics in particular and social science in general. Post
Behaviourailsts stressed that we should be aware of value premises on which
our knowledge stands so that alternatives can be found.
2) Future-oriented study: Post Behaviourailsts wanted that research should be
future-oriented. A researcher and investigator of social and political problems
with the help of his research should be in a position to foresee the coming
events and make a prediction as well so that society is forewarned of coming
events. In other words, the post Behaviourailsts believed that research should
not be confined to finding out only the present situation but should help in
providing practical directions. Unless that is done research will be
meaningless to society. They, therefore, stressed future-oriented research.
3) Action-oriented: Post Behaviourailsts puts a lot of emphasis on action rather
than on contemplative science. According to them, knowledge for the sake of
knowledge has no relevance but knowledge must be put to work. When
knowledge can be used to work then it can help in reshaping society and better
for the society. So, post Behaviourailsts laid stress on the action.
4) Purpose Oriented: According to Post Behaviourailsts the research should be
relevant and purposeful for society. It should be relevant to the problems with

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 46

 MPS-101/OSOU

which society is faced, and also come out with practicable solutions which can
be implemented by administrators. As far as possible the solutions should
apply to all societies and not to a particular society. Along with these, Post
Behaviouralism puts a lot of emphases on purpose rather than on techniques
and also emphasizes the protection of human values. So, from the above-
mentioned features of post Behaviourailsts, we may say that Post
Behaviourailsts is differing from Behaviourailsts in many ways and thus they
aim to reform Behaviouralism which had detached itself from society.

5.4 David Easton and Post Behaviouralism:

David Easton, who had earlier laid down the “intellectual foundation stone of
behavioural revolution”, now, put forward new traits and orientations of the
Post Behavioural revolution. The main slogan of Post Behaviouralism was
Relevance, Human Values and Action meaning Political Science has to be
socially relevant and it must be active in the process of social change. The
seven principles of Post Behaviouralism as laid down by David Easton can be
summarized as follows:
1. Importance of Substance: The Behaviourailsts had put a lot of emphasis on
the development of sophisticated tools, techniques and methods. Post
Behaviourailsts did not underestimate their importance but at the same time,
they made it clear that these should have much less important than the
substance which must have precedence over techniques. Tools should be used
for a purpose. They believed that unless research was purposeful and
meaningful for solving urgent social and political problems, there was no use
in undertaking that. For them, it is always better to be vague than non -
relevantly precise.
2. Stress on Social Change: The Behaviourailsts had tried to describe and
analyze facts but did not try to understand these in their broad social context.
This research became an ideology of social conservation. The Post
Behaviourailsts however, condemned Behaviourailsts trying to preserve social
order which was bound to hamper the understanding of facts in the broadest
sense. They wanted the stress of contemporary political science should be on
social change and not on social preservation
3. Emphasis on Reality: The Behaviourailsts had lost touch with realities and
kept away from brute realities of politics. Post Behaviourailsts felt that
behavioural enquiry is abstract and does not help society in any way. They
point out that we are passing through times of crisis and even though heavy
expenses on research had been incurred and all the comforts of life are
available in the western world yet it is full of worries and social conflicts are
deepening in that part of the world. Western societies are very much worried

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 47

 MPS-101/OSOU

about future, social and political systems and it is no longer possible for
political scientists to close their eyes to the realities of the situation. If they
cannot face the realities then they are of no use to society. They wish that
barriers of silence that behavioural language has created should be ended and
realities of life situations accepted and problems of life solved.
4. Stress on Value Loaded Political Science: The Behaviourailsts had laid too
much importance on value-free research. It was one of their pivotal points.
They stood for value neutrality in research at all levels. Values for all practical
purposes were out of their consideration. Post Behaviourailsts however, did
not agree with this viewpoint and stressed value-loaded Political Science.
According to them, all knowledge stands on values and unless the value is
considered the basis of knowledge there is every danger that knowledge will
become purposeless. They are of the view that in political research values
have a big role to play. Values must occupy a central place in research. In the
words of David Easton, “Values are an integral part of our personality and so long as
we are human beings, these sets of mental preferences are always with us.”
5. Stress on Human Values: Post Behaviourailsts think that as learned
scholars’ political scientists fall under the category of intellectuals and as such
it becomes their most important duty to protect human values and civilization.
They believe that if political scientists in the name of objectivity or
detachment don’t perform this duty they will not be better than technicians
and mechanics. In the words of David Easton, “The intellectual’s historical role
has been and must be to protect human values civilization. This is their unique task
and obligation. Without this, they become more technicians and mechanics for
tinkering with society. They thereby abandon the special privileges they come
to claim for themselves as academics….”
6. Stress on Action Science: Post Behaviourailsts puts a lot of emphasis on
action rather than on contemplative science. According to them, the latter had
some meaning during the 19th century when there was some broader moral
understanding among the nations but it is out of place in contemporary society
which is divided over ideals and ideologies. They have said that knowledge
for the sake of knowledge has no relevance but knowledge must be put to
work. It is then that it can help in reshaping society. It is the special
responsibility of intellectuals to put the knowledge to work.
7. Stress on Politicization of Profession: The Behaviourailsts were not in
favour of politicization of political science but post Behaviourailsts hold the
opposite view. According to the post Behaviourailsts, to achieve the goals
mentioned above there was a growing need for the politicization of the
profession of all professional associations and institutions. Political science as

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 48

 MPS-101/OSOU

a discipline has to be politically active and intervene for change and protection
of human values.
It can be concluded that Post Behaviouralism is one of the important
approaches or revolutions to the study of political science. It is a reform
movement of Behaviouralism which appreciates the work done by
Behaviourailsts in developing tools, techniques and methods of research but
wishes that those should be used for the good of society. For post
Behaviourailsts, knowledge must be used for collective welfare for resolving
conflicts Post Behaviourailsts try to make the discipline of political science in
new directions and millennium.
8. Acceptance of values by the post-Behaviouralists: In the process of
making politics full science the behavioural theorists depended more on
statistics and facts. They made themselves completely free from ideals, values
and aims. The post-behaviouralists realized that politics could not take the
place of physical sciences. Ideals and values decide the aims and objectives of
politics. Without them, the scope of politics would become dry and infertile.
Thus, they accepted the normative approach along with the empirical
approach.

3.7 SUMMARY

Different approaches to studying political theory have been marked by distinctive

substantial and methodological concerns. The nature of political arguments also
differs across the approaches. Normative political theories were about the right and
the good and so were the political arguments. Political arguments assumed the form
of moral reasoning with a clear purpose of settling moral issues or claims of moral
and political truth on a rational basis. Political arguments in this tradition proceeded
from certain self-evident truths, axioms, or assumptions about the nature of truth or
knowledge, toward conclusions about political truths or claims to truths. The
positivists criticised the normative theory. If the propositions contained in normative
political writings are not susceptible to empirical verification or falsification, then
they are not meaningful. While positivism dismissed the normative political theory, it
encouraged a scientific study of political phenomena based upon the methodology of
natural sciences. As regards the subject matter of the arguments, political arguments
could only be about empirical political behaviour and logical analysis of political
concepts. This, in turn, required that arguments be based on a behavioural approach to
the study of political attitudes as well as an individualistic reductionist approach to
social and political phenomena. The interpretive theory emerged in political inquiry
as an alternative to positivist political science. It criticised the empiricist approach for

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 49

 MPS-101/OSOU

assuming a disjuncture between political life and the language of that political life.
The explanation must go deeper to uncover the meanings and practices of language
and political life that form the social matrix against which subjective intentions are
formed. Hence, empirical social science is insufficient for explaining the most
fundamental aspects of political and social life. Explanations in terms of subjective
attitudes and empirical indicators of behaviour are too thin to identify and account for
the most profound meaning and sense of political life.

3.8 EXERCISE

1. Discuss the meaning, origin components and central ideas of the Normative
Approach
2. Discuss the meaning, evolution, and characteristics of the Empirical
Approach
3. Discuss the Limitations of the Behaviouralism Approach
4. Discuss theOrigin, and characteristics of Post Behavioural Approach

3.9 REFERENCE

• Albert Weale, Political Theory and Social Policy. Macmillan Press Ltd.
1983.P.8.
• Das, P.G. Modern Political Theory, New Central Book Agency(P) Ltd,
London, 1996.p.24.
• Verma. S.P., Modern Political Theory, Vikash Housing Publishing Pvt Ltd. .
1992, p. 12.
• David Easton: Introduction: The Current Meaning of Behaviouralism” in Free
Press of Glencoe, 1967. pp. 11-31.
• Das, P.G. Modern Political Theory, New Central Book Agency(P) Ltd, London,
1996.p.24.
• Verma. S.P., Modern Political Theory, Vikash Housing Publishing Pvt Ltd. .1992, p.
12.
• David Easton: Introduction: The Current Meaning of Behaviouralism” in Free Press
of Glencoe, 1967. pp. 11-31.

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 50

 MPS-101/OSOU

UNIT-4: APPROACHES: MARXIST AND FEMINIST

Structure
4.1. Objectives
4.2 Introduction
4.3. Marxist Approach
4.3.1. Marxism and Liberalism
4.3.2 Marxist View of Politics
4.3. Feminist Approach
4.5.1 What is Feminism?
4.3.2 Waves of Feminism
4.3.3 Different Streams of feminism
4.3.4 Feminist Approach to Politics
4.4 Summary
4.5 Exercise
4.5 References

4.1. OBJECTIVES

After reading this unit, you will be able to understand:

• the core ideas of the concept of Marxism
• the differences between Marxism and Liberalism
• the Marxist view of politics
• the Basic concept of Feminism
• the various waves of Feminism
• the different streams of Feminism
• the core assumptions of the Feminist view of politics.

4.2 INTRODUCTION

Marxism is a radical theory, as summarized by his catchphrase, "from everyone

according to his ability, to each according to his need." Marxism as an ideology
emerged against the reaction of the liberal-capitalist notion of the state. Itseverely
attacks the institution of private property and argues for the demolition of the whole
capitalist structure of society to establish a classless and stateless society-i.e.

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 51

 MPS-101/OSOU

communism. The Marxist conception of politics has its roots in the anthropocentrism
of the Enlightenment. The class struggle between the capitalists and the working class
is the central theme of Marxism. It is a social, political, and economic theory that was
developed by Karl Marx. He argued that because of the intrinsic exploitation present
in the power dynamics between capitalists and workers, there would necessarily be a
class- struggle. He believed that this conflict would ultimately lead to a revolution in
which the working class would overthrow the capitalist class and seize control of the
economy.( Investopedia.com: 2021). According to the Marxist view, a society's class
structure dictates how its political system is organised, how it operates, and how well
it functions within a society

4.3 MARXIST APPROACH

The fundamental characteristics of the Marxian method and the behavioural approach
are highly dissimilar. The Marxian Method has been a value-laden approach, in
contrast to the latter, which encourages an empirical and mostly value-free study of
politics. It is supported by a number of values. The working class is the most
significant and revolutionary in every society, capitalism is an exploitative system,
and the state is its instrument. Society is evolving toward its ultimate goal of
becoming a classless and stateless society. The matter is evolutionary, its process of
evolution is dialectical, and history is determined by material forces. The Marxian
Approach is a normative approach that not only outlines the goals to be upheld but
also the processes and routes that should be followed to achieve those values.

4.2.1. Marxism and Liberalism

Marxism and Liberalism were the two main intellectual philosophical schools that
predominated the sphere of modern notions of politics. Instead of a conversational
approach, they typically take a revelatory one. Both traditions were deeply rooted in
divergent core values, with differing interpretations of the values. The specific traits
of the cultures and political systems in which they functioned greatly influenced
them. It is a kind of race to see who the best is. The main tenants of liberal political
philosophy are devotion to the individual and the goal of creating a society in which
people can pursue their interests and fulfilment. Fundamentally, liberals are people
first. Individualism, freedom, universal reasoning, faith, and toleration are just a few
of the distinctive values and ideas that have a profound impact on the political,
economic, and cultural life of human beings. While protecting society from petty
interests, liberals, on the other hand, think that the state's role is to serve the common
good and interest. They also think that disagreement and conversations produce issues
that must be resolved. Therefore, politics is the process of negotiating and adjusting
amongst diverse people and organizations that have decided to coexist and desire to

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 52

 MPS-101/OSOU

coexist. Where Marxist disagrees with liberals in the context of Class struggle,
historical materialism, revolutionary transformation of the conditions of production
into universal, and belief in social changes comes about through economic class
struggle. They also distinguish between the ideas of 'Man' and 'Society'. However,
Marx has given priorities to the class over the individual. Karl Marx believed that
society was an institution of exploitation as well as a gathering of people. The
Marxist political philosophy is based on four fundamental principles: (a) typically
favours liberty, equality, and fraternity; (b) is superior to human nature and has
positive views, hence believes in the potential of social progress. Leftists often
support regulation; (c) state intervention, and (d) economic management or
distribution of resources.

4.2.2Marxist View of Politics

The period of intellectual reshaping by the enlightenment, social upheaval, and the
economic and technological development of the industrial revolution, development of
global trade, empire dominated by Europe, and ardent nationalism had a significant
impact on Karl Marx's Political beliefs. As a result, Karl Marx blended German
philosophy, Enlightenment concepts, French Socialist ideas, and English and Scottish
political economists to create a new style of thinking, which led to the relationship of
humans with the natural world, and the abstract manner of class struggling in the
material world.

The politics of class, along with social theory and class politics of anti-oppression are
at the centre of Marxist political philosophy. The Marxist concepts of "the common
ground" and "the majority" are crucial elements of Marxist politics in a Marxist view;
the majority refers to the people who are demonstrably the victims of class
exploitation. Two elements make up the common ground in politics: the majority of
people share two fates: first, they are exploited, and second, this exploited majority is
subjected to one or more of the numerous oppression mechanisms, all of which reflect
an assault on democratic rights.

Politics is a component of the Social Process:

Marx considered individuals to be social beings. Even more so, he embodies and
affirms social existence by living his life as a communal life that is shared with
others. Marx contends that while being a social species, man is not a political animal
by nature. Therefore, it is impossible to understand politics without also
understanding social processes. Marx argued that politics could not be understood
separately but only within the framework of the social process.

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 53

 MPS-101/OSOU

Man is fundamentally a Social Animal:

Marxists essentially view society as an organisation of people and view man as a
human being. Marxists do not accept the distinction between human and social goals.
In this regard, Karl Marx himself asserts that "man is an asocial animal." Even while
it is his life, it nevertheless represents and validates social life. As is evident from
this statement, Marx does not believe that man is detached, alone, or atomized from
social relationships.

Society is a Living, Growing Organism:

The interests of society, not only the sum of the interests of all of its members, are
what society needs to function as a social organism based on its intrinsic objective
laws of growth. The historical shift in the modes of production and the progressive
development of society's productive forces form the essential foundation of the social
process.

Society is an organization that is always evolving. According to Marx, society is a

component of nature. These are a few scientific guidelines for society's growth. For
Marx, it argues that we should investigate the guidelines for the growth of a society
based on historical materialism.

Politics is the study of class division, Class struggles and Class Relations in
Society.
Class societies have existed in every society throughout history. The competing
classes in the era of capitalism have included "freeman and slave," "lord and serf,"
"guide master and journeyman," as well as "Bourgeoisie and Proletariat." Domination
and conflict, which are founded on particular, concrete characteristics of their mode
of production, are characteristics of all class societies. The ruling classes have
consistently worked to maintain and grow their position of class dominance
throughout history. Class conflict or class struggle is caused by the separation of
society into opposing classes. Politics will not be able to address this class struggle.
The class that donates uses politics to stifle conflict. As long as there are two classes
in society, the donor class employs politics to quell the conflict.

Economic Bias:
The epiphenomenal and derivative nature of Marxist politics is evident. The political
life process is viewed as a component of the "superstructure" supporting society's
economic foundation. In the social construction of this coexistence, men enter into
certain, obligatory interactions that are independent of their desire. The real basis,
from which a superstructure of law and politics springs and to which particular types
of social consciousness are related, according to this perspective, there is a close

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 54

 MPS-101/OSOU

connection between politics, the economy, culture, and ideology. The economic
foundation of society is thus comprised of the relations of production as a whole. On
this "actual basis" of the "economic structure," the legal and political institutions are
supported.

Marxist Supports Revolutionary Politics:

The unavoidable nature of societal changes is "revolutionary." Marxism backs
revolutionary political movements. Politics was significant before the revolution
because it was vital for the working class to seize control of the state. The Revolution
finally and definitively resolved the working class's political dispute over state
authority. The only ways to abolish classes and create a society without them are
through the state and politics. Politics always has a class character and plays a
significant role in the social process of class struggle. Politics will be irrelevant after
the revolution and will be employed primarily to create a classless society.

4.3. FEMINIST APPROACH

4.5.1 What is Feminism?
A concept known as feminism promotes equal opportunity for women in the fields of
politics, business, and social life. In the US, the phrase has been in use for nearly a
century; feminists were those who fought for women's rights even before they were
granted voting rights in 1920. Feminism is an inter-disciplinary method of addressing
issues of equity and justice based on gender, gender expression, gender identity, sex,
and sexuality as understood via social theories and political activity. Feminism is a
political project to understand to change women's inequality, liberation, or
oppression. It is an ideology which establishes women as a different community with
different systems of needs and demands against those of men. It is all about half of
the population of the world and demands equality of identity, dignity and opportunity
for women as against the patriarchal construct of gender.

In Political Theory as an important segment of enquiry feminist Political theory

emphasizes understanding and countering the meaning of political philosophy which
is commonly constructed. Feminist Political Theory maintains that political theory
needs to be constructed in the sense that accelerates feminist areas of study and
expressed in practical political analysis. In this way, feminist Political Theory
amalgamates both feminist theory and Political Theory. This may be called a feminist
approach to Political Theory which adds a new understanding of Political Theory.
Feminist Political Theory particularly emphasizes certain objectives to present a
critical viewpoint on how Political Theory is traditionally understood and what
should be the role of gender. Secondly, feminist issues have taken an important place
as society advances newer problems and approaches should be evolved to seek the

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 55

 MPS-101/OSOU

answers to women's issues. Thirdly it is important to analyse and make gender

equality a significant attribute to political theory.

It is important here to mention that feminist Political Theory does not only relate to
gender equality and gendered analysis. The understanding of feminist Political
Theory cuts across disciplines as it relates broadly to human developments and phases
of development the world over in various areas of human life. Gradually and steadily
feminist issues have been ingrained into the Political Theory. Feminist Political
Theory encompasses a broad array of thought concerning the role of the state and its
way of addressing gender issues.

The origin of feminism may be dated back to certain writings focusing on the
exclusion of women in politics and their subjugation in Society. The equality
concerns directly relate to this fact.

4.3.2 Waves of Feminism

There have been waves or phases of feminist movements. The women's rights
movement began as a part of an international movement to abolish slavery that was
from 1800 to 1900 roughly we can take in this movement that women demanded
equal political rights with men especially the right to vote. Many voices were raised
to put forward the argument that women are strong, rational and have the ability to
participate in the political sphere. They need not be confined to domestic work. They,
therefore, argued for political equality and many civil rights as may be right to
divorce, the right to inheritance and many educational rights

The first wave of feminism (1848 to 1920)

Women's civic and political rights were highlighted in the initial phase. To gain the
right, activists and many others had to fight for about 100 years, and the entire battle
was incredibly difficult. The nineteenth and early twentieth centuries in the western
world are typically referred regarded as the first wave of feminism. Gaining the
fundamental legal protections for women that we today cannot fathom life without
was a major focus of this period. Sojourner Truth, Dorothy Day, Jane Addams, and
Elizabeth Blackwell are a few of these pioneering advocates. Women of colour didn't
start to find their voices until the second wave of feminism, which was predominantly
driven by middle-class white women.

The second wave of feminism (1960 to 1980)

The 1960s and 1970s saw the rise of the second-wave feminism movement, which
concentrated on concerns of equality and prejudice. The feminist liberation
movement, which began with American women, quickly expanded to other Western

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 56

 MPS-101/OSOU

nations. A reproductive rights movement was born out of the women's movement in
the late 1960s, and its objectives included encouraging easier and safer contraception,
legalising abortion, and opposing racist and classist birth control plans. The Feminine
Mystique, written by Betty Friedan in 1963, argues that women were resenting their
limitations as spouses and mothers. As a result of the book's popularity at the time,
the conventional roles of women in society were seen to need to be reconsidered.
More rights and equality for women were won at this time.

The third wave of feminism(1990-2010)

The third wave of feminism emerged in the 1990s, focusing on current issues,
including sexual harassment in the workplace, and establishing that women should be
taken into consideration for more powerful positions as opposed to power positions.
1990 and after remain more inclusive, especially in terms of race and gender. The
Third Wave of feminism placed a strong emphasis on women's reproductive rights.
Women's autonomy over their bodies and access to contraception and abortion were
fundamental rights, according to feminists who fought for these rights. Iterations of
the feminist movement include third-wave feminism. It started in the US in the early
1990s and persisted until the fourth wave started to emerge in the 2010s.

The fourth wave of feminism(2010 Onwards)

By adopting distinctive traits, priorities, and stances toward the main social and
cultural forces of its time, the movement succeeds the first-, second-, and third-wave
feminist movements. The early 2010s through the present are usually regarded as the
fourth wave of the feminist movement. The emphasis on women's empowerment, the
use of online resources, and intersectionality characterize the fourth-wave feminism
movement, which emerged around 2012. The fourth wave focuses on gendered norms
and the marginalisation of women in society to achieve greater gender equality. It
also emphasises themes like rape culture, body shaming, and sexual harassment.
Utilizing social media to bring these issues to light and solve them was a crucial
element.

4.3.3 Different Streams of feminism

• Liberal feminism
• Marxist and socialist feminism
• Radical Feminism
• Ecological feminism
• Post-modernist and Structuralist feminism

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 57

 MPS-101/OSOU

Liberal feminism
A group of ideologies known as liberalism promote the importance of liberty and the
idea that everyone has the right to freedom. Liberal feminists uphold this ideal,
support the state's function, and demand that women have their rights. Liberal
feminism "works within the structure of mainstream society to integrate women into
that system." Liberal feminism focuses a strong emphasis on the public sphere,
particularly laws, political institutions, education, and the workplace, and sees the
denial of women's equal legal and political rights as the fundamental barrier to gender
equality. The founding figure of the liberal feminist movement was Mary
Wollstonecraft (1759–1799). She argues that women must get an equal education to
men for them to develop into moral, self-reliant adults in her essay A Vindication of
the Rights of Woman, which she penned in 1792. Liberal feminism relates to goals of
freedom, equality, Universal human rights and Justice. The focus of this branch of
feminism is to bring about reforms in society through political and legal means. The
chief advocates of liberalism are Mary Wollstonecraft, J.S. Mill, Betty Frieden,
Carole Pateman and others.

Marxist and Socialist feminism

This is related to Marxist philosophy that links issues with individual private property
ownership, the exploitation of women, and capitalism; as a result, the capitalist
system must be abolished. According to socialist feminists, the capitalist and
patriarchal order that characterised each historical era's economy was the primary
cause of sexism and the gendered division of labour at the time. In anticolonial
uprisings, feudal patterns of gender oppression were mobilised by imperialism to
seize markets, lands, and populations. These ideas gave rise to various forms of
socialist feminism all around the world. The "patriarchy" was stressed by socialist
feminism as a position of authority that oppressively influenced women's lives.
Patriarchy overlapped but was different from the Marxist emphasis on the supremacy
of capitalism and class in socialist feminism. The main supporters of this view are
Charles Fourier, Friedrich Engels, August Bebel,Shiela Rowbatham and others.

Radical Feminism:
Radical feminism is a worldview that places a strong emphasis on the patriarchal
causes of gender inequality, or more precisely, the social dominance of women by
males. Radical feminism holds that patriarchy oppresses women and benefits men by
dividing societal rights, privileges, and power primarily along sex lines. Radical
feminism is opposed to current social and political structures in general because they
are intrinsically based on patriarchy. Radical feminists therefore frequently view
political activity inside the current system with scepticism and instead prioritise
cultural shifts that challenge patriarchy and related hierarchical institutions. This

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 58

 MPS-101/OSOU

school of feminism contends that the centre of women's problem is male Supremacy
and the modern patriarchal society and all conceptual understanding regarding
women's issues revolve around patriarchal society. it also argues that because of the
patriarchal social order the oppression of women has been systemic and persistent.
The main exponents of radical feminism are Sigmund Freud, Simon de Beauvoir,
Shulamith Firestone, Kate Millett and others.

Post-Modernist and Post- Structuralist Feminism

Postmodern feminism is a synthesis of French feminism, postmodernism, and post-
structuralism. Destabilizing the deeply ingrained patriarchal conventions that have
contributed to gender inequity is the aim of postmodern feminism. To show that not
all women are the same, postmodern feminists embrace the distinctions that exist
among women while rejecting essentialism, philosophy, and universal truths.
Postmodern feminists reject these ideologies because they think that if one universal
truth is applied to all women in society, it minimises individual experiences. As a
result, they caution women about accepting ideas that are presented as the norm in
society because they might be derived from masculine ideas about how women
should be represented. It rejects the dualism of the previous 20 years of feminist
theory: men and women, reason and emotion, difference and equality. It challenges
the very notion of stable categories of sex and gender race. One of the foremost
postmodern theorists, Michel Foucault, has stressed the limitations of meta-narratives
and the need to investigate the details of power and how it interacts with knowledge.
He scorns "reason" as the product of chaos and "truth" as merely an error that history
has long since fixed. Betty Friedan, Julia Kristeva, Judith Butler, Mary Joe Frug,
Elaine Showalter, Carol Gilligan, and Adrienne Rich are notable 20th-century
feminist theorists.

Ecological Feminism
In order to draw attention to women's capacity to spark an ecological revolution, the
French feminist Françoise d'Eaubonne coined the phrase "ecological feminism" in
1974. This looks at how women and nature interact, and how their nurturing nature
keeps them away from the natural world. The movement known as ecofeminism
believes there is a link between women's subordination and oppression and the
exploitation and destruction of the natural environment. Alongside second-wave
feminism and the green movement, it arose in the middle of the 1970s. The four
pillars of ecofeminism are as follows: (a) the exploitation of women and the
exploitation of nature have significant connections; (b) the essence of these
connections must be understood to fully comprehend the exploitation of women and
nature, and (c) both feminism theory and practise must take into account these
connections. (d) The feminist perspective must be included in the solution to

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 59

 MPS-101/OSOU

ecological issues. The two leading proponents of this viewpoint are Vandana Shiva
and Maria Mies. The authors of the renowned book Ecofeminism (1993) reflect on
the adoption of modern science as an objective, value-free system. They see the main
branch of modern science as a reflection of Western male ideals rather than as an
objective branch of science.

4.3.4 Feminist Approach to Politics

Feminism or the feminist approach is a way of looking at the social and political
structure from the perspective of women. It refers to the concept of patriarchy or a
system of male authority that oppresses women through its social, political, and
economic institutions. It is therefore a critique of patriarchy on the one hand and an
ideology committed to women’s emancipation on the other. The concept embraces
other areas of women’s life such as their development, and their role in political,
social, cultural, and economic affairs. It also talked about women’s rights and
freedom.

The social and political structure has been built up in such a manner that women are
not at par with men in various affairs of society and this has led to a male-dominated
society. Feminists have thus campaigned that since women form one-half of the
population, social progress can never be achieved without the complete and active
participation of women. Feminism and the feminist approach to politics have been
considerably used. One needs to understand that feminism is a movement whose aim
is to accelerate the social role of women because without it their all-around progress
is practically an impossibility. Feminism is thus an ideology.

But this concept failed to throw sufficient light on the feminist approach to politics—
when it was strongly felt that without women's whole-hearted participation in all sorts
of social functions neither social development nor their emancipation can be
achieved. It is thus gender equality that has become an issue of great importance. To
ensure women's participation and realization of their equal rights, a change in the
entire structure of society was sought to be achieved and this can be done only
through political machinery the state and its agencies.

In conclusion, it is said that in real sense feminism and the feminist approach to
politics are not different ideas or concepts; both are interlinked. Women must be
treated at par with men. This is the basic concept. This is a demand and this has led to
a movement. Both academic and non-academic ideas are associated with these two.
They have articulated how political theory might be reconstructed in a way that
advances feminist concerns. The theorists combine aspects of both feminist theory
and political theory to take a feminist approach to traditional questions within
political philosophy.

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 60

 MPS-101/OSOU

4.4 SUMMARY

Marx's perspective on how society and the individual interact is well-founded. Marx
argued that societies founded on private ownership of the means of production are
divided into opposing classes with competing interests. In such social settings,
regardless of a person's unique talents, the overall structure of their personal lives is
decided by their social class. For example, in a capitalist society, a person's social
standing is based more on how much money they have than on their skills. In
addition to expressing his profound and honest sorrow and rage about the human
suffering brought on by industrialization in the nineteenth century, Karl Marx's
writings seem to demonstrate his humanism. Since the individual is a profoundly
social entity whose wants will never be fully met without human interaction and
community, we end by noting that Karl Marx's thoughts regarding the ideal
relationship between the individual and society demonstrate this.

In this unit, you have studied core concepts of Marxism and Feminism and their
views regarding politics. Marxism as an ideology emerged against the reaction of the
liberal-capitalist notion of the state, which severely attacks the institution of private
property and argues for the demolition of the whole capitalist structure of society to
establish a classless and stateless society-i.e. communism. The Marxist school of
thought and liberalism were the two main intellectual philosophical schools that
predominated in the sphere of modern notions of politics. Instead of a conversational
approach, they typically take a revelatory one. Both traditions were deeply rooted in
divergent core values, with differing interpretations of the values. The Marxist
political philosophy is based on four fundamental principles: (a) typically favours
liberty, equality, and fraternity; (b) is superior to human nature and has positive
views, hence believes in the potential of social progress. Leftists often support
regulation; (c) state intervention, and (d) economic management or distribution of
resources. The period of intellectual reshaping by the enlightenment, social upheaval,
and the economic and technological development of the industrial revolution,
development of global trade, empire dominated by Europe, and ardent nationalism
had a significant impact on Karl Marx's Political beliefs.

Feminism is an inter-disciplinary method of addressing issues of equity and justice

based on gender, gender expression, gender identity, sex, and sexuality as understood
via social theories and political activity. Feminism is a political project to understand
to change women's inequality, liberation, or oppression. It is an ideology which
establishes women as a different community with different systems of needs and
demands against those of men. It is all about half of the population of the world and
demands equality of identity, dignity and opportunity for women as against the

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 61

 MPS-101/OSOU

patriarchal construct of gender. We generally witness four waves of feminism. In the

first wave of feminism (1848 to 1920 )Women's civic and political rights were
highlighted in the initial phase. The 1960s and 1970s saw the rise of the second-wave
feminism movement, which concentrated on concerns of equality and prejudice. The
third wave of feminism emerged in the 1990s, focusing on current issues, including
sexual harassment in the workplace, and establishing that women should be taken into
consideration for more powerful positions as opposed to power positions. By
adopting distinctive traits, priorities, and stances toward the main social and cultural
forces of its time, the movement succeeds the first-, second-, and third-wave feminist
movements. The early 2010s through the present are usually regarded as the fourth-
wave feminist period.

A group of ideologies known as liberalism promote the importance of liberty and the
idea that everyone has the right to freedom from an upright government. Liberal
feminists uphold this ideal, support the state's function, and demand that women have
their rights. Liberal feminism "works within the structure of mainstream society to
integrate women into that system." Radical feminism is a worldview that places a
strong emphasis on the patriarchal causes of gender inequality, or more precisely, the
social dominance of women by males. Marxist and socialist feminism is related to
Marxist philosophy that links issues with individual private property ownership, the
exploitation of women, and capitalism; as a result, the capitalist system must be
abolished Postmodern feminism is a synthesis of French feminism, postmodernism,
and post-structuralism. Destabilizing the deeply ingrained patriarchal conventions
that have contributed to gender inequity is the aim of postmodern feminism. The
movement known as ecofeminism believes there is a link between women's
subordination and oppression and the exploitation and destruction of the natural
environment. Alongside second-wave feminism and the green movement, it arose in
the middle of the 1970s.

Feminism or the feminist approach is a way of looking at the social and political
structure from the perspective of women. It refers to the concept of patriarchy or a
system of male authority that oppresses women through its social, political, and
economic institutions. It is therefore a critique of patriarchy on the one hand and an
ideology committed to women’s emancipation on the other. It can be said that in real
sense feminism and the feminist approach to politics are not different ideas or
concepts; both are interlinked. Women must be treated at par with men. This is the
basic concept of feminism.

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 62

 MPS-101/OSOU

4.5 EXERCISE

1. Define Marxism. Discuss its core assumptions.

2. Discuss the differences between Marxism and Liberalism
3. Critically examine the Marxist approach to politics
4. Define Feminism. Discuss different waves of Feminism.
5. Examine the various streams of Feminism
6. Critically examine the feminist view of politics

4.5 REFERENCES

Heywood, Andrew. Political Ideology: An Introduction. Palgrave Macmillan, New

Delhi, 2012.
Gauba, O, P. An Introduction to Political Theory.Mayur Publication, New Delhi,
2019.
Khazoeva, N.O.; Khaziev, A.K.; Stepanenko, G.N.; Klyushina, E.V.; Stepanenko,
R.F. “Marxism in the modern world: social-philosophical analysis.”
UtopíaPraxisLatinoamericana, vol. 24, núm. Esp.5, 2019.
Venezuela Disponible en: https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?Id=27962050008
O, P, Gauba. Political Theory and thought: landmarks in political thought. Mayur
Publication, New Delhi, 2012.
R, J, Ormerod. "The History and Ideas of Marxism: The Relevance for OR". The
Journal of the Operational Research Society, Dec. 2008, Vol. 59, No. 12 (Dec. 2008),
pp. 1573-1590, https://www.jstor.org/stable/20202244

Das, Raju. "Identity Politics: A Marxist View," Class, Race and Corporate Power,
Vol. 8: Iss. 1, Article 5. 2020. DOI: 10.25148/CRCP.8.1.008921 Available at:
https://digitalcommons.fiu.edu/classracecorporatepower/vol8/iss1/5

Marx, Karl, Dirk J. Struik, and Martin Milligan.Economic and Philosophic

Manuscripts of 1844. New York: International Publishers, 1964. Print.

Lenin, V.I, "The State and Revolution The Marxist Theory of the State & the Tasks
of the Proletariat in the Revolution' Collected Works, Volume 25, 1918, p. 381-492. (
Lenin Internet Archive (marxists.org),
Feminism

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 63

 MPS-101/OSOU

Baehr, Amy R., "Liberal Feminism", The Stanford Encyclopedia of

Philosophy (Spring 2021 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL =
<https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2021/entries/feminism-liberal/>.

Lewis, Jone Johnson. "What Is Radical Feminism?" ThoughtCo, Nov. 25, 2020,
thoughtco.com/what-is-radical-feminism-3528997.

Christiane de Pizan's 1450 "The Book of the City of Ladies", was written in praise of
women and as a defence of their capabilities and virtues to combat misogynist male
writing.

Mary Astell's 1694 "A Serious Proposal to the Ladies, for the Advancement of Their
True and Greatest Interest," argues that women who do not intend to marry should
use their dowries to finance residential women's colleges to provide the recommended
education for upper- and middle-class women.

Olympe de Gouges's 1791 "Declaration of the Rights of Woman and the Female
Citizen", stated that women, like their male counterparts, have natural, inalienable,
and sacred rights.

Mary Wollstonecraft's 1792 "A Vindication of the Rights of Woman", argues that the
educational system deliberately trained women to be frivolous and incapable and that
if girls were allowed the same advantages as boys, women would be not only
exceptional wives and mothers but also capable workers.

Charlotte Perkins Gilman's 1898 "Women and Economics", argues that the economic
independence and specialization of women are essential to the improvement of
marriage.

Virginia Woolf, A Room of One's Own, argues that every woman needs a room of
her own, a luxury that men can enjoy without question, to have the time and the space
to engage in uninterrupted writing time.

Simone de Beauvoir's "The Second Sex", exposed the power dynamics surrounding
womanhood and laid the foundation for subsequent feminist theories exposing
women's social subjugation.

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 64

 Block-2
Political Ideology

Unit-5 Socialism
Unit-6 Marxism
Unit-7 Liberalism
Unit-8 Neo- Liberalism
 MPS-101/OSOU

UNIT-5: SOCIALISM

Structure
5.1 Objective
5.2 Introduction
5.3 Socialism: Meaning and Definition
5.4 Evolution of Socialism and Socialist School of Thoughts
5.4.1 Utopian socialism
5.4.2 Scientific Socialism
5.4.3 Revisionism or Revolutionary Socialism
5.4.4 Fabianism or English Variety of Democratic Socialism
5.4.5 Syndicalism
5.4.6 Guild Socialism
5.4.7 Anarchism
5.5 Socialism Today and Tomorrow
5.6 Summary
5.7 Exercise
5.8 Reference

5.1 OBJECTIVE

After reading the unit, you will be able to understand:

• The concept, idea and meaning of socialism.
• The evolution of socialism and social school of thought.
• The various types of socialism and their relevance in society.
• Socialism in the contemporary world.

5.2 INTRODUCTION

It was observed in the Prologue that it is easier to say who is, by common consent, the
‘great socialist’ than to give a neat definition of socialism which will embrace all
socialism and exclude all non-socialists. The internecine feuds between the various
socialist schools and sects provide ample testimony that one man’s socialism is
another man’s heresy, and that a dissentient comrade is usually regarded as more

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 65

 MPS-101/OSOU

worthy of hatred and contempt is the common enemy –Alexander Gray (The
Socialist Tradition)

One way of discussing so diverse a phenomenon is to claim that all forms of

socialism share some fundamental characteristic, or essence, by which the doctrine as
a whole may be defined. Certainly, this would simplify the analysis, but this
essentialist approach normally degenerates into rather dogmatic assertions about the
nature of ‘true socialism’ and becomes a weapon to use against the heretics.
However, there are equal dangers in defining socialism so broadly that the subject
cannot be analysed meaningfully. – Michael Newman (Socialism- An Introduction)

In simple terms, socialism has a rich tradition of political ideology that prioritizes
community over individual interests. Although it is challenging to define this diverse
phenomenon nevertheless it stands relevant to point that socialism is a set of ideas
that emerged in the 19th century aiming at building a just social order. In this unit, the
objective is to understand the meaning of socialism, the trajectory of this ideology
and its variants along with the relevance of socialist states in contemporary times.

To varying extents, all socialists have defied the property relationships fundamental
to capitalism, and aim to overcome gross structural inequalities of income, rights and
opportunities. Historically it emerged as a political and economic doctrine to provide
a more humane and socially worthwhile alternative to capitalism. A centrally planned
economy directed and organized by the state is the central feature of a socialist state.
Here the state is seen as a positive agency with the mission to promote the common
economic, moral and intellectual interests of the people. (Garner, 1928). The system
is essentially based upon the principle of “from each according to his ability and each
according to his need”. In this regard, American Socialist Daniel De Leon goes to the
extent of defining socialism as a social system under which the necessaries of
production are owned, controlled and administered by the people, for the people.’

5.3 SOCIALISM: MEANING AND DEFINITION

The term, ‘socialist’ derives from the Latin word sociare meaning to combine or
share. Although it is difficult to define this protean doctrine yet its essence revolves
around the idea of common and collective. Overall, it is linked to the relationship
between the individual, state and society.

According to some scholars, socialism is a populist economic and political system

based on public ownership of the means of production. This means that all resources
out of which wealth can be created - land, factories, mines, banks – should no longer

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 66

 MPS-101/OSOU

remain the property of one person or group of persons. They should become the
property of the public. In other words, Socialist principles include free access to
products and services, production for use rather than profit, equal distribution of
wealth and material resources among all people, and the end of market competition.
Or “from each according to capacity to each according to need,” to use an old
communist slogan.

In contrast to capitalism, whereby business owners control the means of production

and pay wages to workers to use those means, socialism envisions shared ownership
and control among the labouring class. This also meant that nobody could own
resources or make them work on conditions. They argue that socialism provides
security—a worker’s value comes from the amount of time they work, not in the
value of what they produce—while capitalism exploits workers for the benefit of the
wealthy. For the socialists, ideally, the workers who work should be the owners of the
resources.

In a purely socialist system, all public activities were directed by a central planner or
government body. Socialist systems tend to have robust welfare systems and social
safety net so that individuals rely on the state for everything from food to healthcare.
It was their observations of the deleterious effects of industrial capitalism that caused
socialist reformers to call for the development of new economic structures based on
completely different setoff moral principles. The larger vision was the pursuit of an
“alternative egalitarian” society (Newman, 2020). What this alternative society would
look like and what was the roadmap to achieve it will be discussed in coming
sections.

5.4 EVOLUTION OF SOCIALISM AND SOCIALIST SCHOOL OF

THOUGHTS

Some have traced the origins of socialist doctrine to Plato, others to Christianity, and
many, with greater plausibility, to radical movements in the English Civil War in the
17th century. However, modern socialism, with its evolving and continuous set of
ideas and movements, emerged in early 19th-century Europe. The reasons for this
have long been debated, but it is widely agreed that very rapid economic and social
changes, associated with urbanization and industrialization, were of particular
importance. Socialism made its first appearance in the writings of reformers
(popularly early socialists‘) like Comte Henri de Saint-Simon (1760-1825), Robert
Owen (1771- 1858), Charles Fourier (1772–1837) and others who came to be known
as the early socialist‘. Early socialists viewed property as a theft/product of
exploitation. It just meant that owners of means of production cheat the actual/direct

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 67

 MPS-101/OSOU

producers (workers). The accumulation of this exploitation is nothing but the

beginning of the creation of private property. Hence, they aimed at converting private
ownership into common ownership. Later socialists, on the other hand, did not view it
as theft but rather viewed it as the accumulation of workers' products. This sort of
accumulation is linked to labour-market engagements, central to the capitalist system.
All socialists whether early or later, have stood against such settings which facilitate
exploitation and aim at the promotion of common ownership instead.

Interestingly, like most authentic theories of our times, it has its root in human nature.
The socialist line of thought believes in the inherent goodness of human beings and
hence the possibility of an egalitarian society. Socialists’ in general subordinate
individual self-interest over collective interest; competition over cooperation.
Although over the years, socialists have witnessed ups and downs in human
civilization countering the optimistic outlook yet they attribute cases of violence as
only occasional and not representative of human beings in general.

As far as the role of the state is concerned, Garner points out that “directly opposed to
the laissez-faire theory of state functions, the socialistic theory contends for
maximum rather than a minimum government. The supporters of this socialist theory
instead of distrusting the state and looking upon it as an evil whose functions should
be restricted to the narrowest possible limits, regard it as a supreme and positive
good; hence its mission should include the promotion of the common economic,
moral and intellectual interests of the people. (Garner, 1928)Followers of this
ideology take the state as an instrument of positive good and lay all stress on
narrowing the gap between the rich and poor sections of society as much as possible.
Prof. F.J.C goes on to define the larger idea of socialism in the following six E’s
programme:
• Exaltation of the community above the individual,
• The equalisation of the human condition,
• Elimination of capitalism,
• Expropriation of landlordism,
• Extinction of private capital,
• Eradication of competition
With time, the trajectory of socialist ideology witnessed several interpretations
essentially in terms of “how capitalism would be replaced” and “what is the version
of social ownership which creates different schools of socialism”. This section will
explore some of the distinct traditions that emerged eventually.
5.4.1 Utopian Socialism
The label ‘utopian’ was subsequently attached to some of the early socialists Karl
Marx and Friedrich Engels. Interestingly, this theory was linked with unrealistic

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 68

 MPS-101/OSOU

ideas. It was the France of the Eighteenth century where a good number of socialist
writings appeared, dwelling on the ideal picture of a future society guaranteeing
equality and social justice for all. Names of Babeuf, Cabet, St Simon, Fourier and
Blanc became well-known in this direction, though the name of an English thinker
Robert Owen is also included in this category. Hallowell says “the real home of what
has come to be called Utopian Socialism was eighteenth-century France”(Gray,
1947). On one side some scholars chose to call utopian socialism fanciful and
unattainable while scholars like Michael Newman call it part of social transformation
because today’s utopia often becomes tomorrow’s reality. (Newman, 2020).

Overall, the main features of utopian socialists’ transformative projects were:

1. The premise starts with the belief that human beings possess the same dignity
by their humanity and whatever the innate differences among the individuals,
they are identical so far as their rights and duties are concerned.
2. They tried to visualize an industrial society wherein equality of economic
opportunity would prevail and wherein no man would be able to live on the
labour of his fellows.
3. They imagined a society which would help in utilizing natural resources and
building social salvation on a small scale.
4. They regard private property as the main source of poverty. According to
them, changes could be achieved through appeals to the reason and sense of
justice of influential members of the community. They however subtly
endorse remuneration for labour. The only reason for doubting the concept of
private property was that it only benefitted a particular class at the cost of the
5. They do not plan toward the revolutionary reconstruction of society. Instead,
the focus will be to build an industrial state, not a political one.

Different utopian socialists interpret their ideal society as a place where

representation in the government should be in terms of economic interests and
occupation. Let’s examine the interpretations given by some of the important utopian
socialists.

Cabetwrote an- utopian novel, “Voyage Icarian” wherein he envisioned a society

based on the highest form of equality and democracy. Despite fears of regimentation
intertwined with a high degree of social uniformity, the alternative system offered
hope for a far better future for the then marginalized French working-class
population. This particular alternative system predominantly represented the working
class. While Cabet had considerable contemporary influence, the key utopians in
terms of longer-term impact were Henri de Saint-Simon, Charles Fourier, and Robert
Owen.

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 69

 MPS-101/OSOU

Henri Saint-Simon (1760–1825) was a French aristocrat. Defying his father’s

authoritarianism, he explored life through several mediums. He was highly influenced
by science and envisioned a scientific understanding of historical development, which
had clear relevance to Marxist theory (Newman, 2020). He was against the feudal
class which promoted power play whereas supported the industrial/ scientific class
which entailed cooperation and peaceful competition. St. Simon is of the opinion that
idlers (nobles, barons and clergy) should leave for the reason that they play no part in
industrial enterprise. (Johri, 1989). He developed a concept called the “religion of
Newton” which promoted scientific temperament, secular morality and industrial
development. The variety of Utopia that he created advocating a sort of harmony with
feelings, passions and functions as per these instincts.

Fourier’s basic understanding was that it was the suffocating societal norms that
caused human misery. His main focus is on psychological and sexual human needs
and that these needs should be addressed by society and not left for individual
fulfilment. Further, Owen seconds the opinions of Fourier because he too believed
that society, rather than the individual, was responsible for human misery and social
ills. But unlike him, Owen believed that people could and should change. (Newman,
2020)

Deeper examination shows that there were obvious similarities between the three
thinkers- St Simon, Fourier, and Owen:
1. They regarded the social question as by far the most important of all;
2. Insisted that it was the duty of all good men to promote the general happiness
and welfare of everyone in society;
3. Regarded this task as incompatible with the continuance of a social order that
was maintained strictly on the basis of a competitive struggle between
individuals for the means of living; and
4. Deeply distrustful of politics and politicians, believing that the future control
of social affairs sought to lie not with parliaments or ministers or kings and
queens but with the “producers.”
If the economic and social lives of humans are aligned, the older styles of governance
and political organization based on conflict and competition would be replaced by a
new world order defined by international peace and cooperation.

On the other hand, wide diversities were separating these three groups. The
Fourierists and Owenites were community-makers. They set out to establish a
network of experimental communities based on their ideas that would become the
foundation stones of a new social order. Saint Simonians differed from these two

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 70

 MPS-101/OSOU

groups in that they were strong believers in the virtues of large-scale organizations.
The main focus all along remained to highlight productive corporations run by
scientists and technicians. (Esenwein, 2004)

At this stage, socialism came out as a concept of collective progress and sought to
bring people together. It, therefore, did not emphasize as much ‘politics’. It valued
education as an instrument for conditioning patterns of behaviour, social attitudes and
beliefs. It deserves mention that in this description of socialism nothing is said about
the proletariat or the class struggle between it and the capitalist class. This is because
the members of the aforementioned socialist schools did not think in these terms.
They did not see capitalists and workers as rival classes, nor did they believe that a
revolutionary struggle between the proletariat and bourgeoisie was necessary to bring
significant social change.

According to critics, this stream of socialism is rightly called “utopian” because their
point of view directs one toward unreality Marx and Engels critically studied this
variety and rejected it because it lacked coherence and a workable plan of action. In
the words of critics utopian socialists “do not probe the question to any depths or
indicate how their deterministic fancies are to be reconciled with the conception of
socialism as an ideal or a moral imperative”(Kowalski, 1978)

5.4.2 Scientific Socialism

Scientific Socialism is the Marxian interpretation of Socialism. The core feature of

this variety lies in the fact that they believe in the dialectical process of social
development. They not only analyse the present social and economic system but also
hope for the advent of a new society free of exploitation of all sorts. This modern
socialist movement dates from the publication of the Communist Manifesto in1848.
Marx and Engels curated this variety arguing the society’s political and cultural
arrangements (superstructure) are shaped primarily by the forces of material
production (base). When the productive modes and relations developed, then the
conditions arise for a thoroughgoing social revolution, a process that inevitably brings
about a replacement of the older forms with more progressive ones. In this way,
societies are able to advance progressively from more primitive states (e.g.,
feudalism) to more sophisticated ones (e.g., capitalism).

This new variety endeavoured to revisit history using ‘dialectics’ as the mode of
examination. It claimed the state apparatus to be a class-based institution that
overlays the economic structure (base). Furthermore, with the advent of capitalist
tendencies overpowering all other aspects, profit being the centre of their universe.

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 71

 MPS-101/OSOU

Such developments however couldn’t sustain for long. Capitalism pushes humans
towards a mindless race for a comfortable future without realizing the deeper issues
associated. At this point, the Manifesto explains that it is the ongoing and ceaseless
dialectical struggle between the dominant and dominated classes that provides the
impetus for breaking down the exploitative structures. Rising dissatisfaction and a
sense of alienation create a perfect ground for stirring a revolution replacing
bourgeois dominance with proletarian equality. The control of the state and its forms
pass into the hands of the new dominant class (the working classes), thus paving the
way for the development of new forces of production. Over time, the material
conditions are created for the reconstruction of society on socialist lines and their
class rule would give way to a classless and stateless society, communism.

5.4.3 Revisionism or Revolutionary Socialism

Edward Bernstein of Germany and his book, Evolutionary Socialism is the leading
contributor to this variety. Other supporting scholars of the German social democratic
movement at the time were Lasalle, Babel, and Liebknecht. Although revisionists and
staunch Marxists alike regarded socialism as a doctrine for the working class and
sought to find the policy that would serve best the interest of working men in
improving their physical, economic and cultural well-being, their disagreement
between them arose out of their opposing ideas about situation of wage workers,
political tactics a socialist party should strategize to enable greater benefits to the
workers. (Coke, 1934)

Lassalle was another pioneer of German revisionism. He accepted the Marxian

interpretation of history but he differed from Marx in believing that political
democracy implying the rule of the majority based on universal and equal franchise
must precede the rise of power and the rise to power of the proletariat. He advocated
the immediate establishment of producers’ cooperatives/platforms and the role of the
state in providing support for their formation. The accurate solution suggested by him
was curating a political party for and by the working class, for representation in the
legislative bodies. In 1863 he became the leader of the newly formed Universal
German Workingmen’s Association. After his death, critical Marxists like Babel and
Liebknecht aimed to direct the working class movement on more radical lines. Most
significant development after this was the formulation of the Erfurt Programme based
on liberal political philosophy, and essentially revision of the line laid down by Marx
and Engels. Out of various interpretations, Bernstein’s revisionism emerged as the
aptest. The main points of this variety are:
1. It is a mistake to believe that the collapse of capitalism is imminent.

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 72

 MPS-101/OSOU

2. The enormous increase in social wealth is not accompanied by a decreasing

number of large capitalists, but by an increasing number of capitalists of all
degrees. The middle classes change their character, but they do not disappear
from the social scale. The small merchant class and peasantry, both, are in no
way on the verge of extinct.
3. The concentration of industry is not occurring at the rate at which Marx
predicted it would, nor is it occurring uniformly.
4. Through the activities of labour, movement exploitation has been retarded.
Factory legislation, the democratizing of local government and the extension
of its area of work, the freeing of trade unions and systems of cooperative
trading from legal restrictions, the consideration of standard conditions of
labour in the work undertaken by the public authorities- all these activities
come under the phase of evolution.
5. An economic interpretation of history might be effective but other non-
economic factors must also be taken into account in examining the past and
forecasting the future.
6. The prospects of socialism depend not on the decrease but on the increase of
social wealth.
7. Bernstein was also sceptical of the Marxian theory of increasing severity of
economic crises in the capitalist economies and declared that at least for some
duration this kind of crisis is not going to take place.
8. Bernstein also opposed the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat ‘by violent means.
According to him, the universal franchise is the alternative to a violent
revolution.
9. Bernstein also rejects Marx’s claim for division of society into two hostile
classes he highlights the need for a middle class

Coming to the criticisms faced by the revisionists can be traced to their wavering
between the two poles of pro and anti-Marxism. Their way of taking this much and
leaving that much of Marxism made them non-original.

5.4.4 Fabianism or English Variety of Democratic Socialism

Fabianism rejected Marxism altogether and presented a new variety of socialism
drawing inspiration from the ideas of John Stuart Mill in the post-1860 period. The
English model of socialism/ Fabinism accommodated national characteristics and
historical experiences representing both individualistic attitudes and a practical and
compromising disposition among the Englishmen. (Skelton, 2009)Fabian society was
an organization of the leading English intellectual of that time who drew inspiration

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 73

 MPS-101/OSOU

from the social and economic theories of Henry George, David Ricardo, and John
Stuart Mill. The crux of Fabianism was a rejection of Marxism and compatibility with
the English parliamentary democracy. Fabians adhered to these important points:
i. They oppose a competitive system to assure general welfare and
happiness.
ii. Land should be nationalized
iii. Socialist principles should be represented via political parties.
iv. Scientific and ethical justification of a socialistic policy compatible
with the country’s social and economic facts of the country at that
time.
v. Fabians revisit the theory of value as propounded by classical
economists and Marxists. According to them, the value was a creation
of society rather than the labourers.
vi. According to them, the state is not evil, it is a welfare agency. It is
representative and trustee of people, their guardians.
vii. Fabians reject class war. They argue that class conflict is not between
the wage worker and owner but between the community and those
who grow rich through investment.
viii. Constitutional and democratic methods should be used for achieving
the goals of socialism.
ix. The motive of social service should replace the incentive of private
property.

Fabian socialism faces criticism on the following grounds. It is often called bourgeois
socialism. The liberals belonging to the school of Adam Smith and Herbert Spencer
deprecated it for extending the scope of state activity at the cost of individual liberty.
They were further called idealists/utopians.

5.4.5 Syndicalism
Syndicalism is another variety of socialism that looks like a hybrid of the socialism of
Marx and the anarchism of Proudhon. Its advocates define it as a trade union reading
of the Marxist's economic doctrine and the class war. Here the main reliance is on the
role of syndicates/ worker’s unions for the successful transformation of social
structure.

Syndicalism arose from the trade union movement of France who’s most important
leader was George Sorel. Pelluotier is another personality associated with the
adoption of the Syndicalist Policy. Overall, both Sorel and Pelluotier are the two great
exponents of this theory who preached that social transformation through institutions
of the working class. (Coke, 1934)

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 74

 MPS-101/OSOU

According to Joad, syndicalism can be explained through the following points (Joad,
1925)
1. It views the state as a bourgeois agency and a middle-class agency.
The very nature of the state men bureaucratic and unsympathetic to the
needs and aspirations of workers.
2. It rejects middle-class dominant socialism. Instead encourages
workers’ socialism Middle class is argued to have no idea of the needs
of workers
3. In favour of a system of producers’ control, it is argued that it will lead
to an increase both in freedom for the workers and efficiency in the
industry. Here the industry would be owned by a trade union and
would have a say in the management and its decision.
Interestingly Syndicalists reject all peaceful and constitutional methods and instead
advocate the use of revolutionary means / ‘direct action’. It might take any form like a
general strike, sabotage, boycott, and label. They place their main reliance on the
success of the general strike. The general strike may become successful if the workers
have self-reliance and self-discipline that would contribute to their solidarity. The
general strike, however, will not cover strikes in all industries, rather to the important
industries only to paralyse the capitalist structures. Stage-wise revolution and political
revolution according to them aren’t prudent. It should rather be catastrophic and
aimed at the complete transformation.

They argue that after the revolution power would only be in hands of a trade union.
Although key centres of power will be under the trade unions certain nationwide
services such as post offices, and rail roads were also assigned. There would also be
other national federations to supply technical information and expert advice to the
local bodies. It was recognized that the new society will also need certain disciplinary
sanctions. There would be boycotts for profiteers and banishment for idlers and
drifters. As far as crime and punishment are concerned, there would be no prisons and
courthouses as the percentage of crimes would be lowered. Heinous crimes would
essentially be dealt with spontaneously through acts of summary justice inflicted by
the eye witnesses. The need for defensive militia is also highlighted. In each union,
there would be an armed troop for protection against counter-revolutionary
disturbances. Purely defensive arms would be assigned by the central labour
exchanges to the battalions in the several unions.

After examining all the features, some experts conclude that the early part of
syndicalism is Marxian while the latter part is anarchistic. Its attack on the system of

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 75

 MPS-101/OSOU

capitalism and its faith in the class doctrine of class war are essentially Marxian while
its hope for a future society with all its power to the trade union is an anarchist.

The theory of Syndicalism however may be subjected to the following:

1. According to critics and Syndicalists, the view of the state as a destructive
agency is too harsh. The state may strive to be an enabling agency for the
positive good.
2. Syndicalism is another name for political irrationalism. It involves less
rational energy in planning and strategizing rather barely adventurous energy
and boldness (Gray, 1947)
5.4.6 Guild Socialism
This variety of Socialism may be called a mix of French Syndicalism and English
Fabianism. It is essentially anti-Marxian rejecting all its tenets and not appreciating
the view that the state is a class institution/ an instrument of exploitation and
oppression by one class over another. The guild socialists like to deprive the owners
of capital of both the powers to determine the conditions under which labourers work
and the right to derive profits out of what labourers produce. Producers should be part
of management. All workers engaged in an industry would constitute a union (called
a guild) that would control and manage its affairs. Here, the Guild socialists have
certain commonalities with syndicalists and perhaps a step forward.

The story of guild socialism starts in 1906 when A.J Penty brought out his book titled
“The Restoration of the Guild System”. In this book, he advocated a return to the
medieval principle of self-government in the industry whereby a craftsman was a
member of an autonomous guild and owned the instruments. These developments
helped in forming the self-government in the industry by the workers concerned in
the industry, grouped in a system of industrial Guilds, of which the existing Trade
Unions would form the germ.

The most significant feature of this variety of socialism appeared in the form of the
abolition of the notorious wage system. The most important four points entail:
1. The wage system abstracts labour from the labourers so that one can be
bought and sold without the other.
2. Wages are paid only when profitable to the employer
3. In return for his wages, the worker surrenders all control over the organization
of production.
4. Workers surrender all claims of the product of their labour. Accordingly, the
wage system requires the removal of these marks of ‘degraded status
‘Consequently, it is the task of the National Guilds to assure the workers four
things- (i) payment as a human being, (ii) payment in employment and

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 76

 MPS-101/OSOU

unemployment, in sickness and in health (iii) control of the organization of

production by the workers (iv) a claim upon the product of his work.

The main tenets of guild socialism, advocated especially by its main supporter, Cole,
are as follows:
1. Functional Democracy: In a favourite dictum of the guild socialists, true
representation must be functional. It implies that any representation that is not
functional but purports to be general and universal is bound to be merely
misrepresentation. The guild socialists’ do not appreciate the system of
territorial representation prevailing almost universally on the plea that under
this system representation means non-representation. A person can't represent
any other function hence so-called representative institutions that have existed
in the past were misrepresentative institutions or professions.

2. Self-Government in Industry: All industries must be in the hands of the

guilds. A guild is a body of all persons engaged in that industry from the
manager at the top to the last one at the bottom. In this respect, a guild is
different from a trade union in which only workers, not officers, are engaged.
The second point of difference between a guild and a trade union is that while
the latter simply fights for the protection and promotion of the interests of the
workers, the former is concerned with the entire management of the industry.
The idea of self-government in industry signifies the sovereign position of the
workers so that they would be able to develop their personality (Orage, 2019)

3. Guild Commonwealth: The guild socialists desire a new society like the
syndicalists and the anarchists. The guild socialists do not want to abolish the
state as such. According to them, the entire society should have guilds of
producers, manufacturers, agriculturists and the like and all guilds should be
autonomous or free to make whatever goods they feel like making and levy
charges as per interest (Carpenter, 1922)These guilds would be regulated and
controlled by the communes working at local, regional and national levels. At
the apex would be the national communes giving adequate representation to
all guilds of the country. Following would be the functions of communes
(Cole, 1972)

-Financial problems especially the allocation of national resources, provision

of capital and to a certain extent, regulation of incomes and prices.
-Differences arising between functional bodies on policy questions
-Constitutional questions of demarcation between functional bodies

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 77

 MPS-101/OSOU

-Questions not falling within the sphere of any functional authority, including
several questions of external relations
-Coercive functions

Further, the theory of Guild Socialism may be subjected to the following criticisms:
First, as per critics, guild socialism is a hotch-potch of different socialist
interpretations in the true sense and creates a blurred picture. Second, critics argue
that guild socialism is utopian. Third, the guild socialists are also said to lead to
anarchism and lawlessness. Fourth, the position of the state is confusing in the system
of guild syndicalism.

5.4.7 Anarchism
The term anarchism originates from the Greek word ‘anarchic’ meaning non-rule.
The anarchists want no authority of any kind to ensure the complete liberty of man.
Coker defines anarchism as “the doctrine that political authority, in any of its forms,
is unnecessary and undesirable.

The anarchists represented one of the strongest non-Marxian currents in the socialist
movement and it was their ongoing rivalry with the Marxists that kept alive the
doctrinal debates and organizational divisions that characterized both the First (1864–
1876) and Second Internationals (1889–1914).

Anarchism was never an ideologically aligned movement. At one time or another in

the course of the nineteenth and early twentieth century anarchists who belonged to
the international socialist movement identified themselves as mutualists, collectivists,
communists, and syndicalists. Yet, despite their theoretical differences, anarchists of
all schools were united in their opposition to Marxism. This situation was witnessed
because Marxists argued for the sustenance of the state until full communism was
achieved. The anarchists completely reject this notion that the state was capable of
proving itself as a positive agency. (Esenwein, 2004)

Some go to the extent of calling it a special variety of socialism for two reasons: First,
most anarchists like Proudhon and Bakunin had a socialist background, they were
very close to Marx and became the subject of uncompromising attack by him when
they expressed their divergent views. Second, anarchism is the complimentary part of
scientific socialism because as some scholars what scientific socialism promotes in
the last stage is the same as the anarchist central principle. (Johri, 1989)

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 78

 MPS-101/OSOU

Anarchists attack the capitalist system like any other revolutionary socialist and
envisioned its replacement by an alternative system led by the individual and its
interest. The main points of anarchism as forwarded by Laidler are as follows:
1. Anarchists differ from socialists in their opposition to all forms of the political
state. They urge terrorism to achieve its ends.
2. Anarchism is not merely an economic –political programme but a philosophy
of social arrangements applying to every activity of human beings –
education, marriage, religion, as well as work and order.
3. The leading members of the movement aim to realize their ideals through
education leaving indiscriminate killing and injuring of the government to its
statesmen, its stockbrokers, its offices and its law.
4. Since the anarchists abstained from politics and thus rejected the ballot box as
a means of advancing the worker's cause, they were forced to adopt a
revolutionary strategy that also placed them at odds with Marxists and
reformist socialists.
The anarchists’ reliance on a tactic known as “propaganda by the deed” gave rise to
their stock image of them popularized by writers and social scientists like Joseph
Conrad (1857–1924), Henry James (1843–1916), and Cesare Lombroso (1835–
1909)—as social deviants who were bent on destroying the foundations of
civilization.

At the turn of the century anarchism, which had nearly died out in most areas of
Europe, was revitalized by the development of yet another brand of socialism known
as revolutionary syndicalism. When Arturo Labriola (1873–1959), Émile Pouget
(1860–1931), José Prat (d. 1932), and other libertarian thinkers began to marry the
new doctrine (which emphasized trade unionism and direct action tactics like the
general strike) to old anarchist beliefs the result was anarcho-syndicalism, a
movement that was particularly important in France, Spain, and Italy. It was the
introduction of syndicalism that brought about the phenomenal growth of anarchism
in Spain. (Esenwein, 2004)

At the later stage, the theory of anarchism was subjected to the following criticisms:
1. The anarchists take a very wrong view of the origin and nature of the state and
authority of any kind. Their basic assumption that the state is, by all means, a
coercive and oppressive organization and that only a stateless condition of life
would ensure absolute liberty to the individual is wrong and unconvincing.
2. Anarchism is another utopian socialism. While its indictment of the state on
several grounds can be said to have some logical foundation, its hope for a
golden era ensuring total emancipation of man is nothing short of a utopia.

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 79

 MPS-101/OSOU

3. The methods of violence as suggested by revolutionary anarchists should not

be appreciated. Violence begets violence. The taste of blood can never be
forgotten.

5.5 SOCIALISM TODAY AND TOMORROW

The Second International parties believed in the establishment of socialism in the new
century at the beginning of the 1900s. Few communist governments remained in
power by 2005, and social democracy had diverged from more conventional types of
socialism. A "totalitarian" personality persisted in North Korea, but most of the
population lived in abject poverty. In much of Europe, the forces of the extreme Right
and xenophobia and racism appeared to be on the rise. The United States was the only
superpower, and it was dedicated to promoting its brand of capitalism around the
world. Even the most irrationally pessimistic person would likely admit that this was
undoubtedly a hostile environment for socialists. (Aber, 1983)

This viewpoint is best summed up by Perry Anderson, a prominent member of the

intellectual Marxist Left. He published an article in 2000 titled “Renewal,” which
could have also been named “Requiem for Socialism”. For the first time since the
Reformation, there are almost no significant oppositions—that is, systematic
competing outlooks—within the Western intellectual community.

Neo-liberalism is the most successful philosophy in the history of the planet, despite
any limitations that may still exist in its application. Before there is a change in the
political correlation of forces, the balance of intellectual advantage will change
significantly. This correlation of forces will likely remain steady as long as there is no
severe economic crisis in the West. The parameters of the current consensus appear to
be vulnerable to nothing less than a recession of interwar magnitude. Undoubtedly,
the Soviet Union and the West's Keynesian demand management strategies
contributed to the power of both communism and social democracy. The
advancements made by feminists and ecologists in the developed world are
acknowledged by Anderson as "the most important elements of human progress."
This is merely an afterthought that adds nothing to the social democracy’s immensely
depressing attitude. The phrase “pessimism of the intellect and optimism of the will”
has occasionally been used by socialists. This was challenged by Ralph Miliband in
the 1985 25th anniversary issue of New Left Review: Since failure is much more
likely than success, rationality requires the belief that nothing is likely to turn out as it
should. It is challenging to reconcile this with the socialist belief that the injustice and
inequality ingrained in the capitalist system will always give rise to movements of
protest and opposition, and that these will always contain elements of progress even if
they do not result in nirvana, as Anderson put it. However, a detailed examination of

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 80

 MPS-101/OSOU

the concepts themselves, let alone the New Labour programmes, strongly suggests
that this change represented a breach of socialism. Individual autonomy and the
introduction of private capital and private sector values into the public sector have all
received attention. In response to the current challenges, New Labour and, to a lesser
extent, European social democracy in general, have moved away from socialism and
toward liberalism. Thirdly, people have sought out structures in which socialism-
compatible concepts may be advanced without explicitly mentioning it. Instead, fresh
perspectives on citizenship, democracy, global government (or governance), and
human rights have gained popularity. It was feasible to present a leftist viewpoint on
ideas like democracy, capitalism, and socialism in the 1930s and 1940s without
overtly proposing a socialist framework. Each of these ideas, it was maintained,
required the inclusion of economic, social, collective, and occasionally ecological
components in order to be fully fulfilled. In this approach, socialist ideas might be
included in the theories and recommendations without having to be explicitly
stated(Anderson, 2022)

Such a strategy has benefits since it does attract the attention and support of different
political and intellectual viewpoints. It does, however, have certain significant
drawbacks, which can be demonstrated in connection to the idea of human rights.
There is no denying the significance of human rights, and some might argue that
socialism should be seen as a key component in defending and expanding these
rights. If this always had been the case, individuals who considered themselves
socialists would have had a harder time defending Stalin’s crimes on the basis that the
aims justified the methods. But saying that the idea of human rights - even with the
inclusion of socioeconomic and collective rights - is a replacement for socialism is
not the same thing. (Newman, 2020)

Socialism was founded on a critique of capitalism and a commitment to building an

equal society based on the principles of collaboration and solidarity. However,
theorists who lean toward the position that restricts human rights to the civil and
political domains are likely to challenge their position. This shows that the
application of human rights terminology cannot overcome entrenched ideological
divisions.

5.6 SUMMARY

It is evident from the foregoing account that socialism has witnessed various
transformations and interpretations over the course of the past two centuries.
According to some scholars, socialists should uphold their philosophy rather than
allow it to fragment into a collection of distinct concepts. While others argue that

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 81

 MPS-101/OSOU

socialism in the twenty-first century cannot be located on the same ideological map
that it occupied as a revolutionary theory in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.
Whether it will continue to transform or cease to exist completely remains to be seen.
But whatever its fate as a doctrine, socialist ideas and values are so integral to
intersecting political traditions that they will no doubt continue to find expression in
an ever-changing political landscape.

5.7 EXERCISE

1. What is socialism?
2. What is Fabian socialism?
3. What is Guild Socialism?
4. Discuss the evolution of socialism in the context of India.
5. Critically examine the various types of Socialism.

5.8 REFERENCES
• Aber, J. (1983). Social policy and social welfareˇ (M. Loney, D. Boswell, & J.
Clarke,
Eds.). ˇMilton Keynes: Open Press University.
• Anderson, P. (2022). New left review 5; second Series. September/October 2000
(First
Edition). New Left Review Ltd.
• Bovens, L., & Lutz, A. (2019). “From each according to ability; to each according
to
needs.” History of Political Economy, 51(2), 237–257.
https://doi.org/10.1215/00182702-
7368848
• Cockshott, P. W., & Cottrell, A. F. (1993). Towards new socialism. Coronet
Books.
• Coke, FW (1934), Recent Political Thought, D. Appleton Century Company.
• Cole, G D H. (1972) Self-government in industry, Hutchinson Educational,
London.
• Carpenter, Niles (1922). Guild Socialism, D. Appleton.
• Garner, J.W (1928) Political Science and Government, American book Co.
• George Esenwein (2004), Socialism.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311885000_Socialism
• Gray, Alexander. (1947) The Socialist Tradition: Moses to Lenin, Longmans,
Green
and Company.
Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 82
 MPS-101/OSOU

• Joad, C.E.M. (1925). An introduction to modern political theory.

• Johri, J.C (1989). Principles of Modern Political Science, Sterling Publishers.
• Kolakwaski L. (1978), Main Currents in Marxism, Vol I, Oxford University
Press.
• Newman, M. (2020). Socialism: A very short introduction (very short
introductions) (2nd
ed.). Oxford University Press.
• Orage (2019) An alphabet of Economics, Forgotten Books.
• Skelton, D.(2009), Socialism: A Critical Analysis, Cornell University Library.

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 83

 MPS-101/OSOU

UNIT-6: MARXISM

Structure
6.1 Objective
6.2 Introduction
6.3 Concept of Marxism
6.4 Main Idea of Karl Marx in Political Theory
6.4.1 Dialectical Materialism
6.4.2 Historical Materialism
6.4.3 Theory of Revolution
6.4.4 The doctrine of class Conflict
6.4.5 Theory of Surplus Value
6.4.6 Theory of Alienation
6.4.7 The Dictatorship of the Proletariat
6.5 A Critical Appraisal
6.6 Summary
6.7 Exercise
6.8 Reference

6.1 OBJECTIVE
After reading this unit, you will be able to understand:
• The very idea of Marxism
• The concept of dialectical materialism.
• The notion of historical materialism.
• The concept of surplus value and theory of alienation.
• The role of the proletariat in the revolution process.

6.2 INTRODUCTION

Marxism seeks to explain social phenomena within any given society by analysing
the material conditions and economic activities required to fulfil human material
needs. It assumes that the form of economic organisation, or mode of production,
influences all other social phenomena, including broader social relations, political
institutions, legal systems, cultural systems, aesthetics and ideologies. These social

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 84

 MPS-101/OSOU

relations and the economic system form a base and superstructure. As forces of
production (i.e. technology) improve, existing forms of organising production become
obsolete and hinder further progress. Karl Marx wrote: "At a certain stage of
development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the
existing relations of production or this merely expresses the same thing in legal terms
with the property relations within the framework of which they have operated
hitherto. From forms of development of the productive forces, these relations turn
into their fetters. Then begins an era of social revolution

6.3 CONCEPT OF MARXISM

Vincent (2009) identifies Marxism as a strand within the variegated doctrine of

socialism. Marxism, in Vincent’s view, is a distinct version of socialist thought that
can be described as ‘revolutionary socialism’. On the other hand, Jon Elster (1985)
speaks of a distinct ‘Marxist method’ to study social phenomena, implying that
Marxism offers a different method and approach to studying society and politics.
Gamble et al. (1999) further argue that Marxism proposes a direct link between
theory and practice, and therefore crises and reassessments are not new to Marxism.
Gamble argues that Marxism was never one paradigm; there were distinct and
variegated intellectual currents within Marxism. Gamble identifies the
interdisciplinary approach of Marxism as a prominent feature. Interestingly, different
disciplines have dominated Marxism at different points in history. In the 1970s, state
theory dominated Marxist approaches tan political economy approach (see Gamble
1999: 6). However, twentieth-century Marxism is generally identified with
economism, determinism and structuralism-all interrelated (Mars 1999).

A dominant trend in Marxism is its perception of society as a totality, an organic

whole, characterized by interconnectedness. This was suggested by Marx in
Grundrisse (see Singer 2001: 53). The interconnectedness is exemplified in the two
important concepts of historical materialism and base-superstructure analysis
particularly dominant in mainstream Marxist analyses. As Gamble (1999) contends,
Marxism in the 19th century was centred on a critique of political economy and
political liberalism using the method of historical materialism and the category of
class struggle. Marx pointed out that liberalism failed to deliver its ideals.

Historical materialism is a central feature of the traditional Marxist approach. Marx

did not formulate the theory of historical materialism; it was developed by Engels
after the death of Marx. Engels explains historical materialism thus:

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 85

 MPS-101/OSOU

designate[s] that view of the course of history which seeks the ultimate cause
and the great moving power of all important historic events in the economic
development of society, in the changes in the modes of production and
exchange, in the consequent division of society into distinct classes, and in the
struggles of these classes against one another (Marx and Engels, in Wood
2005: 13).

Will Kymlicka concisely explains historical materialism:

According to this theory, the development of human societies is determined by

class struggle, which is itself determined by the development of the means of
economic production, and the inevitable result of this development is the
revolutionary overthrow of capitalism by the proletariat. Capitalism would be
replaced first with socialism, and eventually, once abundance has been
achieved, with full-blown communism. (Kymlicka 2001: 167).

Historical materialism assumes that society moves in a linear mode of history with
successive stages determined by relations of production. Marx’s historical
materialism was characterised by the stages of primitive communism, slavery,
feudalism, capitalism, socialism and communism. Historical materialism has
prompted critics of Marxism to call it a teleological theory- a history with the end of
communism (see Popper 1966). Will Kymlicka similarly attributes the absence of
normative engagements in Marxism on rights, justice, liberty, etc to the inevitability
and historical necessity of a transition to communism (Kymlicka 2001: 175). G.A.
Cohen gives a different interpretation of Marx’s historical materialism. Cohen
contends that Marx’s historical materialism is not teleological but is in sync with
modern scientific theories of causality and explanation. Cohen argues that Marx is not
making a prophecy through historical materialism; he is only speaking of the
possibility of transitions in the absence of countervailing forces (Levine 2004). Others
defend Marx’s theory of history against the charge of teleology with the argument
that it was only an explanation of the history and not a scientific account of historical
stages (see Singer 2001: 57).

The base-superstructure framework developed by Marx in Preface to a Contribution

to a Critique of Political Economy is further a key to understanding economic
determinism and historical materialism in Marxist tradition:

The total of these relations of production constitutes the economic structure of

society, the real foundation, on which rises a legal and political superstructure
and to which correspond definitive forms of social consciousness. The mode

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 86

 MPS-101/OSOU

of production of material life conditions the social, political and intellectual

life process in general (Marx, in Mars 1999: 321).

The aforesaid statement is a clear postulate of economic determinism, a structuralist

explanation where the mode of production- the economy- determines everything else
including consciousness. The base-superstructure framework offers little agency to
the individual, unlike in the liberal tradition where the autonomous individual is the
core of liberalism philosophy. Historical materialism and base-superstructure in
Marxism underline certain inevitable developments in history, over which individuals
need not be in complete control. Moreover, relations of production determine the
course of history. The Marxian analysis also almost denies the existence of
individuals independent of their class position. 1 This version of Marxism is also
identified as the more scientific Marxism where certain laws of society determined
the course of history objectively. This is best seen in the works of Marx and Engels
exemplifying ‘orthodox’ historical materialism, which is ultimately a brand of
economic determinism. Human nature in this perspective is alterable depending on
the changes in material relations of production (Vincent 2009; Singer 2001). In
Western Marxism, this is exemplified in Louis Althusser’s structuralist Marxism were
the structure over determines the course of events, and were economy determines in
the last instance. This version of Marxism is also referred to as anti-humanist
Marxism/Marxist anti-humanism (see Hindess 2007: 393). In this version of
structural overdetermination, the economy appears as one level of the structure as
well as determines the structure and the relationship between the parts (see Hindess
2007).2 Individuals, in this perspective, are nothing more than bearers of the
functions emerging from their location in the structure.

With the decline of communist regimes in the early 1990s, Marxism was deemed
‘dead’ (see Fukuyama 1991). This view has been refuted by many scholars who point
toward the relevance of the Marxist approach in a different way. The rebirth of
Marxism post-Cold War is manifested in the works of western Marxists. This is
called ‘Analytical Marxism’ since it attempts to reformulate Marx’s ideas in the light
of contemporary analytic philosophy (see Levine 2004; Kymlicka 2001). It is
important to note here that while Marxism traditionally approached issues through
class politics and historical materialism, undermining the role of moral argument,
analytic Marxism purports to develop normative arguments to defend Marxist
insights. As Kymlicka contends, when Marxism defended the inevitability of the
proletarian revolution, it was not required to explain the desirability of socialism or
communism (Kymlicka 2001: 167).

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 87

 MPS-101/OSOU

However, the normative component gains significance with subsequent Marxist

attempts to denounce the inevitability of revolution. Marxism now had to explain why
the Marxist alternative is superior or better (ibid). Kymlicka explains the shift in the
Marxist approach thus: “In other words, the death of 'scientific' Marxism as a theory
of historical inevitability has helped give birth to Marxism as a normative political
theory” (Kymlicka 2001: 168). This also represents the more humanist form of
Marxism in the works of Lukacs and Gramsci, which gives an important role to
human agency or autonomy. Indeed many have pointed to the striking methodological
individualism in analytical Marxism (see Hindess 2007). In the humanistic version,
there is an ontology for human beings that is not determined by material relations of
production. Marxism now has to explain the limitations of and provide an alternative
to liberal theories of justice (Kymlicka 2001: 168). On the other hand, Andrew
Levine (2004: 76) contends that the moral argument3 -based nature of analytical
Marxism “collapsed Marxism into liberalism”. Roemer, another analytical Marxist
agrees on this point. In Roemer’s view, the boundaries between analytical Marxism
and left-liberal philosophy are fuzzy (Lebowitz 2009: 41). Roemer, for instance,
retains only exploitation as the key idea in Marxism, while the other arguments are
close to liberalism.

The new Marxism is a rejection of economism, determinism and structuralism (Mars

1999: 321). David Mars however warns that it is a fallacy to identify every Marxist
with economic determinism. Mars cites Kautsky, Lukacs, and very importantly
Antonio Gramsci as Marxists who engaged with the importance of ideology and
hegemony rather than economic determinism to explain the sustenance of capitalism
and the hurdles for a revolution.4 Colin Hay similarly cites Poulantzas’ ‘relative
autonomy’ theory as a non-economic explanation of state theory within Marxism (see
Hay 1999). Interestingly, non-economic factors like intentions, desires and beliefs are
part of the Marxist method (Elster 1985; Singer 2001). The theory of alienation in
Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts, Singer argues, is a part of the materialist
conception of history. In Singer’s view, alienation and historical materialism are not
two stages in Marxism. For example, Singer contends that the Eighteenth Brumaire
itself suggests the role of ideas and personalities and not merely productive forces in
changing human history (Singer 2001: 50). Also, the Communist Manifesto describes
the history of all societies as the history of class struggle and not the history of
economic forces. Singer thus concludes that Marx observes that the productive forces
of human history make human being alien from each other and hence the materialist
conception of history and the theory of alienation are part of the same theory. In a
similar vein, Wood (2005) cites ‘practical-critical activity’ in the Theses on
Feuerbach and the role of class consciousness in the Communist Manifesto, which are
departures from the base-superstructure view in many other works. Robert Brennan,

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 88

 MPS-101/OSOU

another analytical Marxist, argues that the driving force of change in Marxism is not a
mode of production; the agent of change is a class struggle (see Hindess 2007: 398).

David Mars’s description of Marxism as a realist epistemology throws light on the

Marxist approach to political theory as well. Mars (1999) argues that Marxism is not
relativist because it is based on the assumption that knowledge of the social world
exists independently of our knowledge of it. This is a positivist view of knowledge.
However, unlike positivism, Marxism believes that every relationship between social
phenomena cannot be directly observed. However, like positivists, Marxism agrees
that there is a logic of necessity and causality, making Marxism almost a science
(ibid). The contribution of Marxism however lies in not only interpreting and
unravelling causal explanations but also in changing them. Mars, therefore,
underlines Marxism at its best as “a humanity-centred and activist philosophy” (Mars
1999: 332). Marxism’s interesting contribution lies in the nuanced position on
structure and agency, or class relations and individualism. Elster (1985) underscores
‘methodological collectivism’ as the mainstay of Marxist methodology- i.e., in the
explanatory order, there are supra-individual entities before the individual. At the
same time, an ethical individualism is manifest in Marx’s German Ideology and the
theory of alienation wherein communism is superior to other forms for Marx on
account of its potential for the full realization of human beings. In the 1990s, the
more autonomy-based Marxism combined with postmodernism and resulted in a new
version of post-Marxism “where class and similar concepts become ‘social
imaginaries’, rather than definite empirical realities” (Vincent 2009: 98).6

6.4 MAIN IDEA OF MARX’S POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY

Marx‘s main contribution to political philosophy may be studied under the following
heads:
6.4.1 Dialectical Materialism
Dialectical materialism is the foundation on which the entire structure of Marxian
thought rests and it is one of the first important ideas of Marx‘s philosophy.
Dialectical materialism symbolizes the philosophical expression of Marxism. It was
not his original contribution and he borrowed it from G.W.F Hegel, a well-known
German Philosopher, who assumed that idea‘ or consciousness‘ was the core of the
universe. Hegel believed that all ideas in the world developed through dialectic, and it
was the vigour behind all historical growth. But Marx rejected this notion and
assumed that matter‘ was the essence of the universe and applied it to explain the
material conditions of life. For Marx, the matter is the strength behind all appearances
of social modification. Marx advocated the theory of materialism in contrast to
Hegel‘s theory of idealism‘.

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 89

 MPS-101/OSOU

Hegel tried to describe the apparatus of social change through the dialectical process
and tried towards the development of history through the process of thesis, antithesis,
and synthesis ultimately reaching the highest form. A thesis is first developed in each
stage of history and then challenged by a counter proposition or antithesis. The
conflict between the thesis and anti-thesis gives rise to a synthesis. In the next stage,
the synthesis of the previous stage becomes the thesis and the dialectical cycle
continues until the final stage which will see the birth of a classless society. Marx
borrowed the idealistic philosophy from Hegel and fitted it into his economic thought
to demonstrate the necessity of the class struggle and the inevitability of progress
revolution.

Marx has adopted the Hegelian instrument of societal transformation through the
context of thesis‘, antithesis, and synthesis‘. But Marx rejects Hegel‘s derivation of
nature from the nature of consciousness itself. He intends that rather than beginning
with ideas and trying to reproduce the material world. Marx was suitable to vindicate
Hegel‘s dialectic via historical and empirical analysis (M. Launza, 2016).In both
Hegel and Marx, the basic principle of motion is a contradiction.

For Hegel, the universal substance is spirit, for Marx its matters. Both spirit and
matter develop themselves with the assistance of inner dialectic. To Hegel, the
inevitable goal is that the idea is fully conscious of itself. The social institutions only
replicate through the Ideas‘or consciousness because of the actual force behind social
development. However, Marx held that social institutions are formed by the material
conditions of human life that are determined by the mode l of economic production in
society. Marx wanted to exchange Hegel‘s dialectical idealism with his dialectical
materialism

6.4.2 Historical Materialism

Historical Materialism signifies the materialistic interpretation of history. Whereas
dialectical materialism indicates the philosophical foundation of Marxism, the theory
of historical materialism seeks to explain the scientific or empirical basis. In simple
words, historical materialism means an economic interpretation of the various
phenomena of history. According to Marx historical materialism is a scientific
explanation of history. His theory of society is historical because he has outlined the
evolution of human societies from one stage to another and it is called materialistic
for the reason that he has interpreted the evolution of societies in terms of material or
economic basis. The most succinct formulation of the theory of historical materialism
which describes the transitions of the modes of production was provided by Marx in

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 90

 MPS-101/OSOU

Contribution to a Critique of Political Economy (1859)( Jha, 2018). His common

ideas about society are known as his theory of historical materialism.

Marx begins with the simple truth that man must eat to live. Man has to produce his
needs and he can produce more association with others than in isolation. Marx
believes that the existence of humanists on upon his effectiveness in the production of
material things. Production is the most vital part of all human activities. Society
comes into existence substantially for the determination of economic production.

He has identified four stages of the evolution of history based on modes of

production. These four stages- Primitive communism, Ancient, Feudal, and Capitalist.
The first one is primitive communism which signifies communal ownership. The
ancient mode of production was characterized by slavery. In the feudal society, the
mode of production is owned by feudal lords and in the capitalist system, the mode of
production is owned by the bourgeoisie exploitation of wage earners. In all the stages
of history, society is divided into hostile classes, the class which owns the means of
production and controls the forces of production, controls the rest (Gauba, 2016).
This domination of one class over others naturally gave rise to tensions and stains. As
a result of this, tension and conflict have continued. At every stage of historical
development, the forms of production regulate the construction of society. In the
words of Marx, The hand-mill gives you society with the feudal lords; the steam-mill
society with the industrial capitalist.

According to Marx the progress of society from one stage to another is not the result
of chance, but the result of the law of history. In each stage, each dominant class
develops its opposite and as a result of class between these two opposites, the new
ruling class emerges. In the final stage, the capitalist and the proletariat stand face to
face against each other. As a result, the clash between the two, a classless society
shall emerge. Marx, however, argues that before the emergence of the classless
society there shall be a transitional stage known as the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Marx observed that In the social production of their life, men enter into fixed
relations which might be essential and impartial in their will, relations of production
which correspond to a definite stage of development of their material productive
forces‖ (Cohen, 2000). The total of these relations of production constitutes the
economic structure of society, the real base, on which rises a legal and political
superstructure, and to which correspond definite forms of social consciousness‖
(Harman, 1986). From the above explanation, the mode of production in a specified
society establishes its base or substructure‘; while morals, religion, politics, etc. form

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 91

 MPS-101/OSOU

the superstructure, which is formed according to the changing nature of the base or
substructure.

At a certain stage of their development, the material forces of production of society

come into conflict with the existing relations of production or what is but a legal
expression of the same thing with the property relations within which they have been
at work before. From forms of development of the productive force, these relations
turn into their fetters. Then begin an epoch of social revolution. To know this method,
it is essential to differentiate between the forces of production and relations of
production. Both of them constitute the mode of production.

Each society has an economic system that comprises two constituents: forces of
production which include the means of production such as land, machines, capital,
and labour-power; and the relations of production which describe the relationship of
ownership or control between individuals and the forces of production (Jha, 2018).
Hence, the relations of production are founded on the pattern of economic ownership
of earnings of production. Marx‘s materialistic interpretation of history is defective in
so far as it ignores the part played by the non-economic factors in the shaping of
history.

6.4.3 Theory of Revolution

Marx‘s theory of revolution is an important portion of the theory of dialectical
materialism. Through the process of dialectic, the development of thesis and
antithesis takes place gradually and steadily. Then as a consequence of the class
among the thesis and antithesis a synthesis emerges in an unexpected stroke.

Both Marx and Engels emphasized that the revolution is necessary because the ruling
class cannot be overthrown in any other way and it can only in a revolution succeed
in ridding itself and become fitted to found society anew (Singh, 1989). According to
Marx, the basic cause of revolution is the conflict between the relations of production
and the means of production. At last, a stage is reached where the relations of
production become a fetter on the production process itself. It offers an increase in
inherent demand for an evolution to a new model of production in the case of the
slave, feudal, and capitalist. Each new property owing class brought about the
revolution in the name of all society through the transformation of the mode of
production. It establishes itself as the ruling and exploits the property-less class. For
Marx, it was only the proletariat that would abolish all private property and therefore
class society itself (Jha, 2018).To get about a revolution, a class needs to acquire state
power. In those quick radical changes, the whole construction of society would be
ultimately changed, till the new society is overthrown and remoulded. Therefore, any

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 92

 MPS-101/OSOU

significant alteration is at all times the product of revolution. Thus the revolution
would destroy the capitalist. Its eventual replacement would be communism which
will create a classless society.

Marx deliberated that the state as a class institution that reflected the interests and
ideas of the dominant class. It is an organised political power of one class for
oppressing another. In the word of Marx, the modern bourgeoisie state was, nothing
more than the form of organization that the bourgeoisie necessarily adopt both for the
internal purpose for the mutual guarantee of their property and interest.

6.4.4 The doctrine of class Conflict

The concept of class struggle or class conflict is one of the most important
sociological bases of Karl Marx. It is an essential part of the theory of historical
materialism because the dialectical nature of history is expressed in the class struggle.
In the Communist Manifesto (1848) both Marx and Engels stated that the history of
all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles‖ (Rashid, 2017). Both
Marx and Engels claim that class conflict or class struggle is the actual motivating
force of human history. Marx wrote, Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord
and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in
constant opposition to another (Mukherjee and Ramaswamy). These are the opening
sentences of the Manifesto of the Communist Party. The above interpretation is an
outlet that a feeling of hostility existed among these opponent classes which could not
be reconciled. He further asserts that this class antagonism exists even in the modern
bourgeoisie society. Society has split into two rival classes and the hostility between
these two classes shall ultimately end with the victory of workers.

Marx believed that through the evolution of the forces of production, where one mode
of production is substituted by another. Thus, the class conflict between the two
ultimately exists under the new social development. The ancient slave-owning society
was characterized by the class conflict between the master and the slave. In the
medieval feudal society, the class conflict arises between the lord and serf, while in
the modern capitalist society the class conflict arose between the bourgeoisie (who
own the means of production such as machinery and factory) and the proletariat (who
own their labour and sell it for a wage). Socialist states should work to abolish private
property and there will be no classes and no conflict. When people have become
aware of their loss, it will be possible for them to proceed to a radical transformation
of their situation by a revolution. Both Marx and Engels said that this revolution
would bring about the final liberation of manhood for the reason that there is no class
below the working class. Which might be subjected to exploitation after the working
class comes to power. This upheaval will pave the way to the establishment of

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 93

 MPS-101/OSOU

communism in which no class division will appear and all means of production goes
to in the hands of social ownership. Finally, the division of classes will widen and the
development of a classless society will mark the end of class conflict. Marx‘s
emphasis on class conflict as constituting the dynamics of social change (Rummel,
1977). So the main objective of Marx‘s theory of class conflict is an end to class
struggle and class struggle will be ended through the abolition of class property. The
final idea of Marx is the stateless and classless state.

6.4.5 Theory of Surplus Value

The doctrine of surplus value which is related to capitalism is one of the most
important theoretic contributions of Marx. This theory was an extension of his labour
theory. Karl Marx expounded on the theory of surplus value in his work Das Capital
(Shi, 2019). According to Marx, the capitalist mode of production includes exploiting
the proletariat, and his theory of surplus-value explains how this exploitation takes
place. Marx has been heavily influenced by Ricardo‘s Iron law of wages which says
that the worth of each commodity is proportionate to the amount of labour contained
in it, provided this labour is by the remaining standard of efficiency of production.
Labour power is also equal to the brain, muscles, and nerves of the labourer.
According to Marx, the value of a commodity was produced by labour, the whole
price should be paid to him. But in actual practice, the capitalists give the labour
much less than what they produce by labour and pocket the rest of it. The
dissimilarity between the exchange value of a manufactured commodity and the
amount paid to the product of unpaid labour is called surplus value.

For Marx, labour is the sole creator of production but there are three other factors i.e.
land, capital, and organization. These three factors are sterilized for the reason that
they are proficient in reproducing only what is laid in them. So labour is the only
important element that produces value in society. For example, suppose in ten hours
the labourer produces a value equal to the one contained in his wage. But he is asked
by his employer to work for twenty hours. That means that the value produced by the
labourer for the rest of ten hours is the surplus value. In the words of Marx, This
surplus is nothing but exploitation of the labourer by his employer.

6.4.6 Theory of Alienation

Alienation means separation. Marx‘s theory of alienation is derived from Hegel. It
was Hegel who talked about the alienation of man from God. Marx employed the
term alienation to explain dehumanization and he dedicated much speculative effort
in these earlier years to examining the nature of alienation in a capitalist system.
Marx in his early work, Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844, discusses
the concept of alienation. His theory of alienation signifies the humanist aspect of

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 94

 MPS-101/OSOU

Marxism. For Marx alienation means the separation of our specific human abilities.
Perhaps the most important meaning Marx held is that one is to be alienated in terms
of one‘s capacity to be a human being (Young, 1975). The miserable status of the
labour in the capitalist society is best illustrated by his alienation‘. The main concern
of the theory of alienation is often understood that how individuals lose their own
identity in the refined social relation. Marx explained the theory of alienation in his
book Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts(Petro Vic, 1963).

According to Marx, there are four types of alienation which Marx wrote as relating to
the capitalist mode of production (Mukhopadhyay, 2020). First, is alienation from the
product of labour. He is alienated because what he produces does not belong to him.
He produces something not because he wants to produce it, but at the bidding of his
employer. As a result, what he produces exits outside him and is alien to him. His
labour is not voluntary, but forced labour. Secondly, he is alienated not only from the
object he produces but also from the process of production. Production has become
over-specialized and mechanized. The position of worker is nothing more than a cog
in the wheel‖. Thirdly, he is also alienated from society. The capitalist does not permit
him to realize his social nature. System of wages as such that he does not have the
luxury of not going to work and going for the realization of his social nature.
Fourthly, man is alienated from himself. He is not in a position to lead his life
according to his choice. Marx observes The object produced by labour, its product
now stands opposed to it as alien brings, as a power independent of the producer. The
more the worker expends himself in work the more powerful becomes the world
objects which he creates in his face himself, the poorer he becomes in his inner life,
and the less he belongs to himself (Bottomore, 1964).

Marx holds that the labourer can never think that product is his. It is produced at his
expense, at the cost of his self-realization, against his will, and at the bidding of
another alien, hostile powers, and independent man. The product becomes an
instrument of the oppression of the labourer at the hands of another man who is the
lord of this object. In short, alienation leads to the estrangement and dehumanization
of the labourer. Karl Marx discusses the alienation that man experiences because of
the capitalist mode of production. For max alienation can end only when the capitalist
mode of production is changed into the communist mode of production.

6.4.7 The Dictatorship of the Proletariat

The dictatorship of the proletariat is one more chief contribution of Karl Marx. He did
not explain it systematically. The theory of the dictatorship of the proletariat is
closely related to Marx‘s concept of the nature of the communist society and the role
of the working class in the state. It is a state of affairs that the proletariat or the

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 95

 MPS-101/OSOU

working class has grasped political power. In 1848, in the Communist Manifesto, the
concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat is put forward as follows: The first step
in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of the
ruling class, to win the battle of democracy. The proletariat will use its supremacy to
wrest, by the degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of
production in the hands of the state that is of the proletariat organized as the ruling
class‖ (Johnstone, 1971).

In The Critique of Gotha Programme, Marx spoke of a transition period in which the
state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat‖ (Tebak,
2000). This interpretation shows that Marx constantly, though infrequently, referred
to the proletarian dictatorship as a transitional political instrument. Marx described
that between capitalism and communist society lies an epoch of revolutionary
transformation from one stage that is capitalism to another stage which is socialism.
The dictatorship of the proletariat refers to a form of organization of the state that
comes into being when the organized working class overthrew capitalism and
assumes full control of political power. It is an intermediate system or transitional
phase from capitalism to socialism and communism while the state is in the process
of transforming the ownership of means and production from private to collective
ownership. Through this system, all means of social production are in the hands of
state ownership and control.

6.5 A CRITICAL APPRAISAL

Karl Marx is undoubtedly one of the great important philosophers of contemporary

times. His ideas are not only encouraged by many people but also, he has also been
criticized by a large number of people for his utopian views which encourage
violence in society. In the first place, it is alleged that Marx is a dogmatic philosopher
who comes completely relaxed the logical rigidity of the theory. All his propositions
are neither supported by logic nor by historical evidence.

His economic determinism is true to this extent, that any economic system, any
technique of production and distribution will always (and more especially under a
laissez-faire policy) have an extremely important influence on the nature and growth
of social and juridical institutions and conditions in a given social body. But this does
not mean that human beings are helpless to counteract, say the evil results of the use
of machinery or credit.

Marx incorrectly emphasizes that the economic forces operate independent of the will
of man, and the economic factor is the only factor that moves the whole world. No

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 96

 MPS-101/OSOU

doubt, the economic factor plays an important role in the shaping of things but there
are other social and political factors which are greatly influence the course of history.
Abraham and Morgan are right in observing that Marx overemphasized the economic
base of political power and ignored other important sources of power (Abraham and
Morgan, 1985).

Marx‘s concept of class struggle is artificial. There have been many instances of class
cooperation between private enterprises and the working class and they need each
other. His idea of a stateless and classless society is a utopian dream. The extinction
of the USSR (Union of Soviet Socialistic Republic) as a communist state and the
Republic of China always keen to protect and promote its capitalist interest are
examples to prove that the Marxist idea of the state is wrong.

Marx claimed that in the capitalist society, there are only two classes that are the
bourgeoisie and the proletariat. But this has not happened in reality. Contrary to his
interpretation, new class managers and skilled technical advisors have emerged. His
view that the capitalist would be focused on fewer hands and the conditions of
workers would gradually worsen and impel them to abolish the capitalist system has
also not come true. In the fact that the present capitalist is more extensively spread in
the community than in any other period. The condition of the working classes has not
worsened. In the contemporary world, the capitalist has presented various social
welfare schemes for benefit of the working class. Therefore the hostility between the
capitalist and the proletariat, as anticipated by Marx, is not so considerably present.

Marx believed that the state will itself wither away. This interpretation of Marx does
not come true. The state with time has assumed more and more powers. He predicted
that social change can be effected only through revolution. But in actual practice,
many changes have been brought about through the process non-violent method.
Marx was wrong in attributing alienation solely to economic exploitation. The
labourer is alienated. He says this because he feels that the product of his labour does
not belong to him. Lastly, Marx completely ignored the psychological aspects of
politics. He did not give adequate treatment to the concept of power. The above
criticisms, however, do not detract from his importance as a great social thinker. He
is, undoubtedly one of the few social thinkers who have applied to determine the
course of history.

6.6 SUMMARY

The above-noted shortcomings and limitations in Karl Marx‘s political thought do not
in any way undermine his contributions to political thought. He made various

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 97

 MPS-101/OSOU

valuable contributions to political thought that have significantly changed the face of
the world. Marx borrowed the concept of dialectical materialism and theory of
alienation from Hegel however he has modified them in his way. Hegel used
dialectics in the process of ideas but Marx used to matter. Marx has strongly stated
that historical materialism means the economic interpretation of history. He has
identified four stages of the evolution of history based on economic production,
starting from primitive communism has passed through the stages of ancient,
feudalism and capitalism. In all the stages the division of the society into two
antagonistic classes and the struggle of the classes against one another because the
class owns the means of production and controls the forces of production.

According to T.B. Bottomore, Marxism is not a theory of social stratification but a

comprehensive theory of social change. His view of societies as inherently mutable
systems, in which changes are produced largely by internal contribution and conflicts‖
is a major contribution to sociological analysis. He further says that Marx‘s theory of
social conflict is a welcome contrast to the functionalist theory. Functionalism
emphasizes social harmony, equilibrium and stability, but ignores the element of
conflict in society. Marx‘s emphasis on social conflict in society leading to social
change has been welcomed as a progressive sociological alternative. Many of Marx‘s
predictions have not come true, but there is no denying the fact that those who have
read his work have changed the world. To conclude with Wayper, Of the power of his
message, the inspiration of his teaching, and his effect on future developments, Marx
can be sure of his place in any collection of the world‘s great masters of political
thought.

This unit has helped us to understand Karl Marx‘s life and writings in detail. We have
discussed the various important theories of Marx such as the philosophy of dialectics,
historical materialism, theory of alienation, theory of evolution, theory of surplus-
value, the concept of class conflict and the dictatorship of the proletariat. Lastly, this
unit has also highlighted the various limitation of Marx‘s political thought.

6.7 EXERCISE
1. What is the concept of Marxism?
2. What is dialectical materialism?
3. What is a historical revolution?
4. What is the surplus value of Karl Marx?
5. Critically evaluate the Marx theory of the state?

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 98

 MPS-101/OSOU

6.8 REFERENCE

Bedacht, M., Don S., Browder E., Karl Marx, Life and Work of Karl Marx by
Bedacht Max, (Workers Library Publishers, 1993). p.4.

Francis Abraham and John Henry Morgan, Sociological Thought from Comte to
Sorokin (Macmillan India Limited, Delhi, 1985.p.46.

Gauba, O.P, Western Political Thought(Mayur Paperbacks, 2016). p.270.

Harman, Chris, Base and Superstructure,‖ International Socialism, 1986, pp.3-34.

Jha, Sephali, Western Political Thought (Pearson Publications, 2018). p.223.

Jha, Sephali, Western Political Thought (Pearson Publications, 2018). p. 224.

Jha, Sephali, Western Political Thought (Pearson Publications, 2018). p. 224.

Jha, Sephali, Western Political Thought (Pearson Publications, 2018). p.216.

Johnstone, Monthy, ―The Paris Commune and Marx‘s Conception of the

Dictatorship of the Proletariat‖ Massachusetts Review, Vol. 12, No.3, 1971, p-449.

Karl Marx, Early Writings, translated by T.B. Bottomore (McGrew Hill, New York,
1964).p. 122.

M. Lanuza, Gerardo, ―The Dialectical Foundations of Marx‘s Sociology of Conflict:

Methodological Implications for the Study of Conflicts,‖ Philosophical Sociological
Review, Vol. 64, 2016, P.114

Marx, Karl, Contribution to a Critique of Political Economy, quoted in General A.

Cohen, Karl Marx‘s Theory of History: A Defence, Princeton: Princeton University
Press, 2000.

Mukherjee S. and Ramaswamy S., A History of Political Thought Plato to Marx

(Eastern Economy Edition).p.319.

Mukhopadhyay, Roudro, ―Karl Marx‘s Theory of Alienation‖, SSRN Electronic

Journal, January 2020.

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 99

 MPS-101/OSOU

Petrovic, Gajo, ―Marx Theory of Alienation‖ Philosophy and Phenomenological

Research, International Phenomenological Society, Vol. 23, No. 3, March 1963,
p.419-426.

Rashid, Haroon, ―Karl Marx‘s Philosophy and Its Relevance Today, Philosophy and
Progress, Vol.61-62, No.1-2, Jan-Dec 2017, p 15-42.

Rashid, Haroon, ―Karl Marx‘s Philosophy and Its Relevance Today,‖ Philosophy
and Progress, Vol.61-62, No.1-2, Jan-Dec 2017, p 15-42.

Rummel, R.J, Understanding Conflict and War: Vol. 3: Conflict in Perspective

chapter 5 Marxism, Class Conflict and The Conflict Helix, 1977.

Shi, Yan, ―The Formation of Marxist Theory of Surplus Value‖ Frontier of Higher
Education, Vol.1, No.2, December 2019.

Singh, Rustam, ―Status of Violence in Marx‘s Theory of Alienation, Economic and

Political Weekly, Vol.24, No. 4, January 28, 1989, p.9-10.

Tebak, Mehmet, ―Marx‘s Theory of Proletarian Dictatorship Revisited‖ Science and

Society, Guilford Press, Vol. 64, No.3, 2000, pp.333-356.

Wayper, C.L, Political Thought (B.I. Publications, New Delhi, 1975). p. 194.

Yong, T.R., ―Karl Marx and Alienation: The Contribution of Karl Marx to Social
Psychology,‖ Humboldt Journal of Social Relations, Vol. 2, No.2, (Spring/Summer,
1975), pp.26-34.

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 100

 MPS-101/OSOU

UNIT-7: LIBERALISM

Structure
7.1 Objective
7.2 Introduction
7.3 Origin and Development
7.3.1 Feudalism
7.3.2 Divine Rights and Absolutism
7.3.3 Industrialization and New Market Economic Order
7.4 Core Theme of Liberalism
7.4.1 Individualism
7.4.2 Freedom
7.4.3 Reason
7.4.4 Justice
7.4.5 Toleration
7.5 Liberalism, Government and Democracy
7.5.1 Liberal State
7.5.2 Constitutional Government
7.5.3 Liberal Democracy
7.6 Types of Liberalism
7.6.1 Classical Liberalism
7.6.2 Modern Liberalism
7.7 Neo-Liberalism
7.8 Liberalism in the Twenty-first Century
7.9 Summary
7.10 Exercise
7.11 Reference

7.1 OBJECTIVES
After going through this unit, you will be able to understand:
• Origin and development of liberalism
• The core theme of liberalism

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 101

 MPS-101/OSOU

• Understanding of liberal state, constitutional government, and democracy

• Meaning of classical and modern liberalism
• Understanding of neoliberalism
• The state of liberalism in the twenty-first century

7.2 INTRODUCTION

In contemporary society, people use the word ‘liberalism’ very often, especially in
academic discourses, and it has a number of meanings. The word is derived from the
Latin word liber, which refers to a class of free men. In other words, they can be
understood as those who were neither serfs nor slaves. In another word, it also meant
generous, as in helping people with food or drink, etc.; or in reference to social
attitudes. It also refers to openness and open-mindedness. The word is also associated
with ideas of freedom and choice.

However, the central theme of liberal ideology is a commitment to individual

freedom and the desire to construct a society in which people can satisfy their
interests and achieve fulfilment. The first and foremost emphasis of liberals is on
individuals, endowed with reason. They believe that each and every individual should
enjoy the maximum possible freedom. Although individuals are entitled to equal legal
and political rights, they should be rewarded according to their talents and at their
will. Liberalism emphasizes the twin principles of constitutionalism and consent, to
protect citizens from the danger of government tyranny.

To know liberalism in detail, it is necessary to understand the origin and development

of liberalism, the core theme of liberalism, the liberal state, constitutional
government, democracy, and its different forms like classical liberalism, modern
liberalism, neoliberalism, and the present state of liberalism in the twenty-first
century. Factors like feudalism, divine rights and absolutism, industrialization, and
new market economic order triggered the origin of liberalism during the nineteenth
century. Aspects like individualism, freedom, reason, justice, and toleration constitute
the core theme of liberalism and it believes in the liberal state, constitutional
government, and democracy. Understanding types of liberalism, classical liberalism
believes in a ‘minimal state’, whose function is limited to the maintenance of
domestic order and personal security. On the other hand, modern liberalism believes
in the ‘maximal state’, and the state regulation, which is based on others regarding
action. Neoliberalism is based on market fundamentalism, which put emphasis on
free trade, and state deregulation. The present state of liberalism in the twenty-first
century advocates globalism, global village, and economic integration.

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 102

 MPS-101/OSOU

7.3 ORIGIN AND DEVELOPMENT

With regard to the origin and development of liberalism, it goes back to the
nineteenth century. However, as a theory, it developed during the previous three
hundred years. It emerged as a dominant theory triggered by a number of factors that
happened in Europe, like the breakdown of feudalism, challenge to the doctrine of
divine rights, absolutism, and the spree of industrialization and the new market
economic order.

7.3.1 Feudalism: Liberalism developed as an ideology with the breakdown of

feudalism in Europe and headed toward a capitalist society. It reflected the aspirations
of the rising middle class, whose interests conflicted with the established power of the
absolute monarchy and landed aristocracy. It emphasized fundamental reforms and
revolutionary changes and in this context, the French Revolution and the American
War of Independence are the product of it the late eighteenth century.

7.3.2 Divine Rights and Absolutism: Liberals challenged the absolute power of the
monarchy, which was supposedly based on the divine right of kings. They challenged
the absolute power of the king and its absolutism and advocated for a constitutional
representative government. Liberals criticized the political and economic privileges
enjoyed by the landed aristocracy, as this social position in the feudal society was
considered based on birth, and hence considered unfair. Besides it, they too
questioned the authority of the established church, which had enormous power in
controlling the state.

7.3.3 Industrialization and New Market Economic Order: As it is well known, the
march of industrialization in Europe provided fuel to the spread of liberalism in
western countries. It advocated for industrialization and freedom from government
interference. It emphasized individual freedom in the political sphere and advocated
for free trade economy in the economic sphere.

7.4 CORE THEMES OF LIBERALISM

Liberalism is a political ideology or principles committed to a certain distinctive set

of values and beliefs. The most important are as follows.

7.4.1 The Individual

In the contemporary modern world, the individual has greater political significance,
which was absent in the feudal society or era. During the feudal period, there was
very little space for individuals to fulfil their interests or encase their unique personal

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 103

 MPS-101/OSOU

identities. Rather, during those days, individuals were considered members of social
groups like their family, village, groups, local community, or social class. Their lives
and identities were largely determined by their concerned groups, where they get the
very little scope to change themselves from one generation to another. As feudalism
broke down, people got a broader scope and a large number of choices and social
possibilities to fulfil their interests or individual freedom. People got the freedom to
think of themselves on their terms and they became ‘free men’ to enjoy the available
opportunities.

As the feudal societies broke down, a new climate of intellectual climate emerged,
which replaced the traditional theories and established rational and scientific
explanations. This was evident in the growth of natural rights theories in the
seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. In this regard, the German philosopher
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) expressed that individual as ‘ends’ in themselves and
not merely means for the achievement of other ends. Liberalism believes in and
desires to create a society in which each person is capable of developing and
flourishing to the fullness of his or her potential.

7.4.2 Freedom
Individual freedom is the most important element of human existence and thus
liberals consider enjoying freedom or liberty as a natural right for every individual. It
gives individuals the opportunity to pursue their interests by exercising choice.
Liberal believes that liberty or freedom is the only condition in which individuals
develop their skills and talents and fulfil their potential. However, that doesn’t mean
that individuals have absolute freedom or absolute ‘license’ to abuse others. On the
other hand, there are certain restrictions too. In On Liberty (1859), John Stuart Mill
argues that there should be minimal restrictions on individual freedom to prevent
‘harm to others. In this regard, he distinguishes between ‘self-regarding action’ and
‘other-regarding actions’. In the case of the former, individuals have the absolute
freedom to exercise their will. But, in the case of the latter, it can restrict the freedom
of others to protect others from damage.

Although liberals agree about the value of liberty, they have not always agreed about
what it means for an individual to be free. In his ‘Two Concepts of Liberty” (1958)
Isaiah Berlin distinguishes between the ‘negative’ theory of liberty and the ‘positive
one. Classical liberals have believed in negative freedom, where an individual enjoys
his freedom without any interference and acts according to his/her choices. Negative
freedom is based on the absence of external restrictions or constraints on individuals
(self-regarding action). On the other hand, Modern liberals are more attached to the
‘positive’ conception of liberty, known as positive freedom. Here, people do not

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 104

 MPS-101/OSOU

enjoy absolute freedom; rather, there are certain restrictions on freedom to protect
others from abuses (other regarding actions).

7.4.3 Reason
The liberals advocate that freedom is closely linked to reason and it is a part of the
enlightenment project. Enlightenment is a project, which desires to release
humankind from its bondage to superstition and ignorance and unleash an ‘age of
reason’. Enlightenment thinkers like Jean Jacques Rousseau, Immanuel Kant, Adm
Smith, and Jeremey Bentham influenced liberalism and rationalism in a number of
ways. To them, human beings are rational, thinking creatures and they are capable of
defining and pursuing their own interest best. The reason is, therefore, more
significant, which highlights the importance of discussion, debate, and argument. The
liberals are generally optimistic about human nature and see people as reason-guided
creatures.

Liberalism believes that society is plural in nature and there are plural interests that
exist in society and which lead to conflicts. As it is known, individuals battle for
scarce resources, businesses compete to increase profits, and nations struggle for
security or strategic advantage, and so forth. In this regard, liberals believe that such
conflicts can be mitigated or settled through debate and negotiations. However, in
special circumstances, it deplores the use of force and aggression. For liberals, the use
of force and aggression is justified either on the ground of self-defence or as a means
of countering oppression, but always and only after reason and arguments have been
exhausted.

7.4.4 Justice
Dispensation of justice is one of the most important aspects of liberalism. Justice
denotes a kind of moral judgment, where the distribution of rewards and punishments
is made. In short, justice is about giving each person what he or she is ‘due’. In a
narrower sense, it implies the distribution of material rewards and benefits in society,
such as wages, profit, housing, medical care, welfare benefits, and so on.

The liberal theory of justice implies the commitment to foundational equality. It

implies a belief in formal equality and that individuals should enjoy the same formal
status in society, particularly in terms of the distribution of rights and entitlements.
Liberals advocate that each and every individual is equal in the eye of the law.
Nobody should be discriminated against on the basis of gender, race, colour, creed,
religion, and social background. Rights should not be reserved for any particular class
of persons and thus liberalism is ‘difference blind’. The most important forms of
formal equality are legal equality and political equality.

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 105

 MPS-101/OSOU

Liberals subscribe to a belief in the equality of opportunity and this regard each and
every individual has the same chance to rise or fall in society. But to rise in society, it
all depends on the capacity, capability, and skills of the concerned individual. For
liberals, equality means individuals should have an equal opportunity to develop their
unequal skills and abilities, and it leads to ‘meritocracy’. Classical liberals have
endorsed strict meritocracy on both economic and moral grounds. Economically, they
put heavy stress on the need for incentives. Morally justice requires that unequal
individuals are not treated equally. On the other hand, Modern liberals advocate
social justice and social equality. John Rawls in A Theory of Justice (1970), argued
that economic inequality is only justifiable if it works to the benefit of the poorest in
society.

7.4.5 Toleration
Liberalism believes in pluralism, as the society is diverse and so as the individuals.
Human beings are separate and unique creatures and liberals believe in diversity in
society, which is commonly associated with toleration. Toleration is both an ethical
ideal and a social principle. It represents the goal of personal autonomy and
establishes a set of rules about how human beings should behave towards one
another. Many liberal political philosophers have emphasized toleration.

John Milton and John Locke defend religious freedom. Locke argues that toleration is
one of the most important aspects of democracy, which helps in the functioning of
government, as it protects life, liberty, and property. It doesn’t meddle with other
affairs and it needs to be applied in both public and private affairs. J.S. Mill in On
Liberty (1859), has given a wider justification for toleration which highlighted its
importance to society as well as the individuals. In the sphere of individual point of
view, toleration is primarily a guarantee of personal autonomy which develop moral
self-development, and on the other hand, in the social sphere toleration ensures in
making of a healthy and vibrant society.

For liberals, toleration is highly needed to make a diverse society a balanced one to
check conflicts. There should be a deeper harmony in society to make a balance
between various competing interests. For example, there remain competing interests
between workers and employees. Workers want better pay, shorter working hours,
and improved working conditions and on the other hand, employers wish to increase
their profits by keeping their production costs as lowest as possible. Nevertheless,
these competing interests are in another way complimentary to each other, as workers
need jobs and employers need labour. In other words, each group is essential to the
achievement of the other’s group, and it makes the social equilibrium.

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 106

 MPS-101/OSOU

7.5 LIBERALISM, GOVERNMENT, AND DEMOCRACY

7.5.1 The Liberal State

Liberals believe that a balanced and tolerant society doesn’t develop automatically
out of the free actions of individuals and voluntary associations. They say that free
individuals may exploit others, steal their property or even turn them into slaves to
serve their interests. Hence, the liberty of others may be in danger and it may become
a license to abuse others. Each individual may be under the threat of other individuals
in society. In such a case liberty need to be safeguarded and protected. Liberals have
traditionally believed that such protection can only be provided by a sovereign state,
which will be capable of restraining all individuals and groups within society.
Political philosophers like Thomas Hobbes and John Locke have emphasized the
formation of a liberal sovereign state, where liberty and freedom can be enjoyed. John
Locke says that freedom can only exist ‘under the law’ or it can put it in another way
that ‘where there is no law there is no freedom’. Further Thomas Hobbes and John
Locke have told that individuals must have political obligations toward the state to
maintain equilibrium in the state and make the society tolerant.

7.5.2 Constitutional Government

Although liberals believe in the need for the government for governance,
simultaneously, they too fear government tyrannies against the individual. It is fact
that government is sovereign and is run by individuals having political power, and in
such a case it may pose a constant threat to individual liberty. As human beings are
self-seeking creatures, if they remain in power, their ability to influence the
behaviours of others is natural and they will use it for their benefit. In this context,
Lord Action has warned that “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts
absolutely”. Liberals, therefore, fear arbitrary government and uphold the principles
of limited government. The government needs to be limited or ‘tamed’ through the
establishment of constitutional constraints.

A constitution is a set of rules, which allocate power and functions among the various
institutions of the government, and it too mentions the limitations of its exercise. The
limitation of power exercise in a constitutional government of constitutionalism can
be made in two ways. At first, the powers of government bodies and politicians can
be limited by the introduction of legal constraints by making a written constitution,
which codifies the major powers and responsibilities of government institutions
within a single authoritative document. A written constitution is thus considered a
‘higher law’. Second, constitutionalism can be established by the introduction of
internal constraints which disperse political power among a number of institutions
and it will keep the political system in ‘check and balance’. The French Political

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 107

 MPS-101/OSOU

Philosopher Montesquieu (1689-1775) had given the idea that there should be a
‘separation of power’ among government institutions. The three organs of the
government, the legislature, executive, and judiciary must function independently and
separately to prevent any individual or small group from gaining dictatorial power.
He says that ‘power should be a check to power’.

7.5.3 Liberal Democracy

Liberal democracy is the most dominant form of government accepted across the
globe. It is a kind of political rule that uphold and balances the principles of limited
government. The liberal features keep the political system in check and balance and
these principles are designed to guarantee individual liberty and it too protects
citizens from the arbitration of the government. Liberal democracy as a form of
government or a kind of political rule (regime) is based on certain principles. It is
based on a system of regular and competitive elections, conforming to the principles
of universal suffrage and political equality. It is a kind of regime, which believes in
constitutional government based on law and a set of rules. It guarantees civil liberties
and individual rights. There is the decentralization of power and functions within
institutions in liberal democracy, which is based on checks and balances. Conducting
regular elections and respecting the principles of universal suffrage is one of the core
principles of liberal democracy, which is based on ‘one man, one vote’. Political
pluralism and healthy political party competition are other hallmarks of liberal
democracy. It promotes a healthy civil society, in which, organized groups and
interest groups enjoy independence from the government. In terms of the economic
sphere, it believes in a capitalist or private-enterprise economy organized along
market lines.

In terms of addressing conflicts, it believes in ‘democratic solutions’ to conflicts,

where the rule of the majority applies, and the principles of the majority or the
greatest number prevail over the minority. Hence, liberal democracy comes down to
the rule of 51 percent, and in this regard, French politician and social commentator
Alexis de Tocqueville (1805-59) famously described it as ‘the tyranny of the
majority’. In the name of democracy, the rights of individuals and minority rights can
thus be crushed. However, defending this criticism, US Statesman and political
theorist, James Madison (1751-1836) argued that the best defence against
majoritarianism is a network of checks and balances that would make government
responsive to competing minorities, and individual rights and liberty.

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 108

 MPS-101/OSOU

7.6 TYPES OF LIBERALISM

7.6.1 Classical Liberalism

Classical liberalism is the earliest form of liberalism that was developed during the
period when there was a transition from feudalism to capitalism and the early years of
industrialization in the nineteenth century.

The core thrust of classical liberalism is that it gives importance to an extreme form
of individualism. It sees individuals as egoist, self-seeking and self-reliant creatures
and in this context, C.B. Macpherson (1962) coined the term “possessive
individualism”.It means, that the individual least thinks about society or other
individuals, rather he/she first thinks for himself/herself. The atomist believes in
‘negative liberty, which means non-interference, or the absence of external
constraints upon the individual. It implies non-interference of state and all forms of
government intervention on the individual. In the word of Tom Paine, ‘the state is a
necessary evil’, which means the state is ‘necessary’ for the least. Its only duty is to
protect law and order and ensure security for individuals. The state is ‘evil’ in the
sense that, it imposes collective will upon society and hence it limits the freedom and
liberty of individuals. Thus, classical liberalism advocates the establishment of a
‘minimal’ government or a ‘night watchman’ state, whose role would only be limited
to the protection of citizens from the encroachment of fellow citizens. In the
economic sphere, it advocates ‘economic liberalism’, which gives importance to the
‘free market economy. It advocates laissez-faire capitalism or a self-regulating
economy and believes that the economy works best when the market is left alone by
the government, as it upholds individual liberty and ensures prosperity and social
justice.

The natural rights theorists like John Locke (1632-1704) in England and Thomas
Jefferson (1743-1826) in America during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries
had a considerable influence on the development of liberal ideology. For Locke and
Jefferson, rights are ‘natural’ and nowadays commonly called human rights, which
are essential conditions for leading a truly human existence. John Locke says that an
individual has three natural rights - life, liberty, and property and the state must
protect these natural rights. Locke believed in limited government and therefore the
functions of government should not extend beyond the minimal function of
preserving public order, protecting property, and providing defence against external
aggression. Jefferson was highly committed to limited government and laissez-faire
and stands for the resistance to the central government in the USA and putting
emphasis on individual freedom and liberty.

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 109

 MPS-101/OSOU

Unlike natural rights theorists, utilitarian ideas had also a considerable impact on
classical liberalism. Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832), a UK philosopher, legal reformer,
and the founder of utilitarianism believed that human beings are rationally self-
interested creatures or utility maximizes and therefore he developed a justification for
laissez-faire economics, constitutional reforms, and political democracy. Bentham’s
utilitarian creed was developed in Fragments of Government (1776) and more fully in
Principles of Morals and Legislation (1789).

In the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, classical liberalism witnessed its
development further with the economic theory propounded by Adam Smith (1723-
1790). Smith’s book The Wealth of Nations (1776) made a powerful contribution to
the debate about the desirable role of government and its restrictions upon economic
activity. Smith believes that the market is a self-regulating mechanism and it needs no
guidance from outside and it should be free from government interference. The
economic doctrine of laissez-faire advocates for the free market, where the state
should not have any economic role and the market should be left alone.

7.6.2Modern Liberalism
Contrary to classical liberalism, modern liberalism is more sympathetic toward state
intervention and it supports ‘maximal’ government rather than ‘minimal’ government.
It propagated welfare liberalism and recognized state intervention. Modern liberalism
became the dominant form of liberalism during the twentieth century, because, the
development of industrialization had brought about a massive expansion of wealth for
some, but, on the other hand, it too brought inequality in society. The arrival of
industrial capitalism indeed brought general prosperity and liberty for all, but it
created an unjust society by creating massive inequality among individuals. The idea
of economic individualism came increasingly under attack. The minimal state of
classical liberalism was quite incapable of addressing the inequality created in
society, and thus, the modern liberals advocated for state intervention and maximal
state to create a just society.

The idea of modern liberalism is highly influenced by the works of J.S. Mill (1806-
73), T.H. Green (1836-82), and John Rawls(1921-2002). It was J.S. Mill who
introduced the conception of modern liberalism and the consequent transition from
classical liberalism to modern liberalism. He started with a defence of laissez-faire
individualism, but gradually he realized its weaknesses in the light of new socio-
economic realities, and he proceeded to modify it. He got to realize that, the working
classes were being deprived of their due share in a capitalist economy based on
laissez-faire individualism, and thus justified maximal state with needed state

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 110

 MPS-101/OSOU

intervention. Individuals or markets can’t be left alone or given absolute freedom and
liberty, rather they should be regulated by the state.

T.H. Green too rejected laissez-faire individualism or classical liberalism, as it creates

new forms of poverty and injustice. He rejected the view of human nature given by
the classical liberals, who were saying that human beings are essentially self-seeking
utility maximizers. T.H. Green views human nature more optimistically. According to
him, one individual is sympathetic to another individual and they are capable of
altruism. The individual possesses social responsibilities and not merely individual
responsibilities and is therefore linked to other individuals by ties of caring and
empathy. Such cooperation of human nature was influenced by socialist ideas, and
hence T.H. Green given ideas belong to modern liberalism.

During the twentieth century, there witnessed the growth of state intervention in most
western states and many developing countries. Much of this intervention took place in
the form of social welfare. Governments attempted to provide welfare support for its
citizen by overcoming poverty, disease, and ignorance. If the minimal state was
typical of the nineteenth century, during the twentieth century, modern states became
welfare states. John Rawls in his book A Theory of Justice (1970) developed a
defense of redistribution and welfare based on the idea of equality as fairness and
social justice.

7.7 NEO-LIBERALISM

Neoliberalism, neo-classical liberalism of libertarianism is a political and economic

philosophy, which advocates free trade and deregulation. It seeks to restore laissez-
faire individualism. It denounces the welfare state and opposes state intervention and
control of economic activities. It is a school of thought that prescribes a minimal
amount of government interference in the economic issues of individuals and society.
It believes that greater economic freedom leads to greater economic and social
progress for individuals. The champions of neo-liberalism are F.A. Hayek (1899-
1992), Milton Friedman (1912-2006), and Robert Nozick (1938-2002).

In the second half of the twentieth century, these thinkers realized that the theory of
the welfare state was inimical to individual liberty, as it involved the forced transfer
of resources from the more competent to the less competent. To restore individual
liberty, advocates of neo-liberalism sought to revive the principle of laissez-faire. It
advocates that the market exemplifies a genuine democracy when it remains free from
the regulation of government, and thus free market represents a model of genuine

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 111

 MPS-101/OSOU

democracy. It argues that votes are traded against welfare benefits, and the cost is
borne by the most productive members of society.

In terms of the political sphere, neo-liberalism advocates full autonomy and freedom
of the individual. It seeks to liberate from all institutions which tend to restrict his
vision of the world, including the institutions of religion, family, and customs of
society. Philosophically, it argues that the outlook of human life, human personality,
character, thought, and actions can be constructed in favourable circumstances. In
other words, it treats man as the maker of his destiny. Hence, it opposes all social and
legal restrictions on individual freedom of action.

Neoliberalism is a form of market fundamentalism that seeks to free from political

control and advocated a free-market economy. Hayek and Friedman attacked the
economic role of government. Hayek advanced a damning economic and political
critique of central planning in particular and economic intervention in general. He
argued that planning in any form is bound to be economically inefficient. Because
state bureaucrats however competent they might be, are confronted by a range of
information that is simply beyond their capacity to handle. Nozick advocated minimal
government and minimal taxation and it undermines the case for welfare and
redistribution. He developed a rights-based theory of justice in response to the idea of
John Rawls and advocated principles of entitlement and a laissez-faire
‘nightwatchman’ state.

7.8 LIBERALISM IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY

Over the past two centuries, liberalism contributed a lot to humankind’s prosperity,
freedom, and development, which has never been experienced before. The ideals of
human freedom, individual dignity, constitutional state, civil society,
constitutionalism and democracy, protection of minority interests, tolerance and
pluralism, and peaceful cooperation among people flourished to a great extent. Apart
from it, technological and social innovations were made and it put its historical
footprint and legacy in society.

The liberal order emerged in 1945 at the end of World War II with the establishment
of the United Nations system; the Bretton Woods Institutions, the General Agreement
on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), and the World Trade Organization. The objective of
the agencies has been to promote international peace and security and foster common
ground for development. This was stimulated by the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights in 1948, which guaranteed human rights within economic, social, and cultural
spheres.

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 112

 MPS-101/OSOU

With the disintegration of the USSR and the end of the Cold War in 1990, the liberal
order became the single dominant international order. Liberal ideology became the
main policy thrust of the USA and it culminated in the rise of the US hegemony soon
after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. The dominant liberal ideology was gradually
vigorously followed by many nations across the globe. In developing democracies,
the wave of democracy replaced an authoritarian one-party system with a more
competitive multi-party democracy. It offered developing societies a wide range of
social choices offered by liberal democracy.

Liberalism provided an institutional core, under which globalization thrived. The free
trade economy and revolution in the information and technology sector triggered by
the process of globalization made the world a ‘global village’. The increasing
international trade with deregulation and the emergence of economic integration by
various regional trading blocs across the globe raised the economic growth and
prosperity of nations. Hence it reduced poverty to a great extent across the globe.

But liberalism received heavy criticism in recent years, as the rising capitalism in the
liberal era brought extreme inequality among people and as well as among nations.
Inequality among nations created the debate of the North-South divide and
dominance-dependency syndrome and it brought global inequality. Many argue that
the benefits of globalization triggered by liberalism are unequal. As a result, the
world is witnessing the issue of rising fundamentalism, extremism, authoritarianism,
and nationalism in recent years.

7.9 SUMMARY

The origin of liberalism goes back to the nineteenth century, which is triggered by a
number of factors that happened in Europe. Factors like the breakdown of feudalism,
challenge to the doctrine of divine rights, absolutism, the spree of industrialization,
and the new market economic order made liberalism a dominant theory. Liberalism is
a political ideology or principles committed to a certain distinctive set of values and
beliefs, and it emphasized individualism, freedom, reason, justice, and toleration.
About the nature and form of government, it advocates a liberal state, constitutional
government, and democracy. Understanding its types, liberalism is categorized as
classical liberalism, modern liberalism, and neoliberalism. Classical liberalism
believes in a ‘minimal state’, whose function is limited to the maintenance of
domestic order and personal security. On the other hand, modern liberalism believes
in the ‘maximal state’, and the state regulation, which is based on others regarding
action. Neoliberalism is based on market fundamentalism, which put emphasis on

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 113

 MPS-101/OSOU

free trade, and state deregulation. At last, the present state of liberalism in the twenty-
first century advocates globalism, global village, and economic integration.

7.10EXERCISES
1. Discuss the origin and development of liberalism.
2. Explain the core theme of liberalism.
3. Discuss the liberal view of the state.
4. Discuss the nature of liberal democracy.
5. Discuss the main arguments of classical liberalism.
6. Define modern liberalism and discuss how it is different from classical
liberalism.
7. Explain neoliberalism and discuss its central features.
8. Discuss the state of liberalism in the twenty-first century.

7.11 REFERENCES
• Heywood, Andrew (2007), Political Ideologies: An Introduction, Palgrave
Macmillan, New York, 2007.
• Heywood, Andrew (2006), Politics, Palgrave Foundation, New York.
• Heywood, Andrew (2004), Political Theory, Palgrave Macmillan, New York.
• John S. Dryzek, Bonnie Honig, Anne Philips (2008) The Oxford Handbook of
Political Theory, Oxford University Press, New York.
• Gauba, O.P. (2003), An Introduction to Political Theory, Macmillan
Publication, New Delhi.
• Bhargava Rajeev and Ashok Acharya (2008), Political Theory: An
Introduction (Eds), Pearson Publication, New Delhi.
• Agarwal, R.C. (2004), Political Theory, S. Chand Publication, New Delhi.
• Ramaswamy, Sushila (2014), Political Theory, Ideas and Concepts, PHI
Publication, New Delhi.
• Johari, J.C. (2012), Contemporary Political Theory, New Dimension, Basic
Concepts and Major Trends, Sterling Publication, New Delhi.
• Assirvatham, Eddy and K.K. Mishra (2006), Political Theory, S. Chand
Publication, New Delhi.

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 114

 MPS-101/OSOU

UNIT-8: NEO-LIBERALISM

Structure
8.1 Objective
8.2 Introduction
8.3 Liberalism
8.4 Neo-liberalism-Definition &Features
8.5 Neo-liberalism and the state
8.6 Neo-conservatism and Neo-liberalism
8.7 Nationalism and Neo-liberalism
8.8 Contradiction of Neo-liberalism
8.9 Manufacturing consent in favour of Neo-liberalism
8.10 Summary
8.11 Exercise
8.12 Reference

8.1 OBJECTIVE
After reading this unit, you will be able to understand
• The meaning and features of neo-liberalism
• The evolution of neo-liberalism.
• Critically the theory and its state practice.
• The concept of nationalism through neo-liberalism.

8.2 INTRODUCTION

Neo-liberalism is a modern ideology of recent origin. Unless one understands

liberalism, it is difficult to understand neo-liberalism. Both the terms, Liberalism and
Neo-liberalism sound similar, but actually, they are different. Both have their sources
in classical liberalism. 19th-century liberalism was based on the Laissez-faire
principle and individual liberty. Adam Smith advocated for a minimum interference
of the government in the domain of the market. But the neoliberalism as a philosophy
and practice is different from liberalism. It is sometimes contradictory to the
principles of modern liberalism. It has changed the nature of the state of the economy
and even human relations. It preaches freedom but limits it in its advocacy of
privatisation and commodification.

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 115

 MPS-101/OSOU

8.3 LIBERALISM

The term liberal comes from the Latin term liber which means free men. They are
neither slaves nor serfs. The term became associated with freedom. But liberalism as
a political doctrine emerged much later in the 1840sit was first used in Spain in 1812.
Liberalism as a political ideology did not exist before the 1st century. But its
development had its roots in the ideas that developed in the previous three centuries.
With the decline of feudalism capitalism developed. And with this historical process,
the ideas of liberalism developed. During that period liberal ideas were revolutionary
as they challenged the contemporary order and its values. They questioned the powers
and authority of the monarchy, the privileges of the feudal landlords, of the church.
They advocated for a constitutional and representative government. The English
revolution of 1688, the French revolution of 178 and the American Revolution of
1776 popularised liberal ideas. With the growth of industrialisation and capitalism,
liberal ideas occupied a dominant position. Liberalism at this stage advocated for a
free market economy where the state will have no control and interference in the
economy and capitalists will do business for profit without any hindrance. States will
trade with each other freely. Liberalism emerged as the dominant political ideology in
western capitalist nations which are defined as liberal democracies. Liberalism was
identified with capitalism. Marxists argued that liberalism is the ruling class ideology
of the bourgeoisie. But Friedrich Hayek held that economic freedom- the right to
own, use and dispose of private property is the guarantee of political liberty. Thus, he
argues that under capitalism a liberal democratic political system can sustain.

But with the historical developed there were changes in liberalism also. Modern
liberals demanded an increasing role for the state to ensure better lives for the people,
particularly for the marginalised. Two traditions of liberalism emerged- classical and
modern. Liberalism has a set of values which can be briefly described as the
importance of individual, freedom, reason, justice, toleration and diversity. Politically
liberalism believes in constitutional government, democracy and rights. Classical
liberalism considered the state, in Thomas Paine’s words, ‘a necessary evil.’ It is
necessary because it maintains order in society and it is evil because it restricts the
freedom of the individual by imposing a collective will on society. The role of the
state in terms of John Locke is that of ‘a night watchman’. Classical liberalism
considers humans as self-interested creatures. Society, as per this theory, is atomistic.
Again it believes in negative freedom.

Modern liberalism emerged with the advancement of industrialisation. There was an

increasing gap between the rich and the poor. With the growth and development of
capitalism inequality, lower wages, longer working hours, inhuman working

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 116

 MPS-101/OSOU

conditions, poverty, ignorance and exploitation increased. The myth of development

for all under capitalism stood exposed. The theory of the minimal state of classical lib
realism failed to bring equality and reduce poverty in society. So there was a need for
change in the liberal theory. And the modern liberals advocated for an interventionist
state. The prominent ideas of modern liberalism are considered to be individuality,
positive freedom, social liberalism and economic management.

8.4 NEO-LIBERALISM-DEFINITION & FEATURES

Neoliberalism emerged as the central guiding principle of management of the

economy beginning in the 80s. in the words of David Harvey, ‘ neo-liberalism is in
the first instance a theory of political economic practices that proposes that human
well-being can best be advanced by liberating individual entrepreneurial freedoms
and skills within an institutional framework characterised by strong private property
rights, free markets and free trade. The role of the state is to create and preserve an
institutional framework appropriate to such practices. ..it must also set up that
military,defence , police, and legal structures and functions required to secure private
property rights and to guarantee, by force if need be, the proper functioning of
markets.’ The common features of neo-liberalism are privatisation, deregulation and
withdrawal of state protection and intervention from the social sectors. The hegemony
of the market came in place of planned development and a welfare state. Institutions
like World Bank, International Monetary Fund, and World Trade Organisation
campaigned aggressively to put neoliberal ideology in a dominant mode. It was a
successful project. Some states accepted it while others were forced to accept it.
Almost all states from china to South Africa to China to Switzerland to India to the
leading ones, USA and UK accepted neo-liberal ideology in the management of their
economy and changed the policies required for this. In the words of Treanor while
neoliberalism values market exchange as, ‘ an ethic in itself, capable of acting as a
guide to all human action, and substituting for all previously held ethical beliefs, it
emphasises the significance of contractual relations in the market place .’ It tries to
put the market in the central place and to bring all human action into the domain of
the market. In the words of Gerard Dumenil & Dominique Levy, ‘ in a narrow
sense, the term neoliberalism can be used to designate a course of events, a set of
policies, that occurred during the 1980s and 1990s, with potential to lead to a new
phase of development. it can be interpreted as an attempt, in the 1980s, by a class of
capitalist owners, to restore, in alliance with top management, its power and income
after a setback of several decades. In a broader sense, the term neoliberalism can be
used to designate new capitalism, with certain characteristics of sustainability: the
historical outcome of the restoration of power and income of a class of capitalist
owners in the context of advanced managerial capitalism.’ Neoliberalism, according

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 117

 MPS-101/OSOU

to Andrew Heywood, ‘is counter-revolutionary: it aims to halt, and if the possible

reverse, the trend towards ‘big’ government and state interventions that had
characterised much of the twentieth century. Neo-liberalism had its greatest initial
impact in the two states in which free-market economic principles had been most
firmly established in the nineteenth century, the UK and the USA. However, in the
case of both ‘Thatcherism ‘in the UK and ‘Reaganism’ in the USA, Neoliberalism
formed part of a larger, new right ideological project that sought to fuse laissez-faire
economics with an essentially conservative social philosophy.’

Features
1. 1-Neoliberalism stands for the unambiguous reassertion of the maximization
of the profit rate in every dimension of activity.
2. 2- It reinforces the tendency of capitalism to keep the lower strata of the
workers where they are
3. 3- It uses unemployment as a means to control labour costs and discipline
workers. It is aggressive capitalism.
4. 4- All technical changes under capitalism do not belong to neoliberalism.
5. 5- Neoliberalism strengthened the separation between ownership and
management. It accelerated the development of large non-financial
corporations managed by business staff.

The understanding of neo-liberalism cannot be complete without studying its

evolution. Modern liberalism dominated the scene, particularly in the western
developed world for almost three decades in the post-war period. But the economic
crisis that came in the mid-seventies questioned the hegemony of modern liberalism.
Keynesian economics as well as the welfare state could not sustain itself in the face of
slow economic growth, expansion of the taxation net, price rise, unemployment,
bureaucratisation, stagnation etc. This was used as an opportunity to advocate for the
replacement of modern liberalism with a newly refined version of classical liberalism
known as Neo-liberalism. Though they appear to be similar they are different from
each other. Neoliberalism is opposed to state interventions and the concept of the
Welfare state. It advocates for a free environment for the free movement of capital
without any restrictions. The market is deified in the neoliberal discourse and sought
to be presented as the panacea for all ills. It is associated with the theory of individual
liberty which implies a Laissez Faire state. Milton Friedman and Robert Nozick are
prominent advocates of neoliberalism. They argued that the welfare state facilitated
the transfer of resources from the more competent to the less competent. They
advocated for the revival of the principle of Laissez Faire to restore individual liberty.
Neoliberalism emphasizes the liberation of man’s economic activity from all kinds of
restrictions by the state or any other organisation because it will lead to progress and
prosperity.

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 118

 MPS-101/OSOU

Market fundamentalism is the basis of neoliberalism it is regarded as superior to the

state and beyond the political control of the state. This feature of neo-liberalism was
not in classical liberalism. The father of market economics, Adam Smith recognised
the limitations of the market. But the advocates of neoliberalism like Hayek and
Milton Friedman criticised the economic role of the government. Hayek held that the
economic intervention of the state is a danger to the liberty of the individual. He
criticised planning on the ground that it is bound to be economically inefficient
because the bureaucracy cannot handle so much information. Likewise, Friedman
criticised the Keynesian theory of economic management. He argued tax and
spending policies increase inflation as governments borrow more and this does not
affect the natural rate of unemployment. Neoliberalism considers the market as self-
regulating. Hayek regarded the market as a vast nervous system which is capable of
regulating g the economy because it can convoy an almost infinite number of
messages simultaneously via the price mechanism. Again market is regarded as
productive and efficient at both macro and microeconomic levels. As resources are
drawn to their most profitable use and as both rich and poor have an incentive to
work, market economies are efficient at the macro-level. Likewise, at the micro level
private business are more efficient than the public sectors because of the profit
motive. Markets are also responsive. Competition keeps the price of the commodities
at the level of affordability. Talent and efforts are rewarded by the market. Thus,
material inequalities are natural, according to neoliberalism.

Globalisation is responsible for the unprecedented growth of neoliberal ideology.

Free market and free trade are the cardinal principles of neoliberal globalisation. The
national economies are integrated into the global economy. The nation-state has been
replaced by what Philip Bobbit calls, the ‘market state’. Globalisation-led
neoliberalism reached its hegemony in the nineties with the dominant slogan, (TINA-
there is no alternative) to it. The big capitalists like the TNCs dominated the global
economy and politics.

8.5 NEO -LIBERALISM AND THE STATE

State and its functions have been decisively affected by the ideology of neoliberalism
in the last four decades. The role of the state has been redefined to serve the interests
of neoliberal capitalism. The evolution of the neoliberal state and its functions in
different parts of the world in the last three decades is not straight and simple nor
uniform. This is why it is very difficult to outline the features of a neoliberal state. In
the words of David Harvey, ‘the general character of the state in the era of neo-
liberalisation is hard to describe for two particular reasons. First, the systematic
divergences from the template of neoliberal theory quickly become apparent, not all

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 119

 MPS-101/OSOU

of which can be attributed to the internal contradictions already outlined. Secondly,

the evolutionary dynamic of neo-liberalisation has been such as to force adaptations
that have varied greatly from place to place as well as over time’. Despite these
limitations, some broad features of the neoliberal state have emerged in more than the
last three decades.

1. The neoliberal state works to create and maintain an investment climate for
the capitalists, even if it is detrimental to the interests of the labour. In case of
conflict or contradictions, the typical neoliberal state will take the sides of the
business and owners of the business as opposed to the genuine demands, and
rights of the workers. This cannot be a class-neutral state though it talks of
growth and development of all.
2. he overall wellbeing or standard of living of the population and protection of
the environment becomes secondary when it comes to contradiction with the
capitalist financial system.
3. Theoretically, free trade and the free market are two pillars of the neoliberal
state. But the USA imposes tariffs to satisfy its countrymen. Many neoliberal
states protect their agriculture though they pay lip service to free trade.
4. A special treatment for particular business houses and arbitrary restrictions on
other states and businesses are a regular feature of the neoliberal states.
5. Privatisation is a basic feature of neoliberalism and a basic duty of the
neoliberal state. But it is not uniform everywhere. The shock therapy project
reflected the speed of the process of privatisation in the east European states
after the collapse of communism. But in other states, it was a slow process.
6. Neoliberalism compels the developmental state to adopt neoliberal policies
through its global institutions like WTO, IMF, and WB. Without opening
one’s capital market a state cannot be a member of WTO and IMF.
7. Deregulation is another essential feature of the neoliberal state. It even bails
out corporates at the cost of public money.
8. The neoliberal state is opposed to militant trade unionism that restraints
capital accumulation. Labour disciplining and exploitation of labour have
been one of the central features of neo-liberalisation.
9. The neoliberal state withdraws itself from welfare provisions and weakens the
social safety net leaving the marginalised helpless.
10. The governance structure is changed under a neoliberal state. The public-
private partnership model emerged as the dominant model in which the
private corporations came to play a key role in legislation, economy, public
policy etc.
11. The neoliberal state becomes coercive to protect the interests of the corporates
and suppress the voices of dissent.

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 120

 MPS-101/OSOU

12. Nongovernmental organisations have grown in large numbers under

neoliberalism.
13. Theoretically, the Neo-liberal state is expected to give space to the market and
minimise its functions. But the reverse happens. It takes a leading role in
creating favourable conditions for the budget and market. In the words of
Harvey, ‘Again and again ….the nationalism required for the state to function
effectively as a corporate and competitive entity in the world market gets in
the way of market freedoms more generally.’
14. The neoliberal state becomes authoritarian for the interests of the market and
its slogan of individual freedom becomes meaningless.
15. The growth of monopolies in almost all sectors is a regular feature of
neoliberalism and the state is just a facilitator of this process.
16. Harvey explains, ‘neoliberalism in its pure form has always threatened to
conjure up its nemesis in verities of authoritarian populism and nationalism.’

The nature of the state has changed under neoliberalism. It has become an institution
exclusively dedicated to the cause of finance capital, different from its earlier
Keynesian version. According to PrabhatPattanaik, ‘this change like the capitalist
state, which is sometimes mistakenly called the ‘retreat of the state’, is manifest in the
shift that occurs from it being a spender, an investor, and a producer, to its new role in
carrying out ‘privatisation’ and ‘disinvestment ‘(all of which benefit finance capital,)
and undertaking state expenditure deflation which accedes to perennial demand of
finance capital.’The neoliberal state is also a bourgeoisie state but the personnel of the
neoliberal state is different from the earlier one. Their ideological orientations are in
consonance with that of the World Bank, IMF and other institutions of global finance.
The neoliberal state is not able to address the problems of the poor rather poverty
increases under neoliberalism. There is widespread inequality in the state as well as in
the world between the states. In the words of PrabhatPattnaik, ‘The neoliberal state
that is so enmeshed with financial and big business interests thus becomes
intrinsically incapable of undertaking any poverty alleviation, a fact that underscores
the vacuity of the stages theory which advocates neoliberal policies in the first stage
as a means of preparing the ground for redistribution in the second stage.’

8.6 NEO-CONSERVATISM AND NEOLIBERALISM

Neo-liberalism is consistent with neo-conservatism. The neo-conservatives favour

corporate power, privatisation and capitalist dominance. Like neoliberalism, neo-
conservatism believes in elite rule, market freedoms and undemocratic values. Both
have practices opposed to their theoretical positions. They talk of morality,
nationalism, culture etc. just to maintain the social order from the dangers created by
their practices against individual freedom and development. Neo-conservatism
Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 121
 MPS-101/OSOU

justifies coercion to maintain order. There is a crisis of governability because of the

chaos of individual interests, the anarchy of the market, unbridled individualism and
consumerism etc. this is a kind of environment created by neoliberalism and its
practices. It also becomes the justification for authoritarianism and repression of the
people by the state. The neo-conservatives highlight threats real as well as imagined
to the state. They use these threats to justify the coercion of the state. The events of
9/11 found radical Islam as a threat and the theory of a permanent ‘war on terror’
emerged. It led to growing militarisation. Neo-conservatives resort to morality to
legitimise the power of the dominant class that is produced by neoliberalism. Under
neoliberalism, there is anarchy and chaos because of individual interests and neo-
conservatives try to settle these to keep the system in order. It tries to restore a moral
purpose to provide a stable basis for the neoliberal political system. The core
philosophy of these moral values is class values as they are opposed to new social
movements like feminism, gay rights, affirmative action, and environmental
movements. The moral values of the neo-conservatives are meant to defend the class
rule of the elites and business interests. In the words of Harvey, ‘ but it would be
wrong to see this neo-conservative turn as exceptional or peculiar to the US, even
though there are special elements at work there that may not be present elsewhere.
Within the US the assertion of moral values relies heavily on appeals to ideals of
nation, religion, history, cultural tradition, and the like, and these ideals are by no
means confined to the US.’

8.7 NATIONALISM AND NEOLIBERALISM

Nation and nationalism advocate for a strong state which is not acceptable to the
theory of Neoliberalism. Neoliberalism does not favour a strong state if it wants to
grow. The neoliberal reforms would have weakened nationalism but actually,
nationalism has been strengthened in opposition to neoliberal reforms. The neoliberal
state needs nationalism of a particular type for its survival. The rise of ethnic
nationalism, fascism and right-wing ideology needs to be understood in this context.
The neoliberal state functions in an environment of stiff global competition. It
mobilises nationalist sentimentfor its success. Nationalist sentiments are powerful in
Japan, South Korea, China, India, France and many other countries. The example of
Singapore is relevant here. In the words ofLee Kuan Yew ‘it has combined
neoliberalism n the market place with draconian coercive and authoritarian state
power, while invoking moral solidarities based on the nationalist ideals of a
beleaguered island state Confucian values, and, most recently, a distinctive form of
the cosmopolitan ethic suited to its current position in the world of international
trade.’ Many states in the neoliberal period are advocating morality or moral values
in their ways while at the same time resorting to authoritarianism and coercion. The

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 122

 MPS-101/OSOU

neoconservative responses to the contradictions of neoliberalism appear to be more

dangerous.

8.8 CONTRADICTIONS OF NEO-LIBERALISM

1. The gap between rich and poor has increased during neoliberalism, and so
also the gap between the rich and the poor countries. Unemployment also
increased. The dramatic rise of the stock market from the 80s and the
compensation of top managers added to this brutal inequality under
neoliberalism. Wages of the workers declined or stagnated.
2. The solidarity of the wage workers and their comparatively better position
under the welfare state was broken and diluted by the neoliberal state.
3. Neo-liberalism did not destroy but rather reinforced the institutions of
Keynesianism so far as macro policy is concerned. However, the targets were
changed from full employment to price stability.
4. Global institutions like World Bank and IMF became carriers of neoliberalism
throughout the world protecting the stability of the centre at the expense of the
periphery.
5. A large faction of profit is paid in interests and dividends in a neoliberal
economy.
6. Neo-liberalism from the perspectives of developed capitalist countries appears
to be hierarchical.

8.9 MANUFACTURING CONSENT IN FAVOUR OF NEO-LIBERALISM

Neoliberalism could not acquire hegemony only through coercive methods. Consent
has to be manufactured through democratic means to ensure its successful journey
towards its global hegemony. This was a grand project of the global finance capital
which was not an easy task. In the words of Gramsci, ‘(common sense the sense held
in common) is constructed out of long-standing practices of cultural socialisation
often rooted deep in regional or national traditions it is not the same as good sense)
that can be constructed out of critical engagement with the issues of the day.
Common sense can, therefore, be profoundly misleading, obfuscating or disguising
real problems under cultural prejudices.’Political slogans and cultural values can be
used to cover up specific designs under vague rhetorical devices. Diverse channels
were employed to build consent to legitimise neoliberalism. Media, universities,
associations, religious institutions, corporations etc. were used in the service of
neoliberalism to create a veil of freedom, growth, development etc. so that it can be
acceptable to a majority. Then the political parties and through them the power of the
state become the chief driving force of this project. The state powers of mobilisation,
co-option and coercion become successful under Thatcher and Reagan to take

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 123

 MPS-101/OSOU

neoliberalism to the acceptability level not only in these two countries, the UK, and
USA but also in the world. The theory of TINA (There is no alternative) was
aggressively advanced so that [people will accept it without strong resistance. The
neoliberal rhetoric advocated for individual freedom to bring large sections of the
[population to its fold. The differences between the struggle for individual freedom
and social justice were exploited by neoliberalism to its advantage. The construction
of a neoliberal market-based populist culture of consumerism and individual liberty
was necessary for the neoliberal project. This was to be a both political and economic
project. Corporate-led and supported institutions were put to service to construct
political and philosophical arguments in support of neoliberalism. Corporations
financed the production of literature in support of this. The rights of the workers were
taken away and many reforms were initiated in this regard. This was made to force
the workers to conform to the neoliberal order. Many economists like Friedman,
Robert Lucas, James Buchanan, and Arthur Laffer gave theories justifying
neoliberalism. The main argument of these advocates of neoliberalism was that tax
cuts to the corporates will bring entrepreneurial activities and make the economy
healthier. The state intervention is itself a problem, not a solution. This was widely
campaigned in the big universities in USA and UK and also spread to other countries.
Public opinion was mobilised against the welfare state and it was depicted as corrupt,
inefficient, bureaucratic etc. most important the welfare state was projected as
opposed to freedom and individualism. It was difficult to weaken the welfare state
through privatisation of education, health and other welfare measures and to build
consensus around it quickly. But thatcher and Reagan could do this through state
power, corporate power and media power.

8.10 SUMMARY

The consequences of neoliberalism not only for the state but also for the society at
large are far-reaching. It has been able to redistribute wealth and income favouring
the rich. It has commoditised, privatised and corporatized the public assets. Public
utilities, social welfare, and public institutions were opened up for capital
accumulation which was not in the framework of profit-seeking earlier. In the words
of Karl Polanyi, ‘ to allow the market mechanism to be the sole director of the fate of
human beings and their natural environment, indeed, even of the amount and use of
purchasing power, would result in the demolition of society. For the alleged
commodity labour power cannot be shoved out, used indiscriminately, or even left
unused, without affecting also the human individual who happens to be the bearer of
this peculiar commodity. In disposing of man’s labour power the system would,
incidentally, dispose of the physical, psychological, and moral entity man attached to
that tag. Robbed of the protective covering of cultural institutions, human beings

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 124

 MPS-101/OSOU

would perish from the effects of social exposure; they would die as victims of acute
social dislocation through vice, perversion, crime, and starvation. Nature would be
reduced to its elements, neighbourhoods and landscapes defiled, rivers polluted,
military safety jeopardised, and the power to produce food and raw materials
destroyed. Finally, the market administration of the purchasing power would
periodically liquidate business enterprise, for shortages and surfeits of money would
prove as disastrous to business as floods and droughts in primitive society.’

8.11 EXERCISE

1. What is neoliberalism? Discuss its broad features

2. Discuss the nature of the neoliberal state
3. Bring out the negative consequences of neoliberalism
4. How neoliberalism is different from modern liberalism-discuss

8.12 REFERENCE

• Lee Kuan Yew, from the third world to first: the Singapore dairy, 1965-2000,
Harper Collins, New York
• Harvey, David, A brief history of neoliberalism, Update Publications, Kolkata,
2010
• Gray, John Liberalism, World view publications, Delhi, 1998
• Heywood, Andrew, Political Ideologies: Palgrave, London, 2004

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 125

 Block-3
Debates on Basic Concepts

Unit-9 Rights
Unit-10 Liberty
Unit-11 Equality
Unit-12 Justice
 MPS-101/OSOU

UNIT-9: RIGHTS

Structure
9.1 Objectives
9.2 Introduction
9.3 Concept of Rights
9.4 Concept of Negative and Positive Rights
9.5 Major Theories of Rights
9.5.1 Theory of Natural Rights
9.5.2 Theory of Moral Rights
9.5.3 Theory of Legal Rights
9.5.4 Marxist Theory of Rights
9.5.5 Historical Theory of Rights
9.5.6 Social-Welfare Theory of Rights
9.6 Three Generations of Rights:
9.6.1 First Generation Rights
9.6.2 Second Generation Rights
9.6.3 Third Generation Rights
9.7 Conception of Human Rights: Universal Declaration of Human Rights
(UDHR)
9.8 Summary
9.9 Exercises
9.10 References

9.1 OBJECTIVE
After going through this unit, students will be able to understand:
• Meaning of Rights and Different kinds of Rights

• Relationship between State and Rights

• Various conventional and non-conventional theories of rights
• Evolution of rights through Three Generations of Rights
• Significance of Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 126

 MPS-101/OSOU

9.2 INTRODUCTION

This present chapter makes an effort to give a comprehensive account of rights, and
various theories of rights. Recent developments and issues concerning rights are also
discussed. The interest in rights as a political concept was not restricted to the early
17th and late 18th centuries only but the 19th century also saw a major resurgence in
the concept of human rights.

Right can be called a justified claim that we put on others while being a part of
society. Rights can also be called social claims which help a person achieve their best
selves and develop a personality of their own. Rights as claims need to be justified
not only by the claimant but also by the society in which a person is living. For
example, if a person has a right to freedom then that person has a justified claim to be
left alone by others. In that case, we can say that others have a duty or responsibility
to live that person alone as desired. Likewise, if a person has a right to education then
that person has a justified claim to be provided with an education facility in society.

In a democracy, it is required that the government maintains an appropriate structure

of rights where the claims are rightly served to its people. It has been recognized
politically that rights are entitled to human beings by their birth only; therefore, no
specific recognition is required to exercise the rights in society. States do not have the
authority to provide rights to the people rather they only recognize them. In the same
manner, the government never provides its people with rights but only protects them
from any kind of encroachment. Rights are always social as they derive from any
particular social condition and hence always originated from the society itself. Rights
exist for individuals and hence they are individual rights. Nobody can take rights
away from an individual and therefore exist for a proper personal and public
development of an individual in society.

9.3 IDEA OF RIGHTS

In the realm of Political Science, the idea of rights is considered an important device
to understand the relations between the state and an individual. Political philosophers
have debated for ages over the relationship between an individual and the state. An
important question that has perplexed, if not confused the political thinkers is
between the state and an individual who is more important, and who holds more
power and jurisdiction over whom. There are many political thinkers and
philosophers such as Plato who have given more importance to the role of the state
and have directed people to serve their duties to the state as it is the state only that can
provide a sense of justice to an individual. On the other side, there are political

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 127

 MPS-101/OSOU

thinkers like John Locke who hold more importance on the individual and regard
individual rights are more sacrosanct and inalienable. In the perspective of thinkers
like John Locke, the state is a means that exist for an individual which is an end.
Therefore, an individual having rights is a modern phenomenon that first evolved in
the 15th and 16th centuries in Europe. Rights became known to common people only
in modern times alone when rights were used as a tool against state absolutism.

The concept of rights evolved from the voice of people protesting against the
oppression done by the dominant and strong groups in a society. It was during these
protests and struggles that common people started claiming rights against the reckless
and despotic use of power by the upper ruling class. In modern times, this perception
of human emancipation and liberation has led a way to the concept of rights. These
rights are not only considered as certain demands but rather have been embodied in
the constitution hence bestowing an equal chance to all the people to live a better
life.

9.4 CONCEPT OF NEGATIVE AND POSITIVE RIGHTS

Rights can be considered a dynamic and versatile concept. Rights need to be reviewed
and redefined continuously with the development of societal setups. With the advent
of modern society and political consciousness, the rights of individuals have been
impoverished in two directions. In the first aspect, it has been argued that the concept
of rights should not be limited to a particular class or group by the virtue of their
money or powerful status hence providing them privilege over other groups in
society. The other aspect talks about not delineating the role of the state but rather
enhancing the responsibility of the state in providing benefits to the greater part of the
society. This drift in the understanding of rights in a society stipulates a shift in
attention from negative rights to positive rights.

Negative rights are negative. They limit the role of the state and talk about individual
freedom in society. Negative rights do not allow the state to interfere in the freedom
of an individual. Positive rights, on the other side, consider the role of the state of
utmost importance in protecting the rights of an individual. Positive rights enhance
the role of the state by making it an important entity for securing and providing rights
to the most vulnerable and weaker section of society. In other words, positive rights
oblige the state to do certain things in securing the rights while negative rights
constrain the state from certain activities meant to limit the rights of individuals in the
society.

Negative rights can be either moral or legal and include rights such as the right to
freedom of speech, right to freedom of worship, habeas corpus, freedom from slavery,
Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 128
 MPS-101/OSOU

etc. Positive rights are characterized as social and economic rights which require the
people to abide by the laws and regulations of the state. Paying tax for various works
such as education, health, etc is considered a kind of positive right. Likewise right to
education is classified as a positive right as it requires the state to take an action such
as providing school buildings, and funds for other activities. The right to have a
secure home, on the other side, is considered a negative right because it requires no
interference by the state and hence limits the area of jurisdiction of the state.

9.5 MAJOR THEORIES OF RIGHTS

This section of the chapter will discuss various theories concerning the notion of
rights. The chapter will focus on the theory of natural rights, theory of moral rights,
theory of legal rights, Marxist theory, historical theory and social-welfare theory of
rights. The theory of natural rights explains the rights with the help of natural law and
considers them as nature; the theory of legal rights talks about the rights through a
legal perspective; the historical theory of rights pronounces the rights as an outcome
of old traditions and customs which has been followed in the society from a longer
period; the theory of moral rights describe the rights based on human being’s
conscience focusing on the concept of good, bad or evil in the society; the social-
welfare theory of rights on the other side contemplates the meaning of rights while
keeping the social welfare issue in focus.

9.5.1 Theory of Natural Rights

The theory of natural rights incorporates the liberal political theory on rights which
became popular in the 17th and 18th centuries in Europe. It sums up natural rights as
the generalization of natural law. According to this theory, rights are not provided by
the state but exist as the direct outcome of the nature of man. The theory of natural
rights has mainly developed on two bases. The first among them is the contractual
basis which talks about the liberal theory of the emergence of the state and the second
one is the teleological basis which seeks to study the rights of man in relation to the
significance of human life.

The contractual basis of natural rights is based on the theory of social contract which
was mainly patronized by Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean Jacques Rousseau.
Thomas Hobbes in his book ‘Leviathan’ (1651) talks about the state of nature and
deplores the value of natural rights. According to him, during the formation of a
society, the weaker section of society has to surrender all their natural rights to the
stronger ones. He, therefore, apprehends the total surrender of natural rights in the
working of a society. Rousseau in his book ‘The Social Contract’ (1762) tries to
depict natural rights through a different perspective where he talks about the
importance of these rights and tries to glorify them. According to him, natural rights

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 129

 MPS-101/OSOU

need to be surrendered in society against civil rights. Both Hobbes and Rousseau are
of the opinion that natural rights will hold no grounds in civil society and hence will
lose their value. Locke on the other side in his book ‘Two Treatises on
Government’(1690) tries to explain that not all natural rights need to be surrendered
in civil society and there are some natural rights such as the rights to ‘life, liberty, and
property’ which needs to be guarded by the state. According to Locke, if the state
fails to protect these fundamental rights then the men can protest against the state and
establish a new government that will be constituted on the principle of safeguarding
these essential natural rights.

The teleological basis considers natural rights as an important part of human life.
Teleology means the principle which values the final cause. According to this
concept, men do not need to derive their natural rights from any institution and hence
exist from the nature of man itself to serve the basic motive of human life. The main
exponent of the teleological basis is Tom Paine who disregards the social contract
theory and is of an opinion that every generation in society should be free to think
about themselves without attaching any prerequisite norms to their values.

The theory of natural rights has been attacked and criticized various grounds. Many
thinkers are of opinion that rights cannot exist without a state. There exist no
phenomenon like pre-society rights and if there existed anything before the
emergence of the society it was merely some sort of physical energies and concepts
only. Harold Laski criticizes natural rights and is of opinion that men cannot have any
rights and duties without the existence of society. Edmund Burke persuasively
critiques the natural rights that it is tough to recognize the existence of civil and non-
civil rights both in practice together.

The concept of natural rights is subjective and depends merely on the group in society
as to how they interpret it. It is a dynamic concept and hence there could not be any
fixed natural rights. Any group in the society which faces injustice can derive a basic
explanatory motive for their freedom from natural rights. Rights can be accepted as
natural and not as natural rights and hence their acceptance merely depends upon the
conditions set up by human beings.

9.5.2 Theory of Moral Rights

Moral rights derive their acceptance from the principle of moral conscience in
society. It relies on the basic judgment of good or bad, right or wrong prevailing in
society. Oxford English Dictionary defines moral as “Of or pertaining to character or
disposition, considered as good or bad, virtuous or vicious; of or pertaining to the
distinction between right and wrong, or good and evil, in relation to the actions,

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 130

 MPS-101/OSOU

volitions, or character of responsible beings; ethical”. It is anticipated that despite

different customs, traditions, laws, and cultural values, different societies will accept
the same moral values.

The theory of moral rights considers morals as superior and more important as
compared to laws or customs prevailing in a society. Morals are hence considered the
starting point for all laws and customs in society. As has been observed by Morris
Ginsberg in his book ‘On Justice in Society’ (1965) that a person cannot be judged
just based on established general rules in regard to any settling dispute but rather on
the morals and values which have developed through the society. Moral values hence
play a vital role in following the role in any particular societal dispute and therefore
in serving justice.

Immanuel Kant, the main exponent of moral rights all human beings should be treated
as ends in themselves and not as means to something else. Kant believes in the
goodwill of humans and that if all humans will think about each other and society in a
good and moralistic way then they would respect each other following the theory of
moral rights. Other exponents of moral rights, T.H, Green that the true deriving force
for rights is not the divine law as has been perpetuated by Locke rather it is the moral
character of human beings that acts as the basic derivative for the right of the man.

9.5.3 Theory of Legal Rights

The theory of legal rights holds that there exist no rights until they are recognized by
the state. According to this theory, there are no rights that are absolute and all rights
derive their existence from some source. Rights are relative and keep changing with
the change in time and space. The theory of moral rights opinionates that there exist
no rights before the existence of the state and hence all rights came into extant with
the state itself. In any society, all the rights exist under the jurisdiction of the state
only. It has been propelled by this theory that there can exist no rights outside the
legal boundaries of the state. Therefore, the state is an important factor in giving
recognition to the rights.

It has been argued by Thomas Hobbes that man cannot have any rights on his own. It
is the state that provides rights to its people and hence men must abide by the rules
and regulations of society. Men can have only those rights which do not go against
the state as it is the state which is more authorized to preserve the rights than an
individual. Jeremy Bentham is considered the astounding exponent of the theory of
legal rights. According to him, natural right is a dogmatic phenomenon that has been
invented by fanatics and hence lacks reason and intelligence. Bentham considers
natural rights as false imagination and unrealistic idea which lacks any kind of
reasonable valuation.

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 131

 MPS-101/OSOU

The theory of legal rights has been criticized on the basis that rights are not created by
the state as has been advocated by this theory. The state only protects our rights and
exercises no power in providing them to people. If one admits the fact that rights are
provided by the state to its people then it also needs to be accepted that the state at a
given point in time can take away those rights from its people. A validation such as
this where the state is considered the guarantor of rights will make the state an
absolute entity.

9.5.4 Marxist Theory of Rights

The Marxist theory of rights developed in the mid-19th century in opposition to
liberal-individualist rights which has served as the fundamental basis of the capitalist
system. The capitalist system and the liberal-individualist rights serve the interest of
the upper class, the bourgeoisie in the society which were the holders of all kinds of
means of production in the society. There were no substantive benefits to the
commoners in the capitalist system and were subject to repetitive exploitation from
the upper, rich class of the bourgeoisie.

Marxist theory stood against the liberal-individualist rights and talked about the rights
of the people by keeping the economic system in focus. It talked about a social
system where everybody is given a fair chance to earn a livelihood hence restraining
the extent of exploitation and injustice done by the upper class. The Marxist theory
believes in the equal contribution of every person in a society where all can develop
together through cooperation. Marxists repudiated the concept of the free market as
they believe that it was merely an instrument to glorify the exploitation of the weak
class in society by not providing equal measures and incentives to grow economically
in society.

According to Marx, the upper class is the determining factor in a capitalist state
which holds all kinds of power in making rules and regulations in the society. In the
capitalist system, the state acts as an instrument in the hands of the bourgeoisie which
uses it for their benefit. Hence the capitalist state entwines the values of liberal-
individualist rights primarily justifying the capitalist system. It has been objectified
by Marx that the class which has control over the economic system of the system is
the one that controls the political and civil aspects of that society. Hence, Marx talks
about the establishment of a society that is run by the working class. In this regard,
Marx supports the formation of a socialist society in which the interests and the rights
of the working class are favoured and work on the model of a classless society. A
socialist society prevails on the principle of ‘from each to his ability to each
according to his work’, therefore protecting the social, economic, and political rights
of not only one group or class but rather the whole society.

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 132

 MPS-101/OSOU

The main factor on which Marxist theory is criticized is that it focuses only on the
economic factor and neglects other important determining factors in a society such as
social and political. The lack of deterministic factors makes the implementation of
Marxist theory along with Marxism quite objectionable in any society. In any society,
it is not only the economic factors that play an influential role rather various non-
economic factors also need to be studied while talking about the basic structure of
rights in the society.

9.5.5 Historical Theory of Rights

The historical theory of rights amplifies the importance of historical events in the
analysis of the rights in society. Historical developments are considered a determining
factor in the emancipation of rights which keep changing from time to time in
different societies. Customs and traditions also influence the rights whose usage
keeps altering in various generations.

The historical theory of rights developed in the eighteenth century and holds its
principle values in the conservative political theory. The exponents of this theory
support the evolutionary changes and as a consequence against the revolutionary
phenomenon in society. One of the astound exponents of the historical theory of
rights, Edmund Burke (1729-97) was against the French Revolution (1789) as it gave
birth to the idea of rights of man-liberty, equality, and fraternity which goes against
the established norms of that time in Europe. Burke, on the other hand, supported
English Revolution (1688) as it stood in favour of the reassertion of the customary
rights of the Englishmen which they had been enjoying from an early period of time.
In this context, English Revolution prevailed on the idea of conservation theory while
the French Revolution sought of renounced the conservative theory by repudiating the
already established norms, customs, and traditions in the society.

Historical theory of rights is also called prescriptive theory as it developed after a

long observation of historical events and attached more values to the customs and
norms which has been propagating in society for a longer period. Historical rights are
subject to different kinds of criticism as not all rights emanate from the customs and
traditions in society. There are certain rights such as the right to security, and the right
to privacy which holds no justifiable ground in any custom or norm of any society.
Likewise, there are certain systems which have been exponentially followed in a
society such as the Sati system, etc which cannot be characterized as a right.

9.5.6 Social-Welfare Theory of Rights

The social-welfare theory of rights seeks to establish a basic standard on which all
rights should become operative. According to this theory, rights are a basic deriving

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 133

 MPS-101/OSOU

force for the social welfare system in any society. In any society, only those rights
should be recognized which serve the purpose of social welfare. One of the leading
schools that entail the idea of the social-welfare theory of rights is the Utilitarian
school led by Jeremy Bentham in the nineteenth century. This school talks about the
happiness of the greatest number and considers it the ultimate criterion for the
legislation and recognition of rights in society. The main exponents of the social-
welfare theory of rights are Zechariah Chafee (1885-1957) and Roscoe Pound (170-
1964). According to Chafee, natural rights, laws, customs and rights should also
support and uphold the values which are beneficial and significant in the better
working of a society. Likewise, Pound also entails an opinion that law should also
explicate societal welfare while following the motive of societal growth.

The social welfare theory of rights postulates that the rights prevailing in a society
should at first serve the purpose of social welfare without which enhancement of
people is not possible. But the social welfare theory also has several flaws which
make it quite unfit for present practical difficulties. It is tough to define social welfare
as it is a vague term that could not be interpreted. It has been observed that it is the
elite groups in a society which decide the kind of social welfare to be followed in
society. According to the standard set by the social-welfare theory, rights would only
effectively operative only when interpreted through a legal provision. Hence, the
theory transforms itself into a legal theory of rights in the end.

9.6 THREE GENERATIONS OF RIGHTS

The concept of rights incorporates a dynamic idea. With the development of society,
the idea of safeguarding the rights of individuals has become more important.
Following the changing and evolving standards of prevailing rights in society,
favourable conditions need to be established to achieve these significant objectives. In
the contemporary world, the rights are often characterized by three generations which
can be contemplated from a popular phrase of the French Revolution: Liberty,
Equality, and Fraternity. It was Karel Vasak, a Czech jurist, who first formally
classified the rights. The classification of rights helps in improving the study of rights
while enhancing the conversation about rights. The three generations of rights can be
classified as follows: (a) First Generation of rights which talks about civil and
political rights; (b) Second Generation of Rights which includes social and economic
rights; and (c) Third Generation of Rights that comprise the newly recognized rights;
recognizing the cultural rights of a minority group in a multicultural society.

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 134

 MPS-101/OSOU

The evolution of these three generations of rights helps in a systematic study of rights
and how they developed in a society. Although to have a meaningful arrangement of
rights, these three generations have to exist along with each other.

9.6.1 First Generation of Rights:

The first generation of rights talks about the social and political rights of a person
which encompasses two sub-divisions. The first division deals with the norms related
to “physical and civil security” which includes the prohibition of torture, slavery, or
treating humans in a barbarous way. The second sub-division, on the other side, deals
with the norms of “civil-political liberties or empowerments” which inculcates rights
such as freedom of religion, freedom of movement, freedom of thought and
expression, etc.

First Generation Rights mainly talks about individual rights and hence become an
integral part of the democratic rights of people in a democratic society. These rights
became the main focus of debates during the period of the cold war when various
philosophers debated over the rights that an individual possesses against government
interference.

9.6.2 Second Generation of Rights:

It was felt that there were certain rights related to the weaker and disadvantaged
section of society which has not been realized in the first generation of rights. To
overcome this gap, various new rights were added to the list which needed to be
recognized in society. These rights talked about the role that society can play in the
upliftment of the weaker section of society. These rights were classified as second-
generation rights.

Second-generation rights can be classified into two sub-categories. The first category
talks about the basic needs such as nutrition and healthcare which needs to be
provided to the people through various social welfare programs. The other sub-
category inculcates the economic rights of the people in which all are provided with
fair wages and other rights such as the right to work, the right to housing, etc which
will provide a basic standard of living to all.

9.6.3 Third Generation of Rights:

The third generation of rights enhances a broader perspective of class rights. Third-
generation rights can be further classified into two sub-categories. The first sub-
category talks about the self-determination of people in manifesting various standards
through which a community can develop while keeping the political status of various
groups in consideration. The other sub-category talks about the rights of minority
groups in a multicultural society and how to protect them.

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 135

 MPS-101/OSOU

Historically, it has been felt that the rights of different groups need to be protected in
a large country where different ethnic groups live together. Third-generation rights
protect the religious rights of minorities providing safety to sacred books, sacred
places, and places of worship. It also emphasizes environmental rights such as
providing the right to clean air, the right to clean water, and pollution-free
surroundings.

Third-generation rights are put in a category of “soft law” as these rights are not
legally binding and hence no one can be forced to follow these rights. Some of the
important examples of these rights include the Rio Declaration on Environment and
Development, 1992, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

9.7 HUMAN RIGHTS: UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS

Human rights are international moral and legal standards that aspire to protect all
individuals everywhere from any type of political, legal and social abuses. The
philosophy of human rights addresses questions about the existence, content, nature,
universality, and justification of human rights. Therefore, Human rights are political
norms and standards dealing with how individuals should be treated by their
governments and their various institutions. The Universal Declaration of Human
Rights (UDHR) acts as a milestone document that has been accepted globally to
provide equal rights to all human beings regardless of their colour, class, caste, sex,
religion, and other factors. It acts as a universal road map for the freedom and
equality of all individuals in the world. The UDHR was adopted by the newly
established United Nations on 10 December 1948, in response to the “barbarous acts
which […] outraged the conscience of mankind” during the Second World War. Its
adoption recognized human rights to be the foundation for freedom, justice, and
peace.

UDHR comprises 30 articles along with a preamble. The preamble talks about the
recognition of equal rights of all human beings which lays a foundation for justice,
freedom, and peace in the world. The 30 rights and freedoms set out in the UDHR
include the right to be free from torture, the right to freedom of expression, the right
to education, and the right to seek asylum. It includes civil and political rights, such
as the rights to life, liberty, and privacy. It also includes economic, social, and
cultural rights, such as the rights to social security, health, and adequate housing.

There are various other international institutions and compacts like UDHR which
share the same motive of strengthening the importance of human rights globally by
actively working in that direction. Some of the significant institutions working on the
cause of human rights are the African Charter on Peoples’ Human Rights (1981),
Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 136
 MPS-101/OSOU

Helsinki Accords (1975), American Convention on Human Rights (1969),

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966), and
European Convention on Human Rights (1950).

9.8 SUMMARY

Rights are social claims which play a vital role in the development of a human being.
Rights are entitled to all people by the virtue of being born as a human being. No one
can take these rights away from an individual. Rights are social which means that the
state must secure and protect the rights of each individual. With the change in time
and space, society keeps evolving and hence the nature and concept of rights also
keep transforming from time to time. Various theories provide meaning to the
concept of rights. The theory of natural rights holds the opinion that several rights
existed even before the existence of society and hence cannot be taken away from
people by the state. The theory of moral rights derives its acceptance from the
principle of moral conscience in society and hence considers morals more important
as compared to laws or customs prevailing in a society. The theory of legal rights is
of opinion that there are no rights that are absolute and all rights derive their existence
from some source. Likewise, the Marxist theory of rights emphasizes the economic
structure of society and supports the formation of a socialist society in which the
interests and the rights of the working class are favoured and work on the model of a
classless society.

In order to comprehensively study the rights, they are classified into three generations
which talk about various kinds of rights such as civil and political rights, economic
rights, minorities’ rights, etc. other kinds of rights are covered under the umbrella of
three generations. Some of them are the right to life, the right to freedom, the right to
freedom of movement, the right to health and medical care, the right to employment,
the right to clean air and water, etc. Different societies propagate different sets of
rights. Liberal democratic societies put more importance on individual rights along
with political rights. The socialist societies on the other side put more emphasis on
the social welfare and the development of all.

9.9 EXERCISE
1. What do you by the term “Rights”? Distinguish between Negative rights and
Positive rights.
2. Briefly discuss various theories of rights and how they differ from each other.
3. What are the three generations of rights? Discuss the rights that have been
mentioned in different categories of three generations.

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 137

 MPS-101/OSOU

4. Discuss how the social-welfare theory of rights inculcates the idea of the legal
theory of rights. Also, discuss some points which differentiate the two theories
of rights from each other.
5. Do you think there is a need to provide special rights to various sections of
society based on gender, class, or caste? Do you think that equality can be
brought into society by providing some privileges and special rights to the
weaker sections of society?

6. Write an essay on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. How India has
manifested the content of UDHR in protecting the rights of its citizens?

9.10 REFERENCES
1. Bluhm, W. (1967). Varieties of Political Theory. Edited by David Easton.
(Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1966. Pp. iv, 154. $4.95.). American
Political Science Review.
2. Bhargava, R. (2013). What is political theory and why do we need it? Oxford
Univ. Press.
3. Bhargava, R. and Acharya Ashok (2016). “Political theory: An introduction”
Published by Pearson India.
4. Gauba O.P. (2019). “An introduction to Political theory” published by Mayur
paperback India.
5. Wiseman, H., & Easton, D. (1965). A Framework for Political Analysis. The
Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science.
6. Charlesworth, J. (1968). Contemporary political analysis. Free Press.
7. Easton, D. (1981). The Political System Besieged by the State. Political
Theory.

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 138

 MPS-101/OSOU

UNIT-10: LIBERTY

Structure
10.1 Objective
10.2 Introduction
10.3 Nature of Liberty
10.4 Concept of Negative liberty and Positive liberty
10.5 Different Aspects of Liberty
10.6 Safeguards of Liberty
10.7 Summary
10.8 Reference
10.9 Exercise

10.1 OBJECTIVE
After reading the unit, students will be having a thorough understanding of the
following topics:
• The concept of liberty and its scope and nature
• Understanding the concept of negative liberty and positive liberty
• Different kinds of liberty such as civil liberty, political liberty, economic
liberty, and national liberty
• Various protectors of liberty are essential for safeguarding liberty

10.2 INTRODUCTION

Liberty or its synonym, freedom is one of the most debated and discussed the concept
of political science. Liberty has also been an ideal for which thousands of people have
sacrificed their lives. For these people, liberty or freedom has a romantic connotation,
to achieve it at any cost and not to surrender it, come what may. Historically speaking
liberty is a modern concept. The Greeks city-state had no concept of liberty. The
Athenian ideals had no sympathy for slaves. The present chapter will discuss the
various dimensions concern with the concept of liberty and various kinds of liberty,
and important factors that are necessary to safeguard liberty.

Meaning of Liberty:
A precise and generally acceptable definition of liberty is very difficult. Liberty has
been understood differently by different political philosophers. This section will

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 139

 MPS-101/OSOU

briefly discuss some of these interpretations of liberty. Liberty can be described as the
quality of human beings through which they exercise their rights and freedom to live
with equality. Liberty is derived from the word, ‘Liber’ which means free or self-
reliant. The concept of liberty is very essential for the growth and development of an
individual. In the history of mankind, various wars and revolutions have taken place
to annihilate the opponents of liberty.

Liberty means the unhindered freedom of an individual where he is free to exercise

his will without any restriction. However, such a kind of liberty can also lead to the
exploitation of a weaker section of society by a stronger section. Therefore, along
with negative liberty, the scope of positive liberty is also necessary in order to
provide equal opportunities for development to all the people in society.

Liberty is not restrained to only one aspect. Various aspects of liberty are all
necessary for the total emancipation of a human being. Some of them are civil liberty,
political liberty, economic liberty, national liberty, etc. It is, however, also important
to safeguard liberty through various means such as proper education, eternal
vigilance, and fundamental rights. Along with that, Democracy and liberty are both
supplementary to each other. Liberty cannot exist without democracy. In order to
exercise other aspects of liberty, it is first required to safeguard national liberty.

Concept of Liberty
Liberty or Freedom is considered one of the most important aspects of political
philosophy. Liberty has been contemplated as an essential objective of Liberalism and
has been safeguarded by the liberalism school of thought. Freedom, on the other
hand, is proclaimed as a universal principle that has been commended by both liberals
and idealists and also by the Marxist school of thought. Different schools of thought
while agreeing upon the importance of freedom, differ on the ways through which
freedom can be realized.

Various schools of thought such as authoritarianism, absolutism, and slavery have

depicted the submission to authority as the key factor for a common man to realize
freedom in a society. However, this claim of the supremacy of the privileged classes
has been challenged by the champions of liberty. Historically, there have been
different kinds of revolutionary struggles against despotic rules and foreign regimes
which have been aspired by the ideal of liberty. The concept of liberty also derives its
significance from the spirit of equality as well. In different freedom struggles against
the oppressors, such as in peasant revolts or independence struggles, people being
oppressed have always sought equality and justice based on the principle of universal
human equality.

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 140

 MPS-101/OSOU

10.3 NATURE OF LIBERTY

Liberty is such a concept that attracts everybody's attraction because human life is not
possible without the existence of liberty. While talking about the nature of liberty,
this section of the chapter study the relationship between liberty and human beings by
examining freedom as the: (a) quality of human beings and, (b) condition of human
beings.

Freedom has been considered the quality of human beings. Human beings are
distinguished from other species and are only considered capable of freedom. Among
all the species that exist on this earth, only human beings are considered capable of
freedom, and all other species of animals, birds, and insects have to struggle for
survival. Human beings are differentiated from other species on the basis that human
beings have some aim in life other than just existing in the world. One can say that
animals are controlled and enslaved by nature while on the other side, humans have
learned to use nature to their benefit. Human beings have developed freedom as
quality by acquiring scientific knowledge of the inevitable laws of nature and have
productively used them to the advantage of humankind.

The nature of liberty is well understood when we consider freedom as the condition
of human beings where there is no constraint. When talking about the constraint, it
could be both internal as well as external. In the sphere is politics, we mostly talk
about external constraints. As per this notion, the state must not interfere with the
freedom of its people. It has been overwhelmingly understood by the common men
that liberty means there is no restraint in which people utilize their freedom.
However, this kind of nature of liberty is dangerous for the existence of the state. One
can say that liberty is a congenial atmosphere that provides support to the overall
growth of all human beings and is controlled by the established laws of the state and
social principles.

10.4 CONCEPT OF NEGATIVE LIBERTY AND POSITIVE LIBERTY

In modern times, the concept of negative liberty and positive liberty has been
propagated by many scholars in the West. The supporters of negative liberty are
Locke, Bentham, Jefferson, Burke, Adam Smith, J.S. Mill, Isaiah Berlin, Robert
Nozick and Milton Friedman. They defend negative liberty as the absence of
restraints. According to Berlin, liberty counts in doing what one desires to do without
interference from other persons. Berlin in his seminal essay, ‘Two Concepts of
Liberty’ talks about two kinds of freedoms, Negative liberty and Positive liberty.
Negative liberty revolves around the private sphere of a person’s life where one is

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 141

 MPS-101/OSOU

free to do whatever they want to do without any external restraint. Positive liberty is
the possession of the power and resources which helps in realizing the fundamental
processes of life within the structural limitations of society.

Human beings have been considered rational creatures and hence liberty is considered
a condition of a human being’s life. According to this aspect, liberty indicates that a
person uses his rational characteristics and thinking in order to understand what is
good for him and for the society in which he is living. In order to achieve this
objective, human beings need an environment where there is no restraint in the way
they conduct their affairs. Therefore, negative liberty implies that there should be no
boundaries to human conduct and hence all constraints on human liberty should be
removed. Various proponents of positive liberty such as Thomas Hobbes, John
Locke, Ockham, J.S. Mill, and Libertarian Party, etc talk about removing unnecessary
laws. Only those laws should be made which are conventional and convenient and
must be kept at a limited number to involve minimal legal framework.

However, it is practically not possible for a person to stay free from all kinds of
external constraints. There are various instances when a person is not able to do what
he wants to do because of certain reasons. For example, if a person is suffering from a
disease or is encountering severe pain then that would create a hindrance in the way a
person conducts his affairs. In this sense, it has been argued that human beings are not
only rational creatures but also emotional ones as well. Positive liberty in this sense
talks about freedom from any kind of internal restraints. It also talks about improving
the conditions so that people get an equal chance to fulfil their life’s purpose. To
secure positive liberty in society, a state must take appropriate steps in that direction.
There are various proponents of Positive liberty such as Plato, Immanuel Kant,
Epictetus, Karl Marx, and Christian theology which talks about maintaining strict law
to prevent the people from doing any irrational acts.

10.5 DIFFERENT ASPECTS OF LIBERTY

Liberty has been comprehended as the ‘absence of restraint’. The meaning of this
term in the context of liberty is that the state should not interfere in the way a person
is conducting his affairs and should not put a restraint on the way a person is living
his life. However, it needs to be understood that putting no restraint does not mean
that the activities have to be not regulated as well. In a society, it is important to
regulate the activities of every person in order to avoid social conflicts. In this
context, the absence of restraint means avoiding unnecessary restraints that could
hinder a person's progress and development while imposing necessary conditions to
make the functioning of society smooth. There are various aspects of liberty such as

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 142

 MPS-101/OSOU

natural liberty, civil liberty, and economic liberty which talk about different aspects
of liberty.

Natural Liberty
Natural liberty means the absence of any kind of restraint, where a person is free to
exercise his will without any obligations. In this kind of liberty, a person has
unrestrained freedom to do whatever they wish to do. Professor R.N. Gilchrist defines
natural liberty as an unscientific use of freedom which is beyond any restriction or
obligation. According to him, it is difficult to come up with an exact definition of
natural liberty that is accepted by every person, in a society, every person has a
different notion and understanding of natural liberty. Hence, according to Professor
R.N. Gilchrist, natural liberty has been used by different people in an unscientific
way. For him, Natural liberty gives a person an unlimited right to conduct their affairs
in whatever they want to.

In this way, natural liberty acts like a license rather than liberty. Natural liberty means
unregulated freedom to do anything where there are no restraints on the way a person
acts or behaves. Just as wild animals are free to do whatever they want to do in the
jungle, where no kind of restraints is there over them, just like human beings should
be free to conduct their affairs in whatever way they want to without putting any kind
of restraints on them.

Hence, one can say that natural liberty is based on the use of force where a person can
use his will on a freeway. It has been postulated by John Locke that people had the
right to life, liberty, and property in the state of nature. But it is politically incorrect to
agree upon such a thesis as it is the state only that provides rights to its people and
there can exist no rights without the existence of the state.

When there is no state, then no question of rights arouses as well. While living in the
state of nature, a human being possesses no rights but only animal powers which they
use to survive in the state of nature. Another great proponent of the state of nature,
J.J. Rousseau vehemently says that “Man was born free, but everywhere he is in
chains”. However, it is in contradiction to the way in which a person lives in the state
of nature where there are no laws as there is no state. In order to be regulated, human
beings are required to develop a system of state where they will be given accurate
means to develop their personality while following the necessary restraints.

Civil Liberty:
Civil liberty is defined as the concept that deals with the rule of law. Civil liberty as
has been discussed by Barker (Principles of Social and Political Theory; 1951) can be

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 143

 MPS-101/OSOU

categorized into three different articles: (a) Physical freedom from any injury, pain, or
any kind of threat to life and the well-being of a person, (b) intellectual freedom in
which a person is free to express his beliefs and thoughts, (c) freedom of contract in
which a person has a freedom to enter in obligations with one another while sharing a
mutual benefit.

Among all the three articles, the first article i.e. the freedom of movement is non-
controversial as everyone must have freedom of movement where they can move
anywhere they want without any unnecessary restraints or restrictions. However, in
the case of public safety or law-related issues, necessary conditions could be applied
to this first article of civil liberty. No person should be given any kind of physical
injury until and unless it has been prescribed by the law or consulting authorities as a
punishment for some illicit or unlawful act.

The second article which concerns the freedom of speech where a person has the
liberty to express his thoughts and beliefs has been supported by various ardent
proponents of Liberty such as J.S. Mill. In his essay On Liberty (1859), J.S. Mill
explained the importance of the second article of freedom both from the perspective
of the individual as well society as well. According to Mill, the human being is a
progressive creature that always seeks knowledge in order to grow in life. Therefore,
for the development of knowledge, there must always stay a scope for discussion.
Through the medium of discussion, people can express their ideas freely in front of
society which would help in the improvisation of already accumulated facts and
knowledge. In the same way, it is also important in a society to stay circumspective
about the policies and changes introduced by the existing influential institutions in the
society. One must stay vigilant in order to direct the state policies and there must
always be freedom to put forward unpopular opinions, no matter how contradicting
they are to the already prevailing norms and opinions.

The third article of civil liberty as explained by Barker is the freedom in which a
person is free to enter into any kind of mutual contract with the other person. It has
been generally acknowledged that people enter into mutual contracts with another
person in order to gain an advantage from that contract and when no harm is inflicted
on the third party because of that contract. However, there is one drawback to this
kind of freedom when the contract between two parties is exploited and brutally used
by some other stronger party which will then create a nuisance to the weaker party.
Therefore, it has been argued by many thinkers such as L.T. Hobhouse that some kind
of control should be put on the freedom of contract so as to limit exploitation and
establish substantial equality.

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 144

 MPS-101/OSOU

Civil liberty is the compilation of these three articles which need to be protected by
the law. Protecting the civil liberty of a man is considered one of the most important
characteristics of liberal democracy.

Political Liberty
While civil liberty is enjoyed by a man in the dimensions of a person, he enjoys
political liberty in society as a citizen. Political liberty means that a person has the
right to speak in the affairs of society and takes part in the administration of the state.
Political liberty gives the right to the people to elect their government through
universal adult suffrage. According to William Blackstone (1723-80), political liberty
provides the citizens with the power to restrain the government if it does not work as
per the needs of the people. As per this view, the government is considered an
external entity for the people. However, in a modern democracy, where the
government is elected and made by the people themselves, political liberty holds a
different meaning. In the era of modern democracy, the political liberty of a citizen
means that a person has a right to either constitute a government or control it by
keeping a regular check on the activities of the constituted government. As has been
discussed by Ernest Barker in his book Principles of Social and Political
Theory(1951), a person has political liberty in electing a government through the
universal adult franchise, in which he is free to vote as per his own choice and also
has the freedom to control it by freely sharing thoughts through continuous
consideration and discussion.

According to the proponents of political liberty, it is the right of the people to take
part in the decision-making process and express their views freely in regard to the
functioning of the government. People are free to ardently express their thoughts on
public policy without any restraint or political barrier. Hence, by giving people the
right to take part in the discussion on public policy, one can make sure that the
constituted government stays compassionate towards the need of people and tactfully
work on the current social circumstances.

However, it is difficult for people to gain any substantive freedom merely through
political liberty. This is so because there are various means through which people try
to the means such as people in power and the privileged sections of the society using
their power and money to win the elections. In the same way, means of mass
communication are held under the control of big businessmen and powerful people in
society who vehemently use these resources for their benefit. In this sense, it is
difficult for an ordinary person to achieve substantive freedom through political
liberty.

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 145

 MPS-101/OSOU

Economic Liberty
Economic liberty means the right of a person who is a worker or is involved in some
kind of productive occupation or service. In this sense, it has been implied by Barker
that the economic liberty of a person has already been inculcated in the acts of civil
liberty. However, economic liberty is a tricky concept as it deals with the different
kinds of relationships in the occupation sector such as tenant and landlord, worker
and employer, consumer and trader, etc. All these parties have their understanding of
economic liberty which leads to conflict in ideas and interpretation of the meaning of
economic liberty.

While involving different kinds of parties, it is quite challenging to adhere to any

subtle meaning of economic liberty. In any given scenario, one group will support the
freedom to have maximum profit while the other group would hold out to reasonable
working hours, affordable house rents, good wages, etc. In this sense, it is important
to protect the interests of the weaker group and limit the power of the powerful group
which could affect the principles of liberty. It is important to calibrate the interests of
both groups in order to maintain a balance between equality and liberty. As has been
elaborated by R.H. Tawney in his book, Equality (1938), liberty does not only
comprise civil and political rights given to a citizen in society. But economic rights
also play a significant role in maintaining equality in society. It is of utmost
importance to safeguard the economic rights of the weaker section of the society and
also protect as well as control those aspects which are inevitable in the economic life
of a person.

It can be concluded that it is the sphere of economic liberty where both positive
liberty and negative liberty come into confrontation and conflict with each other.
Hence, it is required that the economic interests of the weaker section of society must
be protected in order to provide valuable content to the principles of liberty.

National Liberty
National liberty signifies the freedom and liberty of a nation or a country. National
liberty is contrary to imperialism and colonialism. According to this, a state has the
right to self-declaration and self-government and hence is not subject to any kind of
external rule. National sovereignty is another word for national liberty which signifies
that a nation is free from any foreign rule and holds to the principles of sovereignty.
One can understand the value of national liberty from the words which have been
inscribed on the building of India’s Central Secretariat, New Delhi: “Liberty does not
descend upon a person. People must raise themselves to liberty. Liberty is a blessing
that must be earned to be enjoyed”.

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 146

 MPS-101/OSOU

Just like all humans have freedom and liberty, nations are also entitled to liberty. Any
nation which is free from any internal, as well as external control is subject to the
principles and values of national liberty. Historically, many third-world countries
were colonized by the imperialists' power and defied national liberty. These countries
like India launched a struggle against these imperialists' power in order to set
themselves free and liberate the country.

A liberated country has the freedom and right to run the administration as per the
need of the citizens. National liberty also entails the liberty of internal social,
political, and economic affairs. Along with that, it also means freedom in foreign
affairs, international policies, and various other aspects necessary to run a nation.
This also means that no nation can curtail freedom or use unjustifiable force on other
nations. Before 1947, India had no national liberty and was ruled by British imperial
forces.

Indians had to go through various hardships during their freedom struggle to provide
national liberty to their country. The insurmountable sacrifices made by our freedom
fighters have been recorded in the history of India because of which India finally
gained the status of a sovereign nation.

National liberty, however, is not absolute. It is also subject to various limitations such
as a powerful nation cannot overpower weak nations and control them. National
liberty can be used to propagate friendship with other nations. In this way, nations
have to cooperate and respect other nations’ sovereignty as well.

Religious Liberty
Religion is one of the important factors that influence the life of a person. Many states
provide religious freedom to their citizens so there should be no intervention in the
religious beliefs of different communities. Secular states adopt the policy of staying
neutral in the matter of religion while providing freedom to different communities to
exercise their religious rights without any obtrusion. However, in states where there is
a dictatorial role, no religious liberty is given to the citizens, and hence deprived
various communities and groups are deprived of the right to freely embrace their
religious beliefs and thoughts.

In the modern world, religion is considered the personal matter of a person with
which the state can have no interference. Along with that, the state cannot impose any
one particular religion on different communities living in the state. In a communist
state, people are provided with religious rights in which they can adopt and obey the

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 147

 MPS-101/OSOU

beliefs of the religion of their choice but at the same time, they are not allowed to
preach their religion in society.

However, it is also necessary to put a check on different religious practices in society.

Any particular religion should not be permitted to influence public policies or create a
conflict with the established law. In such a scenario, it is inevitable for the legislature
and judiciary to take appropriate actions in order to accommodate the religious beliefs
of various communities in the society while also putting up with the law and the
interests of other communities as well. Hence, it is necessary for the government to
also keep into consideration the rights of the other communities while making an
exception for sincere religious practices.

Personal Liberty:
Personal liberty means the freedom of an individual where one can act according to
oneself without any hindrance or restraint. One of the great proponents of personal
liberty is F.A.Hayek, in his opinion; personal liberty is a condition in which a person
is free to exercise his will freely without any coercion from another person or state.
According to him, personal liberty signifies the condition of a society in which there
are minimal restraints on an individual.

Every individual has the right to live a private life in which other people are not
allowed to interfere. Every individual has the right to do things of his own choice
such as have the freedom to eat food, dress up, visit any place, work, get married,
have kids, etc. In this sense, personal liberty plays a vital role in the emancipation and
development of human beings in society. Various proponents of personal liberty such
as J.S.Mill are of opinion that an individual in himself is a sovereign and therefore the
state should not intervene in the personal matters of a person.

However, there are many other scholars as well who believe that it is also important
for an individual to think about other person’s interests as well while enjoying his
liberty. Nobody can be given such kind of liberty which becomes a hindrance to the
liberty of others in society. Therefore, a person can enjoy personal liberty within the
contour of society while causing no harm to the rights of other individuals in society.
It is hence important to understand a subtle bond between social liberty and personal
liberty.

10.6 SAFEGUARDS OF LIBERTY

Liberty is one of the most important aspects which are necessary for the emancipation
of human beings. Therefore, it is of utmost importance to safeguard liberty from the

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 148

 MPS-101/OSOU

factors that try to restrain it. As has been pointed out by Harold J. Laski there are
certain steps to protect the liberty of people. Firstly, “In the sphere of liberty, there is
no space for special privileges to one section of the society as freedom cannot be
achieved until there are special provisions”. Secondly, “Freedom and liberty are in
contradiction with special privileges, hence both cannot exist together in a society”.
Thirdly, “It is impossible to exercise liberty in a society in which rights of the weaker
section are controlled by the stronger section”. Fourthly, “Sometimes, it is necessary
for the state to interfere in order to protect and safeguard the liberty” Given below are
some of the important safeguards of liberty which are considered necessary for
protecting liberty:

Proper Education
Liberty needs to be protected by the people themselves which is only possible when
people know about their rights. People need to have a proper education in order to
understand freedom. Only when people have proper knowledge about their rights,
that liberty can be protected in the true sense.

Eternal Vigilance
As has been articulated by Bryce, "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty". In order
to safeguard liberty, it is required that people stay vigilant toward any illegitimate
action which tries to restrain liberty. People should always know about their rights
and responsibilities towards liberty or else, they will lose their freedom.

Democratic Government
Liberty can only prevail in a state where there is a democratic government because
the such government is formed by the people and can be changed by the people
themselves if it tries to hinder liberty. In a democratic government, people are free to
express their thoughts and even criticize the government. However, such kind of
action is not possible in a dictatorship, aristocracy, or monarchy. In these kinds of
government, people are not free to express their views and thoughts, and hence there
is scope for liberty to prevail.

Cooperation between State and People

It is necessary for people to cooperate with the state or government. If people do not
follow the rules and regulations as established by the state for the protection of the
citizens then it is difficult for the state to bring peace and harmony to a society. To
protect liberty from any kind of unlawful and illicit attack, it is required that people
cooperate with the government.

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 149

 MPS-101/OSOU

Separation of Powers
Separation of powers means different organs of state are independent of each other
and have different responsibilities. According to French scholar Montesquieu, liberty
cannot be protected until there is a separation of powers. The powers of the
government need to be divided into three organs such as the legislature, executive,
and judiciary. Countries that have separation of powers are more democratic and
therefore liberty of people is well protected.

Fundamental Rights
Fundamental rights create appropriate circumstances which are important to protect
freedom. The constitution of a democratic government must provide fundamental
rights to the citizens. Along with that, it is also required that special provisions should
be there to protect and safeguard those rights. It has been patronized by various
scholars that, rights and freedom are two sides of the same coin. One cannot exist
without the other. Therefore, the enactment of fundamental rights is important to
safeguard liberty.

Rule of Law
Harold J. Laski opinionated, that the rights and freedom of one section of society
should be free from the happiness and will of the other. There should be the same
rules and regulations for all kinds of sections of society. No one should be above the
law. Therefore, for the protection of liberty, the rule of law is more crucial than the
rule of an individual.

Decentralization of Power
Centralization of power leads to dictatorship and authoritarian rule which is
dangerous for liberty. Therefore, there must be decentralization of power. The
executive branch of government should be decentralized at all three levels ie. Centre
level, state level, and local level.

Independence of Judiciary
Judiciary is responsible for protecting and safeguarding the rights and freedom of the
people. Therefore, the judiciary must stay independent and impartial. In case the
rights and liberty of anyone are violated by any individual, organization, or even by
the government, then the help of the judiciary can be taken which will provide fair
justice.

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 150

 MPS-101/OSOU

10.7 SUMMARY

Liberty is the freedom of an individual, group, or community to exercise their rights

without any hindrance. It is a condition necessary for the development of a person
who is capable of exercising his will freely. However, in various aspects, it is also
required that the state make interference in the possession of liberty to reduce the
scope for inequality in society. Therefore, both positive liberty and negative liberty
are essential for the thorough emancipation of human beings in society.

Liberty has its various dimensions and each one of them is necessary for providing
total freedom to a person. An individual should have civil liberty, political liberty,
and economic liberty along with national liberty as well. When India has no
sovereignty, Indians could not exercise their other rights and had no sense of
freedom. Hence, to exercise other dimensions of liberty, it is very important to first
have national liberty.

Liberty can only be enjoyed when people are educated and provided with
fundamental rights. It is necessary to stay vigilant towards any action of the
government which tries to hinder liberty. Liberty is only possible in a democratic
form of government where they have the freedom to express their view freely. In a
dictatorial rule, people have no right to freedom because of which people cannot
exercise civil liberty, political liberty, or economic liberty. Democracy and liberty are
complementary to each other and democracy is the most important factor necessary
for the safeguard of liberty.

10.8 EXERCISE

1. What is liberty? Discuss different types of liberty.

2. Why is it important to safeguard liberty? Discuss some factors essential for
safeguarding liberty.
3. Critically examine Isaiah Berlin’s “Two Concepts of Liberty”.
4. Define the concept of liberty. Why liberty is considered the condition of a
human being’s life?

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 151

 MPS-101/OSOU

10.9 REFERENCE

Barry, N. (2000). An introduction to modern political theory. St. Martin's Press.

Heywood, A. (2015). Political theory. Macmillan International, Higher Education.

Giddens, A. Capitalism and modern social theory.

Parel, A. Ideology, philosophy and politics.

Bhargava, R. and Acharya Ashok (2016). “Political theory: An introduction”

Published by Pearson India.

Gauba O.P. (2019). “An introduction to Political theory” published by Mayur

paperback India.

GRANT, R. (2002). Political Theory, Political Science, and Politics. Political

Theory, 30(4), 577-595.

O'Doherty, E. (1976). Personal Rights and Public Liberty. Contact, 52(1), 2-11.

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 152

 MPS-101/OSOU

UNIT-11: EQUALITY

Structure
11.1. Learning objectives
11.2 Introduction
11.3 Equality vs. Inequality
11.4 Meaning of Equality
11.5. Characteristics of equality
11.6. Dimensions of Equality
11.7. Different conceptions of equality
11.8. Debates on Equality
11.8.1 Resource Egalitarian
11.8.2 Welfare Egalitarian
11.8.3 Capability Egalitarian
11.8.4 Welzer and Complex Equality
11.10. Summary and key terms
11.9 Exercise
11.11. Reference

11.1 OBJECTIVES
After reading this unit, you will be able to understand:
• The concept of equality
• The significance of equality
• The difference between equality and inequality
• The dimensions of equality
• The views of different schools of thought

11.2 INTRODUCTION

The present chapter will explore the various dimensions concerning the concept of
equality by taking into account different debates on equality.

The concept of equality is a fundamental political concept. In a very general sense,

equality is a relationship between two or more persons or groups regarding some

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 153

 MPS-101/OSOU

aspects of their lives. The idea of equality is a very complex political phenomenon.
Therefore, it is very difficult to define it. There is no single definition of equality.
Equality is a moral and political ideal that is channelled into society. The concept of
equality nurtures the idea that all human beings in society have an equal worth
regardless of their colour, gender, race, or nationality. This demands that all human
beings are entitled to the same rights and opportunities in society. To provide a
coherent defence of equality requires explaining what it is that is being equalised: is it
income, well-being, the capacity to acquire certain goods, or something else? The use
of the term ‘equal’, is still widely adopted in the everyday language of human beings,
it can be said ‘equal’ quantity; ‘equal’ price of an object etc. The Founding Fathers of
the American Revolution adopted a declaration of independence in 1776 that said,
“… all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain
inalienable rights.” Similarly, the National Assembly of France adopted the
Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen in 1789 which inter alia, reiterated that
“all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.”

The notion of equality is the defining feature of modern political thought. But the
classical and medieval thinkers granted that hierarchy is natural or unavoidable.
Modern thinkers have started the assumption that all human beings have equal moral
worth. The modern battle about equality is fought not between those who support the
principle and between those who does not support this concept. The issue of equality
has provoked particularly intense debate when it has been applied to the distribution
of wealth or income in society. Some insist that an equal distribution of rewards and
benefits is desirable. But some others argue that justice demands that natural
differences among humankind should be reflected in the way society treats them. All
over the world, the origin of equality and social justice has been connected with the
growth of some kind of social welfare.

11.3. EQUALITY Vs. INEQUALITY

Equality is a relative concept to discuss particularly its meaning. Always the demand
for equality has been against the occurrence of prevailing inequalities in societies.
The existence of social inequalities is not a new concept but rather as old as human
society. Human societies are characterised by several forms of social inequalities in
terms of class, race, religion, caste, status, power and gender. The contradiction
between equality as a general value of modern society and inequality at a practical
level exists as a fact in all human societies. So the debate about the nature and reasons
for inequalities is an ancient topic of political philosophy.

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 154

 MPS-101/OSOU

Aristotle in his famous book ‘Politics’ has made distinguished three social classes and
the significant difference between citizens and slaves, men and women in terms of
rational and civic capacities. Participation in the Polis (which means city-states) was
very much restricted to the citizens only.

In Hindu Society, the society was divided into four Varnas like Brahmin, Kshatriya,
Vaishya and Shudras and all the rights and duties were based on this classification.
During the medieval period, the legal privileges were based upon status and birth
which leads to inequality.
Inequalities have been continuing for a long which raises the notion that inequality is
inevitable in society. Even before the eighteenth century, the argument was that men
were naturally unequal for which there was a natural human hierarchy. Diverse types
of ideologies justified inequality on the grounds of race, ancestry, age, sex, religion,
military strength, culture, wealth, knowledge, etc.

According to Turner, inequality is multi-dimensional. To him, the elimination of one

aspect of inequality often leads to the exaggeration of other aspects of social, political
and cultural inequalities.

11.4. MEANING AND DEFINITION OF EQUALITY

According to Oxford English Dictionary, the term ‘equality dignity’ implies the
following;
i) the condition of having equal dignity, rank or privileges with others;
ii) the condition of being equal in power, ability, achievement or excellence;
iii) fairness, impartiality due proportion, proportionateness;

According to E.F. Carritt, ‘Equality is just to treat men as equal until some reason
other than preference such as need, capacity or desert has been shown to the contrary.

Bryan Turner in his book ‘Equality’ has given a comprehensive meaning of equality
relevant to the contemporary world. According to him, the concept of equality should
include the following:
i) The fundamental equality of persons
ii) Equality of opportunity
iii) Equality of conditions is an attempt to make the conditions of life equal
iv) Equality of outcome of results

According to some scholars, equal opportunities for all refers to appropriate

opportunities for all in society which demands that the factors like wealth or birth or

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 155

 MPS-101/OSOU

class should not determine one’s opportunities. It means that each person should have
equal rights and opportunities for his talents or to lead a good life and develop his
personality.

According to Harold J. Laski “Equality means equal rights for all the people and the
abolition of all special rights and privileges”. Laski describes the meaning of equality
with the following points:
i) The absence of special privileges means that the will of one is equal to the
will of any other. It means equality of rights.
ii) The adequate opportunities are available and open to all. It depends upon
the training that is offered to the citizens. The power that ultimately counts
in society is the power to utilise knowledge; that disparities in education
result above all in disparities in the ability to use that power. Opportunity
should be given to everyone to realise the implications of his personality.
iii) All must have access to social benefits and no one should be restricted on
any ground. The inequalities by birth or because of parentage and
hereditary causes are unreasonable.
iv) Absence of economic and social exploitation.

Barker writes that the concept of equality is a derivative value – derivative from the
supreme value of the development of personality- in each alike and equally, but in
each along its different line and of its separate motion. According to him, ‘The
principle of equality, accordingly means that whatever conditions are guaranteed to
me in the form of rights shall also and in the same measure be guaranteed to others
and that whatever rights are given to others shall also be given to me.

According to Raphael, ‘The right to equality is a right to the equal satisfaction of

basic human needs, including the need to develop and use capacities which are
specifically human’.

So the notion of ‘equality’ has two sides- positive and negative sides. Positively
equality means the provision of adequate opportunities for all in society. Here
‘adequate opportunities’ is they need different opportunities for their self-
development. Negative equality means the absence of undue privileges and arbitrary
discrimination based on race, religion and sex etc.

In nutshell, equality is the absence of privilege, equal opportunity, social guarantee of

a standard of living, and freedom towards excellence in life.

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 156

 MPS-101/OSOU

11.5. CHARACTERISTICS OF EQUALITY

➢ Equality is the absence of privileges.

➢ Equality implies the presence of equal opportunity for all.
➢ Equality guarantees equal rights and freedoms to all.
➢ Equality is equal satisfaction of basic needs.
➢ Equality advocates equitable distribution of wealth and resources.
➢ Equality is the absence of unnatural inequalities.
➢ Equality does not stand for absolute equality.

11.6. DIFFERENT DIMENSIONS OF EQUALITY

Equality is a highly complex concept, there being as many forms of equality as there
are ways of comparing the conditions of human existence.

Natural

Legal Social
Dimensions
of
Equality

Economic Political

Natural Equality
Natural equality entails that nature has made all equal naturally. Liberty and Equality
are two supreme valuable rights of the people. They constitute the two basic pillars of
democracy. Plato and Aristotle claimed that all men were equal according to the law
of nature. In modern times Rousseau specified that the moral virtue of man is
depraved by the civilizing process. Also, Karl Marx wanted that every person in
society should be treated equally. The French Declaration of Rights categorically
stated “Men are born and always continue to be free and equal in respect of their

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 157

 MPS-101/OSOU

rights”. The Preamble of the Indian Constitution describes Equality as one of the four
basic objectives of the Indian polity other three like Justice, Liberty and Fraternity.
Despite the fact that men differ in respect of their physical features, psychological
traits, mental abilities and capacities, all humans are to be treated as equal humans.
All are to be considered worthy of enjoying all human rights and freedoms.

Social Equality
Social equality is important in the domain of human beings' social existence. Equality
means the rights of all citizens should be equal in society. It implies that all human
beings should be treated equally in the eyes of the law. All must get the same
opportunities. Hence, there should be no discrimination based on colour, caste, creed,
sex, status or wealth. Harold J. Laski rightly says, “There is an aspect in which the
things without which life is meaningless must be accessible to all without distinction
in degree or kind. I have no right to have cake if my neighbour because of that right,
is compelled to go without bread” The educational institutions on an equal basis to
facilitate social mobility of all in school education or higher education sector
promotes social equality.

Political Equality
Political equality means granting equal citizenship to all members of any society
whether state or country. Equal citizenship gives basic rights such as the right to vote,
freedom of expression, freedom of movement and freedom of association and
freedom of belief to every person living in the society. The notion of political equality
states that all citizens irrespective of any differences between them should have an
equal voice in public affairs or offices. The concept of political equality means to get
involved in political participation. It means the equal representation of opinion, and
voice of all citizens in the political process of the society. Laski says that ‘political
equality means the authority which exerts that power must be subject to rules of
democratic governance.

Economic Equality
Economic Equality indicates equality in relation to the economic aspect of the citizen.
Economic equality is necessary not only for the poor classes but also for a stable
society. The distribution of national wealth should be distributed in such a way so that
no one becomes more economically powerful than others. It states that there should
be no concentration of economic power in the hands of a few people. All people must
get equal opportunities to get employment, earn and fulfil their basic needs in life.
Economic equality, therefore, opines for fair and adequate opportunities for all
humans for work and for earning their livelihoods to live their life. So the gap

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 158

 MPS-101/OSOU

between the rich and poor people should be minimum. There should be equitable
distribution of wealth and different resources among the people in the society.

Early liberals defined economic equality as equality in choosing one’s trade or

profession irrespective of his caste, creed or economic status. It was also understood
as freedom of contract or that everybody is equal in so far as the contractual
obligations are concerned.

Rapid industrialisation in society has brought awareness that equality of opportunity

cannot be achieved by the equality of law. Equality of opportunity does not only pre-
suppose the equal allotment of certain rights, but also the rule of distribution: equality
of the satisfaction of certain basic needs. It means privileges for the economically
underprivileged. According to Tawney ‘Equality of opportunity is not simply a matter
20 of legal equality. Its evidence depends not merely on the absence of disabilities,
but on the presence of abilities. It obtains in so far as, and only in so far as, each
member of the community, whatever his birth or occupation or social position,
possess in fact and not merely in form equal chances of using to the full his natural
endowments of the physique of character and intelligence. It was also understood as
the equalisation of wealth and income. Equality involves, up to the margin of
sufficiency, the identity of response for primary needs. The equal satisfaction of basic
needs as a precondition for equality of opportunity does require economic equality i.e.
reduction of extreme inequalities in the distribution of commodities. Generally,
economic equality is twofold- I) it is a matter of status ii) it is a matter of property and
income.

Legal Equality
Legal equality means that all people are equal in the eye of the law. The principle of
legal equality indicates equal protection of life for each person under the legal law.
There should be equal penalties for each person if anyone violates. So the concept of
legal equality focuses on equality of all before the law and equal subjection of all to
the same legal code. There should be equal opportunity for all to secure legal
protection of their rights and freedom in society. The rule of law must be equally
binding on all persons in every society.

Equality before the law means that the law guarantees freedom to each citizen. This is
popularly explained as i) Equality before Law and ii) Equal Protection of Law. a)
Equality before Law consists in ‘equal subject of all classes to the ordinary law of the
land administered by the ordinary law courts. It means that amongst equals, the law
should be equal and should be equally administered and that the ‘like should be
treated alike. In other words, the law is not to make any distinction between rich and

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 159

 MPS-101/OSOU

poor, feudal lord or peasant, capitalist or workers. In the eyes of law, all are equal. It
also implies equality of rights and duties in law i.e., equal protection of life and limb
of everyone under the law and equal penalties for everyone violating them. However,
since law creates classes with special rights and duties such as landlord vs. tenant,
police vs. people, Member of Parliament vs. judges etc., in such circumstances,
differences in rights are inevitable. And last not but least, equality before the law also
implies equality in the actual administration of laws. In spite of the fact that people
may be equal before the law, the judges may be corrupt or biased. Equality before the
law must ensure that the judges are free from political pressures, free from corruption,
bias etc. The inequality in the application of law may also arise if poor men are kept
from the cost of a legal action ie. if a rich man can force a settlement on less
favourable terms then a poor opponent would get in court by threatening to carry the
cause of appeal. b) Equal Protection of Law: Equality before the law does not mean
absolute equality. While the law will not make any distinction between the people,
equal protection means that on grounds of reasonable circumstances, certain
discriminations can be made. The law, in certain special circumstances, can make
rational discriminations. It means ‘equal laws for equals' and unequal laws for
unequal’s. This can be understood very well in the context of the Indian constitution
where the law, while not recognising any distinction based upon birth, caste, creed or
religion, does accept certain rational discriminations like reservation of seats or
special queues for ladies, concessions given to students in railway journeys etc. Such
discrimination based upon backwardness, sex, ability etc. is considered rational
discrimination. In such cases, the law protects the people by unequal rather than equal
application.

However, legal equality becomes meaningless in the absence of equal opportunities to

get justice. In liberal societies, people need both time and money to have justice to
protect their equality. All may possess equal rights, but all do not have an equal
power to vindicate those rights, so long as the vindication demands expenditure and
so long as some are more able than others to meet the expenditure demanded. Thus,
in actual practice and operation of the courts, as distinct from the rule of law of the
land, inequality still prevails though it is being steadily diminished by reforms in their
operations.

11.7 DIFFERENT CONCEPTIONS OF EQUALITY

Democracy has to uphold the balance between two aspects called equality of all
individuals – irrespective of caste, religion, gender, or class – and social justice. So at
the cost of equality of all protective discrimination is concerned not only with
equality of opportunity, but equal conditions. The concept of equality is the core

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 160

 MPS-101/OSOU

aspect of political theory which is equally worth of individuals in the society,

particularly in a democratic society. Equality does not necessarily need justification
like justice that whether equality is desirable or not for a citizen. But not a simple
concept and has witnessed a lot of contestation since ancient times –Plato, Aristotle,
Sophists etc. They looked at equality differently. Some other thinkers like equality in
a different way as all are equal. The medieval period is altogether different. Equality
has been debated and contested with a lot of conceptions and a lot of theories, ideas
and schools of thought. Modern period and modern thinkers like the social contract
theory of Rousseau. Modern thinkers said that Individuals are equal.

Different schools of thoughts

There are various schools of thought like contemporary egalitarians and distributive
egalitarians. These are two camps which are not homogenous but they are important
camps or schools of thought. The detailed discussion on distributive egalitarianism
and contemporary egalitarianism is as follows:

DistributiveEgalitarian
Equality means an equal share of something. Distributive Egalitarian said that
Equality means an equal share of something, for example, money, welfare, ability to
do valuable things (capability). This is equally distributed among people in a society.
Distribution has to be arranged equitably, particularly in terms of the share of every
individual. The three things money, welfare, & ability are to be distributed. Here in
the school of thought money leads to resource egalitarianism. The welfare leads to the
pleasure of larger utilitarianism in terms of preferences as per different schools of
thought. The ability, according to the capable egalitarian school of thought, leads that
human capability should be equally distributed. Distribution Egalitarian refers to a
family of related views, whose theorists disagree about two important and
overlapping issues –
i. About which inequalities matter
ii. And about whether holding people responsible for their actions, licenses an
unequal distribution of shares.

They are unanimous on this view that the resources are escaped they should be equal
and that need to be distributive. As per the first issue, distributive egalitarians refer to
a family of related views with which they disagree and which equality matters. For
the capability matter? Or does happiness or preference matter? Dworkin and Rawls
talked about resources and their unequal distribution matters. As per the second issue
whether only people responsible for the action? As responsibility is very important.

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 161

 MPS-101/OSOU

Social Egalitarians
The Social Egalitarians said that equality means people enjoy an equal status which
relates to each other as equal though both perspectives support broadly similar
outlooks. It condemns the inequalities of wealth and opportunities found in liberal
democracies. Particularly in terms of citizenship rights, fraternity and so and so. Both
perspectives condemn support broadly inequality of wealth & opportunities for the
liberal democracies. These ideas are for liberal democracies. The only difference is
that Social Egalitarian doesn’t only be contended by the social distribution of
resources rather than on broader in terms of social structure.

11.8. DEBATES ON EQUALITY

There are three different schools of thought regarding equality in political theory.
They are Resource Egalitarian, Welfare Egalitarian, and Capability Egalitarian.
Egalitarianism is an ideology, principle or doctrine referring to equal rights, benefits
and opportunities for all citizens of a society. The thoughts are as follows:

11.8.1 Resource Egalitarian

It believes that resources are very crucial to fulfilling human desires. So resources
are important. It can be taken care of properly and equally distributed. This advocates
Rawls's theory of justice the imaginary contract. Dworkin has propounded a very
influential theory and has set a new benchmark. He has brought the idea of
responsibility into equality and has argued that people should be insulated from the
good or bad effects of brute luck and preference and costly tastes should not be
subsidized

Ronald Dworkin’s ideas on Equality and resource egalitarians

Dworkin one of the eminent thinkers ideated the concept of equality describing the
concept of Brute Luck and resource distribution egalitarianism among the people in
the society. Their ideas are as follows:
i. He talks of good luck and will have more discussion about luck
ii. He has insulated human beings from the good or bad effects of luck

Human beings indulged in two types of resources, Personal, Impersonal. Ronald

Dworkin for organising equality in society addressing this question of the endowment
is very important. Dworkin factors brute luck in his distributary scheme and hence is
called ‘luck egalitarian’. Luck egalitarian means: a) people should be compensated
for underserved misfortune, b) compensation should come from only that part of
others' good fortunes that is underserved. How he tries to upset the balance this brute
lucks so that in a real sense egalitarian could be there. By birth, someone is poor

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 162

 MPS-101/OSOU

disabled, blind, deaf etc. for which he or she does not deserve it. In that misfortune,
people should be compensated for something that came as brute luck. Now the
compensation should come from only that part of others' good fortunes that is
undeserved. Where from he wants to compensate? From undeserved resources the
good fortunes he wants to compensate for the bad fortunes in society.

Resources according to Ronald Dworkin are of two types:

1) Impersonal – It relates to wealth, opportunity etc.
2) Personal – It relates to the physical and mental health, innate capacity or incapacity
and it cannot be transferred.

Personal resources are very important for Dworkin in equal distribution obtains where
each person has an equally satisfactory overall share of resources counting their share
of personal resources in combination with impersonal resources. Therefore he raises
the bar here in consideration of an egalitarian society. He says equal distribution can
be considered to take place only when each person has an equally satisfactory overall
share of resources counting both personal resources with impersonal; resources.
Therefore brute luck can be taken care of only when we can say equal distribution has
taken place. Some personal resources cannot be transferred. Inequality in its
distribution needs to be compensated by allocating people a greater or lesser share of
impersonal resources. That means people with disability or fewer talents are entitled
to preserve equality in the overall distribution. Society has duty bound to compensate
because it is a kind of disability. Now the effects of prior equality in the distribution
of personal resources are something very important contribution of Dworkin.
Dworkin’s theory is trying to balance ambition and endowment, he constructs a kind
of imaginary situation that Rawls also did through his original contract theory. For
Dworkin it is different and for Rawls, it is a contract. Dworkin says what happens if
money is equally distributed to participation in action. People who are participating
are also unequal. People are different in terms of their different challenges like
physical challenges.

11.8.2 Welfare Egalitarian

G. A Cohen and Roemer advocated pleasure, pain and happiness. These are mattered
important. Preference is highly subjective. Every individual has preference if
preference satisfaction is important. If preference is satisfied then it is equal
distribution. According to welfare egalitarianism, the ideal of equality is not equal
resource distribution but whether people enjoy similar levels of welfare or not.
Welfare is seen in terms of satisfaction of preferences and happiness. So the
preferences are different from one person to another person.

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 163

 MPS-101/OSOU

There are many criticisms of this idea, i) fulfilling ambition has a weakness which he
called adaptive preferences. People sometimes lower their preferences due to
oppressive situations. Here the preferences are not situation neutral but the product of
neutral. Dworkin argued against compensation. This welfare view will recommend
giving more resources to people with champagne taste who need more income. But
Dworkin argues against compensating for taste and preferences. Compensation is
only for endowment, not preferences. But welfarists believe that sometimes
preferences are part of the personality which is a product of childhood socialization.

11.8.3 Capability Egalitarian

This capability egalitarian school idea is led by famous thinker Amartya Sen, and
Martha Nussbaum. They have contributed in the direction of capabilities neither
resources nor preferences. We should compare how well people are faring looking at
the capability to function in a particular way. Function here is what a person can do
and can become. It believes in capability is an effective ability to function or a
combination of functions. For example, reading is a function and literacy is a
capability. Capability school will focus on the internal ability to read and write.
Amartya Sen focused extensively on the question of the identity of social
discrimination due to internal and external factors.

This concept is not beyond criticism. The first criticism requires definite lists of
human functioning with regard to comparing diff people's respective levels of
advantages and disadvantages. Second, there cannot be a definitive list of capabilities
despite of have some efforts to develop that means

11.8.4 Michael Walzer and Complex Equality

To begin with the theory of the spheres of justice developed by Michael Walzer in his
book “Spheres of Justice”: ‘But we know that money equally distributed at twelve
noon of a Sunday will be unequally redistributed before the week is out.” (Walzer,
1983: xi) Michael Walzer is a great philosopher who wrote about distributive justice
and equality, he points himself against the egalitarianism philosophic direction that
for example John Rawls is representing. Elites in a hierarchical society may be able to
convert their success in one sphere into advantages in another. Complex equality aims
to ensure that inequality in the distribution of one good does not influence or
distribution of other goods. The same distributional standard cannot be applied in all
spheres of society and the economic sphere needs inequality to differentiate hard
workers from laziness. According to him, market equality cannot justify family
inequality, as one cannot give more food to children with more competence. Goods
are created differently in different spheres and hence a distribution criterion in
different spheres needs to be different.

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 164

 MPS-101/OSOU

He criticised the concept that Rawls argued for the universal principle of distribution.
All distributions are just or unjust relative to the social meaning attached to them.
Walzer criticises egalitarianism by beginning at a crucial point: Human beings are not
equal; they have far less in common than there are differences between them. For
him, one question arises out of the following statement: “We are very different and
we are also manifestly alike. Now, what (complex) arrangements follow from the
difference and the likeliness?” (Walzer, 1983: xii). The difference in egalitarianism
Walzer describes as egalitarianism aims at eliminating dominance by forcing human
beings to be equal But Walzer thinks that domination does not derive from dominant
human beings but that it is mediated by a set of social goods. He claims that “We
have to understand and control social goods; we do not have to stretch or shrink
human beings.”

11.9 SUMMARY

The discussion on equality starts with an analysis of its meaning and nature. Equality
as a multi-dimensional concept has multiple meanings in relation to its arguments,
demands and society last but not least people. It is also discussed different dimensions
of equality with a special focus on natural, social-political, economic, and legal
equalities. So Equality is a principle essentially modern and progressive in the form
of political egalitarianism where human societies are characterised by some social
inequalities of class, status, power and gender.

11.10 EXERCISE

1. Discuss equality as a multiple-dimensional concept.

2. Define equality. Discuss various dimensions of equality.
3. Explain Dworkin’s conception of equality.
5. Write about the idea of equality from different schools of thought.
6. Define the concept of welfare egalitarianism and capability egalitarianism.
7. Discuss the idea of equality by socialist egalitarianism?
8. Write on the concept of complex equality.
9. Describe Dworkin’s concept of a personal and impersonal resource.
10. Critically explain the concept of equality and school of thought.

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 165

 MPS-101/OSOU

11.11. REFERENCES

Johari, J.C. (2006), Contemporary Political Theory

Wadhwani, Manohar (2008), An Introduction To Politics
Ramaswamy, Sushila (2003), Political Theory- Ideas & Concepts
Heywood, Andrew (2007), Politics
Clarke, P. Liberals and Social Democrats. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1978.
Martell, L. (ed.) Social Democracy: Global and National Perspectives.
Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2001. Sassoon, D. One Hundred Years of
Socialism. London: Fontana, 1997.

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 166

 MPS-101/OSOU

UNIT- 12: JUSTICE

Structure
12.1 Objectives
12.2 Introduction
12.3 Meaning and Definition
12.4 Historical Evolution of the Concept of Justice
12.5 Dimensions of Justice
12.5.1 Legal Justice
12.5.2 Political Justice
12.5.3. Economic Justice
12.5.4 Social Justice
12.6 Types of Justice
12.6.1 Procedural and Substantive Justice
12.6.2 Retributive and Distributive Justice
12.7. Diverse Perspectives on Justice
12.7.1 Liberal perspective
12.7.2 Amartya Sen's View of Justice: Compare and Contrast with Rawls’s
theory of justice
12.7.3 Libertarian perspective of justice
12.7.4 Marxist Perspective of Justice
12.7.5 Communitarian Perspective of Justice
12.8 Summary
12.9 Exercise
12.10 References

12.1 OBJECTIVES

After reading this unit, you will be able to understand:

• core ideas of the concept of justice
• legal, political, social and economic dimensions of justice
• differences between types of justice
• core concerns of Rawls's theory of justice and Amartya Sen's Idea of Justice

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 167

 MPS-101/OSOU

• Libertarian, Marxist and Communitarian perspectives of Justice

12.2 INTRODUCTION

Justice has been of central importance to political philosophy for over two thousand
years. Through the ages, political philosophers and political theorists have portrayed a
good society as a just society. This present chapter attempts to understand the concept
of Justice as it has evolved over the years.

Justice is a complex phenomenon and touches every sphere of human life. Justice is
primarily a problem of moral philosophy. But since it has to be implemented by a
political order, it also becomes a problem for political philosophy. Justice, in its
broadest sense, is the idea that people should get what they deserve; however, the
definition of what qualifies as "deserving" is influenced by many different fields, as
well as various points of view and perspectives, such as those of morality based on
ethics, reason, law, religion, equity, and fairness. In both ethics and law, the concept
of justice is central. We apply it to individual actions, laws, and public policies, and
we think in each case that if they are unjust this is a strong, maybe even conclusive,
reason to reject them. Classically, justice was counted as one of the four cardinal
virtues. Plato identifies four “cardinal virtues” that are necessary for a happy
individual and that are necessary for a good society. He also believed that the ideal
state should be with people with such virtues. The four cardinal virtues are prudence,
justice, temperance and fortitude {or Courage}. Sometimes justice is counted as the
most important of the four. In modern times, It is well-known that John Rawls
referred to it as "the first virtue of social organizations."

12.3 MEANING AND DEFINITION

The word Justice has been derived from the Latin word Jungere meaning 'to bind or
to tie together. The word 'Jus' also means 'Tie' or 'Bond'. In this way, Justice can be
defined as a system in which men are tied or joined in a close relationship. It is
cementing force in society. Justice seeks to harmonise different values and to
organise upon it all human relations. As such, Justice means bonding or joining or
organising people together into a right or fair order of relationships. Justice is defined
by Webster's Dictionary as the upholding or administering of what is right,
particularly through the impartial resolution of conflicting claims or the imposition of
deserving rewards or punishments. Plato defines justice as the having and doing of
what is one's own and Aristotle defines it as a virtue in action. According to
Salmond, Justice means to distribute the due share to everybody.” According to
Raphael, "Justice protects the rights of the individual as well as the order of society.”

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 168

 MPS-101/OSOU

C.E. Merriam has said, “Justice consists in a system of understandings and a

procedure through which each is accorded what is agreed upon as fair.” John Raws
defines justice as fairness.

However, justice is the ordering principle of society and is of central importance to

political theory. In defending or opposing laws, policies, decisions and actions of
government, appeals are made in the name of justice. Persons involved in every
agitation for securing their interests always raise the slogan: "We want Justice". All
civil rights movements are essentially justice movements.

12.4 HISTORICAL EVOLUTION OF THE NOTION OF JUSTICE

The Greek philosophers Plato and Aristotle's ideas of justice teach valuable lessons
about the sense of fulfilment as well as the sense of achievement and that is very
central to the idea of human emancipation. Plato defines justice as the having and
doing of what is one's own. In other words, Justice is a virtue and the meaning of
justice is to discharge one's duties honestly and not to interfere in other actions. So
justice is concerned with human welfare. It is described by Aristotle as a virtue in
action. Justice represented virtue and a readiness to abide by nature's rules and laws to
both Plato and Aristotle. In order to promote unity, harmony, virtue, and happiness in
society, both Aristotle's and Plato's theories of justice seek to identify a general
principle of capability. Thus, they gave more emphasis on the substantive portion of
justice rather than the procedural aspect. Aristotle admires h story of Plato and
expounds it in his way. He is the founder of the happiness theory. The state "comes
into being, founded in the bare need of life, and remains in existence for the sake of
good living," according to Aristotle, is how it began and why it exists today. It is
noted that the very notion of good life and happiness is very much rooted in ancient
Greek tradition which is central to the contemporary theories of justice.

Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau's Social Contract Theory focused primarily on the
institutional structure of society. This strategy, sometimes known as "transcendental
institutionalism," has two distinctive characteristics. First, rather than focusing on
relative comparisons of justice and injustice, it focuses on what it defines as perfect
justice. Second, in its pursuit of perfection, transcendental institutionalism places
more emphasis on perfecting the institutions than it does on the societies that will
eventually materialize. The modern idea of justice is predominantly related to the idea
of 'Social justice which is all about addressing all types of inequalities prevailing in
society. It believes that no one is too poor to be bought and no one is rich enough to
enslave others. The ideas of liberty and equality derive their substance from the idea
of social justice when these principles seek the transformation of the existing social

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 169

 MPS-101/OSOU

conditions to eliminate injustice in society. Rawls' (1971) theory of distributive

justice and Sen's concept of justice, which will be covered in the next section of the
unit, both strongly emphasise the idea of social justice.

12.5 DIMENSIONS OF JUSTICE

When the modern idea of justice is applied to the various aspects of social life we get
legal, political, and socio-economic notions of justice. Therefore, this section of the
chapter will explore the four major dimensions of justice in detail.

12.5.1 Legal Justice

Legal justice is broadly applied in two contexts -the formulation of just laws and then
doing justice according to the laws. While making laws, the will of the rulers is not to
be imposed upon the ruled. Laws should be based on public opinion and public needs.
Social values, morality, conventions, and the idea of just and unjust must be always
kept in view. When the laws do not meet the social values and rules of morality,
citizens neither really accept nor abide by laws. In this situation, the enforcement of
laws becomes a problem. Laws are just only when these are accepted not out of fear
of external power but when inspired by internal feelings for the laws being good, just
and reasonable.

Legal Justice means rule of law and not the rule of any person. It includes two things:
that all men are equal before the law, and that law is equally applicable to all. It
provides legal security to all. Law does not discriminate between the rich and the
poor. Objective and due dispensation of justice by the courts of law is an essential
ingredient of legal justice. According to Salmond "The aim of the law is the
establishment of what is legitimate; provide legal security and prevention of unjust
actions.

12.5.2 Political Justice

Political dimensions of justice imply that nobody should be denied political rights and
to provide equal political rights is political justice. Political justice asserted on
following conditions to ensure political justice: - Universal adult franchise; Right to
contest elections; Right to criticise the government; Right to form political parties;
Right to protest; Right to petition; Respect for human rights; Protection of the
interests of minorities Political authority should be based on the consent of the
people; Democratic system; and Special provisions for the protection of the interests
of Backward classes and backward tribes.

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 170

 MPS-101/OSOU

12.5.3. Economic Justice

Economic justice refers to the goal of the state as envisioned by the directive
principles of state policy in part IV of the Indian constitution. This goal is the
eradication of poverty, not through the expropriation of the wealthy but rather
through the augmentation of national wealth and resources and an equitable
distribution thereof amongst all who contribute to its production. Justice in economics
is a subcategory of welfare economics. It is a "set of moral and ethical principles for
building economic institutions." Economic justice aims to create opportunities for
every person to have a dignified, productive and creative life that extends beyond
simple economics. Economic justice is the idea that the economy will be more
successful if it is fairer, and that prosperity and justice go hand-in-hand rather than in
opposition to one another. The goal is to create opportunities for all to thrive.

12.5.4 Social Justice

Social Justice is taken to mean that all the people in a society are to be equal and there
is be no discrimination based on religion, caste, creed, colour, sex or status. However,
various scholars explain the concept of Social Justice in different ways. Some hold
that social justice is to allot to each individual his or her due share in the social
sphere. According to some others, the distribution of social facilities and rights based
on law and justice constitutes social justice. Social justice is another name for equal
social rights. According to Barker “Social Justice aims to provide equal opportunities
to every individual to develop his inherent qualities.” Gajendragadkar has said that by
social justice we mean ending all kinds of social inequalities and then providing equal
opportunities to everyone.”

The modern idea of justice is predominantly related to the idea of 'Social justice
which is all about addressing all types of inequalities prevailing in society. It believes
that no one is too poor to be bought and no one is rich enough to enslave others. The
ideas of liberty and equality derive their substance from the idea of social justice
when these principles seek the transformation of the existing social conditions to
eliminate injustice in society.

In the Indian Constitution, several provisions have been provided to secure social
economic and political justice. Untouchability has been constitutionally abolished.
Every citizen has been granted an equal right of access to any public place, place of
worship and use of places of entertainment. The state cannot discriminate between
citizens based on birth, caste, colour, creed, sex, faith or title or status or any of these.
The absence of privileged classes in society is an essential attribute of social justice.
Thus, Justice has four major dimensions: Social Justice, Economic Justice, Political
Justice and Legal Justice. All these forms are interrelated and interdependent. Justice

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 171

 MPS-101/OSOU

is real only when it exists in all these four dimensions. Without Social and Economic
Justice there can be no real Political and Legal Justice. The presence of social and
economic inequalities always leads to a denial of political and equal justice. A person
who is oppressed and underprivileged is essentially unable to take part in politics or
look for legal protection. Likewise, without political rights and equal protection of the
law, no person can get his social and economic rights and freedoms protected.
Further, Justice needs the presence of rights, liberty and equality in society and only
then can it characterise life in society.

12.6 TYPES OF JUSTICE

12.6.1 Procedural and Substantive Justice

Procedural justice is the idea of fairness in the processes that resolve disputes and
allocate resources. One aspect of procedural justice is related to discussions of the
administration of justice and legal proceedings. In organizations, procedural justice
promotes positive attitudes and behaviours. Procedure justice reduces negative
behaviours' in society. It is related to the tradition of liberalism, which asserts that the
function of justice is to regulate the mutual relations between individuals and groups.
Hence the quest for justice should aim at evolving reasonable rules which should be
applied impartially to all categories. Herbert Spencer, F.A. Hayek, Milton Friedman,
and Robert Nozick are some of the main exponents of procedural justice

In contrast, Substantive justice is the justice administered according to rules of law,

whereas due process or procedural justice is the just and fair process which brings this
outcome. These outcomes depend upon the substantive function of the law. The idea
of substantive justice corresponds to the philosophy. It holds that the test of justice in
society consists in ascertaining whether the poor and the underprivileged have
adequate opportunities to improve their lot. John Rawls has sought to accommodate
the requirement of substantive justice or social justice in his well-known scheme of
procedural justice.

12.6.2 Retributive and Distributive Justice

Aristotle defined retributive and distributive justice in consonance with his
conservative outlook. In modern times it must be defined in terms of modern social
consciousness. In modern times Retributive justice is generally defined as the
response to criminal behaviour that focuses on the punishment of lawbreakers and the
compensation of victims. In general, the severity of the punishment is proportionate
to the seriousness of the crime. Retributive justice David Miller identifies three
conditions to ensure justice in the matter of punishment: First, that punishment should
only be inflicted on those found guilty of wrongdoing, using proper procedure;

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 172

 MPS-101/OSOU

second, that punishment be uniformly imposed, i.e. the differences in many penalties
should always correspond to differences in wrongdoing; and third, that the scale of
penalties should be proportionate to the various misdemeanours being punished--
neither too severe nor too lax.

Distributive justice, on the other hand, refers to how people view what they receive
or, to put it more broadly, how they believe an allocation to be fair. It certainly
attracted organisational justice academics' attention first and has continued to draw a
lot of attention. Miller has also identified three principles of distributive justice and
their corresponding social orders: The first criterion of procedural justice is the
principle of 'protection of acknowledged rights' which gives rise to the hierarchical
order. David Hume was the chief advocate of this principle; second, 'the principle of
distribution according to the desert' upholds the competitive market system. Herbert
Spencer was its ardent exponent; the third and last principle the principle of
‘distribution is according to need' corresponds to solidarity community. Its chief
exponent was Peter Kropotkin. The distributive theory tries to maintain and regulate
the relations between the state and individuals. It deals with determining how fairly
people are treated.

12.7. DIVERSE PERSPECTIVES ON JUSTICE

This section of the chapter will explore the various perspectives such as liberal,
libertarian, communitarian and Marxist associated with the idea of justice.

12.7.1 Liberal perspective

The liberal view of justice considers liberty as the primary concern of justice, which
is most often connected with John Rawls' "theory of justice". He is well known for his
notion of justice as fairness, which establishes rules of justice to control a
contemporary social structure. According to him, a "well-ordered society's" first
virtue is fairness. Rawls uses a variation of the well-known social contract device in
his renowned work "A Theory of Justice"(1971" to try and address the issue of
distributive justice. Through social cooperation, justice principles will be put into
practice. Here, Rawls discusses the right to be a free and equal citizen as an integral
aspect of his theory of social cooperation founded on procedural justice that results
from overlapping consensus. He criticizes those allocations which ignore the moral
worth of the individual for the attainment of any predetermined goals. Rawls has
attacked utilitarianism because in calculating the ' greatest happiness of the greatest
number', it does not care if it leads to extreme hardship for any particular individual.
He brilliantly argues that you cannot compensate for the sufferings of the distressed
by enhancing the joys of the prosperous.

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 173

 MPS-101/OSOU

To discover the unanimous or public conception of justice, Rawls revives the

tradition of social contract theory and envisages an 'original position'- the state of
nature- in which individuals are symbolically placed behind a 'veil of ignorance
where they are supposed to deliberate as national agents. Although they lack
awareness of their desires, interests, skills, and other abilities, they do have a basic
understanding of economics and psychology and are endowed with a sense of justice.
Each person wants to maximize his or her well-being without being envious. They
were not prepared to take the risk or resort to gambling. In such a state of uncertainty,
they will choose the least dangerous path. In other words, each individual will
hypothetically place himself or herself in the least advantaged position while
recommending the criteria for allocation of the primary goods. As a result, they will
all demand that the least advantaged receive the largest benefit. Two justice concepts
emerge from the imaginary negotiation and are agreed upon by all. Rawls in his book
' A Theory of Justice (1971) outlines the two principles of justice:
"1. Each person is to have an equal right to the most extensive whole system' of equal
basic liberties compatible with a corresponding system of liberty for all (later
replaced as 'the fully adequate scheme of equal basic liberties').
2. Social and economic inequalities are to be arranged so that they are both:
(a) To the greatest benefit of the least advantaged, consistent with the just savings
principle, and
(b) attached to offices and positions open to all under conditions of fair equality of
opportunity."

The first principle is frequently referred to as equality of liberty. The second principle
is divided into two parts: portion (a) is known as the difference principle, and part (b)
is known as the equal opportunity principle.
Rawls orders the principles of justice lexically, as follows: 1, 2b, 2a. The greatest
equal liberty principle takes priority, followed by the equal opportunity principle and
finally the difference principle. The first principle must be satisfied before 2b, and 2b
must be satisfied before 2a.
Thus, by blending the concept of liberty and the concept of equality Rawls outlines a
broader concept of social justice. He discovers a method for making procedural
justice an instrument of meeting the requirements of substantive justice.
Critical Evaluation

Rawls's theory of justice has been criticized from various quarters. Marshall Cohen
described the book A Theory of Justice as "magisterial," and suggested that Rawls'
use of the techniques of analytic philosophy made the book the "most formidable"

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 174

 MPS-101/OSOU

defence of the social contract tradition to date. However, he criticized Rawls for
looseness in his understanding of some fundamental political concepts. Robert
Nozick has criticized Rawls' account of distributive justice in his defence of
libertarianism. Robert Paul Wolff has criticized Rawls from a Marxist perspective,
arguing Rawls offers an apology for the status quo in so far as he constructs justice
from existing practice and forecloses the possibility that there may be problems of
injustice embedded in capitalist social relations, private property or the market
economy. Michael Sandel criticizes Rawls by arguing that Rawls encourages people
to think about justice while divorced from the values and aspirations that define who
they are as persons and that allows people to determine what justice is. Rawls has
"the most influential of all twentieth-century ideas of justice," feminist scholar Susan
Moller Okin claimed in a writing but criticized him for failing to account for the
injustices and hierarchies embedded in familial relations. Amartya Sen, an economist,
has expressed concern with Rawls' focus on core social goods, stating in Inequality
Reexamined (1992) that we should also consider how effectively people may use
those primary goods to further their goals. Sen contends that Rawls' emphasis on the
value of an "ideal theory" that is applicable everywhere and is universal is dubious.
G. A. Cohen criticizes Rawls' avowal of inequality under the difference principle, his
application of the principle only to social institutions, and what he sees as Rawls's
obsession with using primary goods as his currency of equality.

The most significant theory of the twenty-first century, notwithstanding its flaws, is
John Rawls' theory of justice. Rawls addresses justice based on fairness and puts forth
that fairness is achieved when every individual has access to the services he or she
needs. The important aspect of Rawls's view is that justice can be achieved not by
absolute equity but by fairness and justified his claim depending on two principles.
Amartya Sen also recognized it as “…the most influential – and in many ways the
most important – of contemporary theories of justice.
12.7.2 Amartya Sen's View of Justice: A Critique of Rawls's theory of justice
Amartya Sen's perspectives on capabilities and the concept of justice can be used to
analyse Rawls' theory of justice. Sen's capability approach' may also go with an
endorsement of the valued life envisages by the concept of justice. According to Sen
Capability means the freedom to choose one's preferred or a valued way of life. It is
not just to access primary goods, as propounded by Rawls, but the extent of
capabilities that each individual has to convert these primary goods into lives that
they value living and that would determine freedom and ultimately upholds justice.
Capability, thus, represents freedom whereas the Rawlsian primary goods are just
means to this freedom. Sen argues that equality of freedom to pursue our ends cannot
be guaranteed by equal distribution of what Rawls describes as primary goods.
Further elaboration and critique of Rawls' theory of justice can be found in Amartya

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 175

 MPS-101/OSOU

Sen's well-known work "The Idea of Justice" (2009). Sen contends that Rawls'
emphasis on the value of an "ideal theory" that is applicable everywhere and is
universal is dubious. He skillfully illustrates the issue of limited resources and
competing demands of a legitimate claim through the tale of Ann, Bob, and Carla. He
also discusses "niti" and "Nyaya," the former of which refers to simple norms and the
latter to realization. If fully realized, Niti is an abstract activity that would maximize
public welfare and justice. Nyaya, on the other hand, is associated with the upholding
of rules and laws. The discussion of justice has covered a wide range of topics; Prof.
Sen stated that the goal is to "clarify how we might go to address concerns of
strengthening justice and reducing injustice, rather than to propose resolutions of
questions regarding the nature of perfect justice." Sen's main criticism of Rawls'
theory is that he bases his advancement of it on a moral assumption, or hypothesis,
known as "transcendental institutionalism," which later becomes tainted with certain
constraints. Sen contends that rather than institutional flaws, the existence of
reparable unfairness may be related to behavioural infractions. Justice is ultimately
related to how people live their lives, not only how the institutions that support them
are structured. Sen notes that having an idealized view of society also results in less
injustice.
Both Rawls and Amartya Sen are travelling in the same direction and believe
utilitarianism, or the idea of a society that just promotes the welfare of the majority of
the greatest number of content individuals is mistaken. It is not a good idea to address
the subject of whether Rawls' "Concept of Justice" or Sen's "Idea of Justice" is
preferable. However, One could argue that Sen's concept of justice advances and
complements Rawls' concept of justice.
12.7.3 Libertarian perspective of justice
This perspective of justice is closely associated with Robert Nozick’s libertarian
views. Libertarians strongly value individual freedom and see this as justifying strong
protections for individual freedom. Thus, libertarians insist that justice poses stringent
limits to coercion. While people can be justifiably forced to do certain things (most
obviously, to refrain from violating the rights of others) they cannot be coerced to
serve the overall good of society or even their good. As a result, libertarians endorse
strong rights to individual liberty and private property. Libertarian positions are most
controversial in the realm of distributive justice. In this context, libertarians typically
endorse something like a free-market economy: an economic order based on private
property and voluntary market relationships among agents. So, rights of freedom of
contract and exchange, freedom of occupation, and private property are taken very
seriously.

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 176

 MPS-101/OSOU

Nozick's view of Justice

Robert Nozick in his famous book 'Anarchy, State and Utopia' (1974) aimed to
establish a different theory of justice than Rawls'. Nozick is an ardent exponent of
libertarianism in its pure form. He does not deal with the problem of distribution of
certain goods as a gift of nature, but rather adopts a realistic approach which could
account for different 'modes of acquisition' of goods and the entitlement of different
individuals to own those goods. He talks about three sources of acquiring various
goods- 1) the individuals have absolute right over their selves and they are free to use
their limbs and brain to do whatever they like to do; 2) an individual may acquire a
bit of natural world or resources through several methods and may become entitled to
their use but in this area principles of entitlement are needed logically;3) and the
things people make by applying themselves to the natural world and an individual's
entitlement to these things may not be questioned.
Nozick also talks about 'principles of entitlement'. He argues that the individuals' self-
ownership of their body and mind is unquestionable, yet the principles of justice
should underlie their claim to the remnants of the natural world and the products of
human labour. He outlines three principles on which this entitlement would confirm
justice i.e., initial acquisition, voluntary transfer and rectification. A) Initial
acquisition –Initially acquiring holdings is the subject of this principle. It tells the
story of how individuals first begin to possess unclaimed real estate, as well as the
different kinds of possessions that are permitted. B) Voluntary transfer – This
principle explains how one person can acquire holdings from another, including
voluntary exchange and gifts. C) Rectification – how to deal with withholdings that
are unjustly acquired or transferred, whether and how much victims can be
compensated, how to deal with long past transgressions or injustices done by a
government, and so on.
However, the mode of acquisition should not result in creating scarcity for others.
Voluntary transfer applies to all property whether acquired through initial acquisition
or the products of their labour. Rectification is an area where the state and the
international community will be justified to intervene to restore justice.
Critical Evaluation.
Nozick's idea of libertarian justice has some drawbacks. He is a strong supporter of
the competitive market system which is against the welfare of the weak and favours
the rich. Secondly, he tries to maintain prevailing oppression in the name of justice.
Thirdly, Nozick invokes moral principles to demolish a redistributive, welfare state.
Fourthly, his views involve using the ability and efforts of one section as a means to
others' ends. Fifthly, he is not prepared to concede that the operation of the market
economy may itself create certain conditions of injustice. Lastly, Nozick makes the
welfare of the poor dependent on charity, not on justice.

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 177

 MPS-101/OSOU

In short, Nozick aims to propose an alternative perspective to Rawls' theory of justice,

while Rawls tries to moderate his libertarianism with a modicum of egalitarianism
and communitarianism. In this way, Rawls is known as a 'left liberal' or egalitarian
liberal asserting a substantially redistributive welfare state, and Nozick may be
described as a 'right liberal' or libertarian committed to a 'nightwatchman' state.
12.7.4 Marxist Perspective of Justice.
Marx's catchphrase, "from everyone according to his ability, to each according to his
need," sums up Marxism as a needs-based theory. Contribution-based theories
contend that resources should be allocated so that each person's contribution to the
greater good of society is matched. Marx makes the following statement in his
Critique of the Gotha Programme. The emancipation of labour "requires the elevation
of the instruments of labour to the common property of society and the cooperative
regulation of the entire labour with a just distribution of labour proceeds." Therefore,
we can conclude that the equitable distribution of the proceeds forms the very basis of
the theory of justice, and as a result, we may claim that the Marxian theory of justice
is distributive.
Due to the distributive nature of the Marxian conception of justice, it is implied that
all advantages and burdens within the society must be fairly divided among all of its
members, with no room for discrimination. Marx calls this fair distribution. Marx and
Engels extensively studied the rise and growth of capitalism and they formed the
conclusion that it was out and out unjust because its foundation was exploitation. A
system or an economy based on exploitation can never be an abode of justice. He
called exploitation not only unfair but also a "robber". The working class was
deprived of its legitimate share of profit or all sorts of benefits. Marx concluded that
the abolition of capitalism and the establishment of communism can ensure the
setting up of justice. Marx believed that without total revolution the wrongs and
injustices of the capitalist system could not be done away with. After the revolution, a
new society would be set up whose leitmotif would be to set up justice through the
distribution of all goods and services.

The basic characteristic of socialist justice or the justice of a socialist society is the
ownership of the means of production and exploitation has been abolished and
distributive justice will commence its new journey. The worker will receive in
proportion to what he produces. In other words, the remuneration will be
commensurate with his labour or contribution to production. When ownership and
exploitation are abolished, the entire society will be owned by the workers, who will
also own the means of production. The establishment of socialism, we come to know
from Marx's analysis, will augur a new type of justice different from the capitalist

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 178

 MPS-101/OSOU

form of justice. Capitalism can, therefore, be condemned because, of its tendency to

inflict injustice on workers.

What is obvious here is that Marx viewed the concept of justice as it prevails in
capitalist society as being modelled on separate backgrounds and philosophies. He
could not agree with the capitalist system. Capitalism dehumanises humanity or it
destroys the good qualities of human beings. A large number of interpreters of
Marxism especially Kolakowski in his Main Currents of Marxism have discussed
this. A dehumanising system cannot be a provider of justice. Man is crushed by the
stringent economic laws and cruel behaviour of the capitalists. Capitalism can,
therefore, be condemned because, of its tendency to inflict injustice on workers.

In short, justice, in a true sense, could only be realized in a classless and stateless
society i.e., communism, where there will be no class struggle, no class division and
no injustice, everyone would believe in the notion of 'from each according to his
ability, to each according to his need'.

Critical Evaluation

There are certain shortcomings of the Marxist view of justice. The picture of a
classless society is quite fascinating. But the withering away of the state cannot be
actualised in the real world. It seems to be a utopian idea. The problem with this view
is that it treats the possession of private property as the only source of class
distinctions. In an actual sense, class distinctions may reappear based on the
possession of political and bureaucratic power, even after the abolition of private
property, giving rise to a new form of dominance and injustice. Hence, the problem of
injustice will have to be tackled at many more subtle levels.

12.7.5 Communitarian Perspective of Justice

Communitarianism is a contemporary political ideology emphasizing the interests of

the community over those of the individual. Communitarianism is often considered
the opposite of liberalism, the theory that places the interests of the individual above
those of the community. The communitarian perspective of justice is best understood
by contrasting it with liberalism. It tries to bridge- the broken relationship between
the individuals and the community. Liberal ideas of justice, in the opinion of
communitarians, do not sufficiently respect the community. Communitarianism
introduces the idea of 'situated self' against the liberal concept of ' isolated self '.
Communitarianism tries to replace politics of rights with politics of the common
good. According to the liberal theory of justice or Rawls' view of justice; "individual
right" takes precedence above the "community good." It should be highlighted that

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 179

 MPS-101/OSOU

Justice, in Rawls' words, is "the primary virtue of social systems." For

communitarians, doing what is right involves doing what is good, and when we
embrace what is good, what is right has already been done.

A critical response to John Rawls' book A Theory of Justice marked the beginning of
communitarianism in the higher echelons of Anglo-American academia (1971).
Political philosophers like Alasdair MacIntyre, Michael Sandel, Charles Taylor, and
Michael Walzer challenged Rawls' assertion that the primary function of the state is
to protect and fairly distribute the liberties and material resources required for people
to live freely chosen lives. They did so by primarily drawing on the insights of
Aristotle and Hegel.

Alasdair MacIntyre a British Philosopher in his famous book ‘After Virtue’ (1981)
highlights the limitations of Rawls's notion of virtue. He offers a serious critique of
the liberal notion of individuals as autonomous moral agents, disconnected from
social context; and argues that individuals flourish only within the context of socially
established cooperative human activity, which is designed to encourage the
development of human excellence. He further argues that liberals are committed to '
moral relativism' detaching them from any particular standpoint to practise tolerance.
So they could not able to develop any particular or unified concept of justice. But
later in his book, ‘Whose Justice? Which Rationality? (1988), he realizes the pitfalls
of moral absolutism and concedes that liberal tolerance itself is a virtuous practice.

American political theorist Michael Sandel in his book Liberalism and the Limits of
Justice (1982) attacks the liberal concept of justice represented by Rawls's theory. He
argues that Rawls's theory represents the disconnected and disembodied individuals
as rational negotiators He peeled back the 'veil of ignorance to see the rules of justice.
Rawls individuals seemed to be independent of all social activities. Is anything left of
the person when we subtract all this from his personality? Rawls fails to understand
our embeddedness in a particular time, place and culture. He is an ardent advocate of
the 'unencumbered self. Sandel asserts that justice cannot be secured by isolated
individuals seeking personal benefit, but by those who create a 'deeper commonality'
through 'shared self-understanding and mutual affection. Liberal perspective talks
about ' self is prior its ends'. In contrast, Sandel asserts that the self is not before its
ends, but rather constituted by its end. He maintains that Rawls 'unencumbered' does
not correspond with our deepest self-understanding.

Charles Taylor, a Canadian philosopher, ridicules the liberal perception of 'atomistic

individualism, which is central to liberalism. Taylor does not regard human beings as
autonomous choosers. He argues that the atomistic type of individualism promised
freedom for a human actor, but ultimately failed to realize that human beings

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 180

 MPS-101/OSOU

constantly reflect on their life to find their meaning. Human beings are not a mere
manifestation of the will, rather the development of human personality is situated in
society. In his book 'Sources of the self ' (1989), he asserted on' embodied
individuals', engaged both in self-interpretation and in constant interaction with
others. He observes that human agency, rights and freedom exist only in their social
context whereas modern liberal political theory failed to account for the reciprocal
relations among individuals and between individuals and society.

Unlike other communitarians, Michael Walzer in his famous book 'Spheres of Justice
(1983) propounded his version of the communitarian theory of justice. He argues that
is futile to look for any principle of justice outside the community. The requirements
of justice could only be identified in the context of a particular community, its
practices and institutions. He argues that justice has shared meanings. Walzer asserts
that the shared understandings in our society require us to apply the principle of
'complex equality in the distribution of social goods i.e., a system of distribution that
does not try to equalize all goods, rather it seeks to ensure that inequalities in one
sphere( e.g. wealth) do not perpetuate other spheres (e.g. health care and political
power). He focuses on the social meaning of justice and the plurality of spheres of
justice. Walzer argues that social goods should be distributed in accordance with the
proper justification as it pertains to each area. Therefore, the spheres of politics,
health, and education shouldn't be tainted by the dominance of money because money
only truly rules in the sphere of commodities; the sphere of office shouldn't be tainted
by nepotism because that belongs in the sphere of kinship and love; the sphere of
kinship and love shouldn't be tainted by the consideration of profit and loss because
those things only matter in the market- place; and the family structure, the family
structure shouldn't be modelled after male dominance, which belongs more
appropriately in the realm of military organisation.

However, if we apply Walzer's model of communitarian justice in actual practice, a

just society could be realized as envisaged by him. But he does not prescribe any
mechanism to convince the dominant people in different spheres to adopt these rules.
Walzer's theory of justice embodies strong moral philosophy, but it does not provide
for an equally strong political philosophy.

Critical Evaluation

The communitarian perspective of justice receives severe criticism also. Liberal

theorists (such as Simon Caney) disagree that philosophical communitarianism has
any interesting criticisms to make of liberalism. They reject the communitarian
charges that liberalism neglects the value of community, and holds an "atomized" or
asocial view of the self. Secondly, Peter Sutch outlines some of the principal

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 181

 MPS-101/OSOU

criticisms of communitarianism: that communitarianism leads necessarily to moral

relativism; that this relativism leads necessarily to a re-endorsement of the status quo
in international politics; and that such a position relies upon a discredited ontological
argument that posits the foundational status of the community or state. However, he
goes on to show that such arguments cannot be levelled against a particular
communitarian like Michael Walzer.

Thirdly, some critics argue about the close relation of communitarianism

to neoliberalism and new policies of dismantling the welfare state institutions through
the development of the third sector.

Despite its certain limitations, we can conclude that communitarianism is a

philosophy that emphasizes the connection between the individual and the
community. Its overriding philosophy is based upon the belief that a person's social
identity and personality are largely moulded by community relationships, with a
smaller degree of development being placed on individualism. It emphasizes the
function of the community in defining and forming individuals, in contrast to
classical liberalism, which views communities as developing from the free choices of
pre-community individuals. According to communitarians, liberal views of justice do
not adequately account for the importance of community.

12.8 SUMMARY

In this unit, you have studied core concerns, dimensions, types and different
perspectives of the concept of justice. Justice is a complex phenomenon and touches
every sphere of human life. Justice is primarily a problem of moral philosophy. But
since it has to be implemented by a political order, it also becomes a problem for
political philosophy. The word Justice has been derived from the Latin word Jungere
meaning 'to bind or to tie together. The word 'Jus' also means 'Tie' or 'Bond'. In this
way, Justice can be defined as a system in which men are tied or joined in a close
relationship. It is described by Aristotle as a virtue in action. Justice represented
virtue and a readiness to abide by nature's rules and laws to both Plato and Aristotle.
In order to promote unity, harmony, virtue, and happiness in society, both Aristotle's
and Plato's theories of justice seek to identify a general principle of capability. Justice
has four major dimensions: Social Justice, Economic Justice, Political Justice and
Legal Justice. All these forms are interrelated and interdependent. Justice is real only
when it exists in all these four dimensions Substantive justice is the justice
administered according to rules of law, whereas due process or procedural justice is
the just and fair process which brings this outcome. Retributive justice is generally
defined as a response to criminal behaviour that focuses on the punishment of
lawbreakers and the compensation of victims. Distributive justice, on the other hand,

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 182

 MPS-101/OSOU

refers to how people view what they receive or, to put it more broadly, how they
believe an allocation to be fair. John Rawls defines justice as fairness. By blending
the concept of liberty and the concept of equality Rawls outlines a broader concept of
social justice. He discovers a method for making procedural justice an instrument of
meeting the requirements of substantive justice. In his renowned work The Idea of
Justice, Amartya Sen further extends and criticises Rawls' idea of justice (2009). The
Libertarian perspective of justice is closely associated with Robert Nozick's
libertarian views. Libertarians strongly value individual freedom and see this as
justifying strong protections for individual freedom. Nozick is an ardent exponent of
libertarianism in its pure form. He does not deal with the problem of distribution of
certain goods as a gift of nature, but rather adopts a realistic approach which could
account for different 'modes of acquisition' of goods and the entitlement of different
individuals to own those goods. According to the Marxist perspective justice, in a true
sense, could only be realized in a classless and stateless society i.e., communism,
where there will be no class struggle, no class division and no injustice, everyone
would believe in the notion of 'from each according to his ability, to each according
to his need'. The communitarian perspective of justice is best understood by
contrasting it with liberalism. It tries to bridge- the broken relationship between the
individuals and the community. Liberal ideas of justice, in the opinion of
communitarians, do not sufficiently respect the community. The concept of the
"situated self" is introduced by communitarianism in contrast to the liberal notion of
the "isolated self". Politics of rights are attempted to be replaced with politics of the
common good by communitarians.

12.9 EXERCISE

1. Define justice. Discuss its various dimensions.

2. Critically examine Rawls's theory of justice.
3. Discuss Amartya Sen's critique of Rawls's theory of justice.
4. Examine the libertarian perspective of justice with special reference to Robert
Nozick's view.
5. Critically examine the Marxist perspective of justice.
6. Define communitarianism. Examine the communitarian perspective of justice.

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 183

 MPS-101/OSOU

12.10 REFERENCES

Aggarwal, R.C. (1976) Principles of Political Science, S.Chand Company, New

Delhi.
Badyal, J.S.(2012) Political Theory, Raj Publishers, Jalandher
Bhargava, R. (2008). Political theory: An introduction. Pearson Education India.
Gauba, O.P.(2014) An Introduction to Political Theory, Macmillan Publisher, Delhi.
Heywood, Andrew. (2005) Political Theory An Introduction, Palgrave Macmillan,
New York.
Johari, J.C.( 1989) Principles of Modern Political Science, Sterling Publishers, New
Delhi.
Misra, K.K& Iyengar Kalpana.(1988) Modern Political Theory, S.Chand Company,
New Delhi.
Ray Amal,(1988) Political Theory: Ideas and Institutions, The World Press Private
LTD. Calcutta.
Rawls, John. (1971). A Theory of Justice, H U P.
Rawls, J,.(1993).Political Liberalism.Columbia University Press, New York.
Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom New York: Alfred Knopf.
Sen, A.,(2009). The Idea of Justice. Allen Lane & Harvard University Press
Srivastav, D.S., (2016) 'Rawls’s Theory of Justice Through Amartya Sen’s Idea'.
Accessed from https://www.ili.ac.in/pdf/p11_dhawal.pdf.on 13.10.2021
Web Link:
1. https://www.yourarticlelibrary.com/speech/speech-on-justice-meaning-and-
types-of-justice/40361.
2. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justice/
3. https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-2147-justice-and-its-theories-
an-overview.html.
4. https://www.degloorcollege.in/images/Documents/2.3.2/PPT/57.pdf
5. http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/457/Different-Perspectives-On-
Justice.html
6. https://www.politicalsciencenotes.com/theories-of-justice/main-features-of-
marxian-theory-of-justice/761.
7. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Theory_of_Justice.

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 184

 Block-4
Contemporary Theory of Democracy

Unit-13 Concept of Democracy and Citizenship

Unit-14 Elitist Theory of Democracy
Unit-15 Nationalism: Meaning and Nature
Unit-16 Multiculturalism
 MPS-101/OSOU

UNIT 13: DEMOCRACY AND CITIZENSHIP

Structure
13.1 Objective
13.2 Introduction
1.3 Democracy: Conceptual Analysis
13.4 Characteristics
13.5 Types of Democracy
13.5.1 Direct democracy
13.5.2 Representative Democracy
13.6 Approaches to Democracy
13.6.1 Classical Liberal Theory of Democracy
13.6.2 Elite Theory of Democracy
13.6.3 The pluralist Theory of Democracy
13.6.4 Marxist Theory of Democracy
13.7 Citizenship
13.8 How to acquire citizenship
13.9 Citizen and Democracy
13.10 Citizen Obligation to state
13.11 Summary
13.12 Exercise
13.13 References

13.1 OBJECTIVES

In this unit, you will be acquainted with the concepts of Democracy and Citizenship.
Studying this unit will enable you to

• Understand the meaning of democracy and citizenship.

• Explain types of Democracy and various approaches to democracy.
• Understand citizenship and its relationship with democracy.

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 185

 MPS-101/OSOU

13.2 INTRODUCTION

Democracy is a government by the people. The government is formed and runs

according to the will of the people. So the people or the citizen and the government
are interdependent. Without one the other is baseless and both of them strengthen
each other. Active and continuous participation of citizens improves the quality and
standard of democracy. Democracy also improves the quality of the citizens. The
discourse on the relationship between Democracy and citizenship denotes a healthy
relationship between the two. In other forms of government such as monarchy, and
dictatorship the relationship between the two is hostile and conflicting. With changing
scenarios and changing ideologies it has become necessary to analyse the relationship
between democracy and citizenship.

In this unit, we will discuss democracy, its meaning, types, citizenship and the
relationship between the two.

13.3 DEMOCRACY: CONCEPTUAL ANALYSIS

Since the days of Aristotle democracy has been a popular term both in theory and
practice. The term has so much popularity that the cruellest dictator claims to be a
Democrat. In simple terms, democracy is defined as a government by the people. It s
a government which is formed and runs according to the will of the people. Unlike
other forms of government, the citizens have control over the ruler.

The term Democracy is derived from the Greek word demokratia which was coined
from two Greek words demos ( people) and kratos ( power or rule ). Etymological the
meaning of the term democracy is the power of the people or rule by the people.
Democracy as a theory and practice emerged during the 5th century BC in ancient
Greece. Since then the term democracy has undergone many changes, in theory,
practice and approaches.

Commonly democracy means rule by the people or power with the people.
“Democracy is a system of government in which laws, policies, leadership, and major
undertakings of a state or other polity are directly or indirectly decided by the
people”. Different scholars in different time span with different political background
have defined democracy in different terms. Some of them are cited here.

Abraham Lincoln – “Democracy is for the people, by the people and of the people”.
This is the most popular definition of democracy.

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 186

 MPS-101/OSOU

Prof. Seely- Democracy is a government in which everyone has a share.

Dr John Hirst's “Democracy: A democracy is a society in which the citizens are

sovereign and control the government.”

Bryce- Democracy is a form of government in which the ruling power of a state is

largely vested not only in any particular class or class but in the members of the
community as a whole.

C.F. Strong- By democracy we mean a system of government in which the majority

of members of a political community participate through a method of representation.
It ensures that the government is ultimately responsible for its action toward that
majority.

There is no clear cut universally acceptable definition of democracy applicable to

political systems at all times. But the commonness among all is that it is a rule by
people. During the course of time, some definitional issues are raised, such as What is
meant by all the people or all the people? Whether political power is shared equally
among all? In ancient Greece which is considered to be the birthplace of democracy
–“all did not include all”. Women, slaves, criminals, and non-taxpayers did not have
the right to participate in the policy-making process. In modern times majority rule is
based on a number only.

However, democracy is the best among the prevalent forms of government. Apart
from the quantitative aspect of majority rule, it is based on many qualitative aspects
such as individual liberty, individual rights etc. Democracy is a government in which
power and civic responsibility are exercised by all adult citizens, directly, or through
their freely elected representatives.

13.4 CHARACTERISTICS OF DEMOCRACY

Democracy is universal but not uniform. It does not have a fixed meaning, definite
nature or uniform procedure. Its success, failure, and procedure depend on the socio-
political-economic orientation of the citizens. Characteristics of democracy so
different from one political system to the other. Characteristics of democracy are
given below.
a. Importance of Public opinion
b. Popular sovereignty
c. Political equality
d. Majority rule

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 187

 MPS-101/OSOU

e. Representative government
f. The peaceful transfer of power
g. Limited government
h. Political accountability
i. Rule of Law
j. Supremacy of the constitution
k. Citizen rights and liberty
l. Independent Judiciary
m. Decentralization of power
n. Organized opposition

13.5 TYPES OF DEMOCRACY

Based on the mode of participation of people in the process of government and

sources of political power democracy may broadly be classified into the following
categories.

13.5.1 Direct democracy-

This is a form of democracy in which people participate directly in the policy-making
process of the government. This is also called pure democracy. In ancient Athens, all
citizens were participating in policy making. However, citizenship was not open and
was restricted to adult male members only who have completed their military
training. Women and slEave did not have such rights. In modern times Switzerland
adopts direct Democracy in some of its Cantons. In Switzerland, people assemble in
Landsgemeinde (Cantonal Assembly) to take decisions. There are three methods of
Direct Democracy 1. Referendum 2.Initiative 3. Recall.

In recent times many scholars consider Panchayati Raj Institutions as institutions of

Direct Democracy. The compare Palli Sabha and Gram Sabha with Landsgemeindeof
Switzerland.

13.5.2 Representative Democracy. This democracy is popularly known as Indirect

Democracy. Most all countries practice this democracy. In such a democracy people
participate in the policy-making process through their elected representatives. The
elected representatives participate on behalf of the people.

Recently various scholars have identified nontumorous models of democracy from a

qualitative perspective. These are Constitutional democracy, Monitory democracy,
Participatory democracy, Pluralist democracy, Elite democracy, monitory democracy
etc.

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 188

 MPS-101/OSOU

13.6 APPROACHES TO DEMOCRACY

Democracy is a process so it's dynamic. It can fit any political system and can be
interpreted from different angles. All democrats focus on people's participation and
the common good. There are two popular approaches to democracy 1) Liberal
Approach and 2) the Marxist Approach.

Liberal Approach- The liberals consider the individual to be the centre of the state
system and the state exists for the sake of the individual. For them, the individual is
the end and the state is the means. The philosophy of democracy entirely lies in
providing maximum freedom to the individual. The state which provides more
freedom and more liberty to the individual is considered to be more democratic.
According to John Locke, “the state had to ensure the safety of the life, liberty and
property of the individual”.

The liberal theory has been developed in three phases and each phase has a different
name. These are 1) Classical Liberal theory 2) Elitist Theory 3) Pluralist theory.

13.6.1 Classical Liberal Theory of Democracy.

The main idea of this theory is that the protection of individual rights and liberty is
the primary concern of the state. An individual has the right to resist the state and also
a revolt against the state if it fails. The advocates of this theory are John Locke,
Rousseau, JS Mill, Montesquieu, Bentham etc. Contractualism like Locke and
Rousseau are of the opinion that government is based on contract and consent co it
has limited power. Montesquieu advocated the principle of separation of power which
supports decentralization of power. The utilitarians like Mill and Bentham emphasise
the participation of people in the political process. They are of the opinion that the
“greatest good of the greatest number” should be the priority of the government.

Key Features
1) Man is at the centre of democracy.
2) Democracy aims at protecting individual rights and liberty.
3) The government is constitutional, limited and accountable.
4) It is based upon the consent of the people

13.6.2 Elite Theory of Democracy.

This theory discovers political inequality and unequal distribution of political power.
This theory is a contradiction to the liberal theory which is based on rule of law and
majority rule. This theory says that a superior minority rules over the majority. The
exponents of this theory are Vilfredo Pareto, Gaetano Mosca, Robert Michels and C

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 189

 MPS-101/OSOU

writ Mills. All of them accepted unequal enjoyment of political power in society.
Pareto highlights the intellectual and psychological basis of elite rule. He divided the
elite into Governing elite and the Non-governing elite. He laid down the idea of the
circulation of the elite.

13.6.3 The pluralist Theory of Democracy

In contrast to the elitist view of democracy, the Pluralist view holds that power is
divided and distributed among various sections, and organizations of articulate
interests.

Elements of Pluralism
a. Powers are divided and distributed.
b. The presence of principles and practices like separation of power and checks
and balances reduces the risk of hijack or abuse of power and the emergence
of dictatorship.
c. Sovereignty is not at the exclusive possession of the state nor of any other
organization or association.

13.6.4 Marxist Theory of Democracy

Marxists view democracy from a different angle. They criticize the classical view of
democracy as bourgeois democracy and consider it as ‘fake and sham’. They never
reject democracy. For them, democracy is a social system based on certain values
instead of a political system or process. They claim to be more democratic` than the
liberals. Marxists also agree that democracy is based on majority rule. In a society,
the proletariat / the poor constitute the majority. In a non-Marxian society, power is
captured by the bourgeois/ capitalist. Marxian democracy focuses on political
equality as well as economic and social equality. They claim their democracy to be
real and the bourgeois democracy is fake.
Elements of Marxian Democracy-

a. Democracy is a continuous growing process.

As a political system democracy serves a particular interest and to be specific

13.7 CITIZENSHIP

A state is a human organization and population is the chief element of a state. A

person who resides in a state enjoys rights guaranteed by the state and allegiance
towards the state is called a citizen. Citizenship implies both rights and obligations.
The concept of citizenship emerged in the writing of the ancient Greek philosophers.
A distinction was outlined between a citizen and a resident. In Greece citizenship was
Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 190
 MPS-101/OSOU

used in a narrow scene. Citizenship was applied to property owners and taxpayers.
Women and slaves were not considered citizens.

The word Citizen has got its origin in the Latin word City. In earlier days state was
anonymous with the term city. A person who was living in a city was called a citizen.
However, citizenship was not limited to the status of a resident. Citizenship legalizes
the relationship between the individual and the state and it entails certain sanctioned
rights and prescribed duties. In recent times citizenship is used as a synonym for
nationalism. The concept of national citizenship virtually disappeared in Europe
during the Middle Ages, replaced as it was by a system of feudal rights and
obligations. In medieval times, citizenship was associated with protection by the state
as the absolute states wanted to impose their authority over their diverse population. It
was in tradition with the social contract theorists like Hobbes and Locke who
believed that it is the main aim of the sovereign to protect individual life and
property. It was a passive understanding of citizenship as the individual depended on
the state for security. This notion was challenged by the French Revolution in 1789
and ‘The Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen, the citizen was described as a
free and autonomous individual. The modern notion of citizenship seeks to strike a
balance between freedom and equality. Inequalities like caste, class, gender etc are
being eliminated by providing conditions of equality through affirmative action

The concept of citizenship is composed of three main elements or dimensions (Cohen

These 1) legal status, defined by civil, political and social rights. 2) citizens
considered as political agents, actively participating in a society’s political institutions
3)citizenship as membership in a political community.

Citizenship refers to a person’s legal status as a legal member of a sovereign state or

as a member of a nation. Citizenship refers to a person’s full membership in any state
in which he or she possesses civil and political rights. Citizenship is a bond between
an individual and a country to which the individual owes allegiance and is entitled to
protection in return. Marxists argue that citizenship is a myth as there is no equality in
a capitalist society.

T H Marshall has defined Citizenship as a “status bestowed on those who are full
members of a community. All who possess the status are equal with respect to the
rights and duties with which the status is endowed.”
A person can be recognized or granted citizenship on a number of bases. Usually,
citizenship based on circumstances of birth is automatic, but an application may be
required.

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 191

 MPS-101/OSOU

13.8 HOW TO ACQUIRE CITIZENSHIP

Citizenship can be squared and lost based on certain grounds. In some cases,
citizenship is granted automatically at the time of birth. Sometimes a person
deliberately gives up citizenship of one country and acquires citizenship of another
country. The first one is called natural citizenship and the other is Naturalised.

Natural citizenship is acquired automatically at the time of birth. Three principles 1)

jus sanguinis 2) jus soli 3) jus matrimony are followed. As per Jus sanguinis
principle, citizenship is determined by a person's paternal citizenship. For example,
children of an Indian have the right to Indian citizenship. This is called citizenship by
blood relation. By the principle of jus soli citizenship, rights are determined according
to the place of birth. A child born in the USA has the right to be a citizen of the USA.
Some countries also accept marriage as a principle to acquire natural citizenship.
Many countries like Canada, and the United Kingdom allow citizenship on this
principle.

The principle of naturalization permits a person to acquire citizenship on various

grounds laid down by the state concerned. Some states follow single citizenship and
some follow double citizenship. Single citizenship means one can be a citizen of only
one country at a time. Double citizenship allows a person to be a citizen of two
countries at a time.

13.9 CITIZENSHIP AND DEMOCRACY

Population constitutes an essential element of a state. When the population enjoys

rights, performs duty shows obligation toward the state is transformed into citizen and
constitute civil society. In a democracy, the civil society is not only ruled it also
regulates the government. In a democracy, the citizen constitutes to be an essential
and significant element. Citizens constitute to be an important component of social,
and political community. The quality of democracy and the successful working of
democracy depend mainly on the active participation of citizens. A quality citizen is
the source of an accountable government.

The relationship between citizens and democracy is bilateral. Both are dependent on
and complimentary to each other. A quality civil society results from a quality
democracy and vice versa. Democracy requires active citizens' involvement in the
policy-making process. It is the citizen who is the friend, philosopher, guide and
master of democracy.

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 192

 MPS-101/OSOU

The relationship between the citizen and democracy is manifold, continuous, and
harmonious. It is like the relationship between soil and a plant. Soil texture is
responsible for plant growth. The plant is equally helpful for soil conservation and
fertility. Without soil, there is no plant and without plants, the soil is degraded. This
can be analysed from various points as follows.

a. The state is the protector of individual life and liberty. All the theorists
regarding the origin of the state beginning from Aristotle to contractualism
agree that the state is created to provide security for the life and property of
the individual. It is the responsibility of the state to create an environment
where the individual will develop maximum. An individual has natural rights
like the right to life and liberty. It is the duty of every state to ensure the
protection of life and freedom of the citizen. In the pre-state period, the
individual had unrestrained liberty. The state ensures restricted liberty within
the framework of law so that others' liberty can be protected.
b. State Promotes Human Rights- Every individual has the right to leave life
without fear and discrimination. This is the basis of Human rights. The state
not only endeavours the right to life and liberty but also creates an
environment which will enable citizens to lead a complete life. Elimination of
discrimination of any form, protection from social evils, and satisfaction of
minimum needs is the prime duty of the state. So the state has identified some
rights and provided them legal protection. Citizens belonging to all age
groups, sex, race, colour, and caste are given these rights.
c. Respect for Public opinion. Democracy respects popular sovereignty. Public
opinion is the central theme of democracy. Democracy is chiefly based on
public opinion. In the Formation of government, the functioning of
government and even in the transfer of power public opinion plays a vital role.
The wish of the people should be reflected in government action. The state
should be careful in the expression of public opinion without any restraint.
d. The democratic obligation of the State toward the citizens. As per
contractualism, the individual has surrendered its sovereignty to the state it
has become an obligation of the state to take care of the citizen in the time of
need. With the advancement of time, various revolutions and events have
conferred more and more obligations over the state. The Chairperson of the
National Human Rights Commission, Dr Justice A.S. Anand has emphasized
that “it is the obligation of the State to ensure everyone has the right to
adequate food, education and enjoyment of highest attainable standards
of physical and mental health.”

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 193

 MPS-101/OSOU

These obligations are as follows:

• The greatest good of the greatest number.

• Maintenance of law and order.
• Protection from foreign aggression.
• Promotion of democracy and political justice
• Social welfare measures
• Economic growth
• Maintenance of harmonious relationships among different sections.
• Reduction of inequality in any form.
• Encourage political participation

13.10 CITIZEN OBLIGATION TO STATE

The role of the citizen in any political system is vital. It is the citizen which is a
member of the political, social, economic and cultural system and sub-system. Like
the quality of any product depends on its ram materials so the quality of democracy
entirely depends on the quality of citizens and civil society.

Active Political Participation- Political scientists like J S Mill and Aristotle believed
that an individual can attain full human potential only by being an active participant
in the political community. Jean Jacques Rousseau argued that individuals are more
likely to accept a law which has been formulated by their participation and it also
encourages community feeling among them. Political scientists from Aristotle to John
Dewey have argued that political participation is vital for a government and guards
against tyranny by ensuring governance through collective wisdom.

Participation in democracy normally is understood as participation in the election

process as an electorate. But participation is not limited to that. Democracy is
government by the people. So how the participants would not be limited to the
election only. It includes a broad range of activities through which people develop
and express their opinions and try to take part in and shape the decisions that affect
their lives. According to North American Review, lack of participation can lead to
"political ills" such as corruption and dishonesty among politicians as they are not
held accountable. Countries with mandatory voting have seen less occurrences of
political and voter apathy. The purposes of public participation are to promote
transparency, encourage openness in government, and build ownership of
development decisions as well as programmes and projects. Public participation

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 194

 MPS-101/OSOU

encourages citizens to be more engaged in the decision-making processes that have an

impact on their local community.

Other Civic Responsibilities. A citizen in any political system is obliged to the state
and has to take over many responsibilities as a responsible member. These are duties
and civic responsibilities the citizen is obliged to undertake. These includes:

• Loyalty to the State

• Respect for the constitution and laws of the state
• Political resistance
• Pay taxes
• Participating in the political process
• Protection of public property
• Defence of the state and crime prevention
• Knowing one’s rights and duties

13.11 SUMMARY

Democracy, citizenship and their interrelation have gone through many changes and
transformations since the days of the Greek and Roman civilizations. Greek
civilization adopted a policy of exclusion and nowadays emphasis is given to
inclusion. Democracy no more remained a political process only. Recently it has been
transformed into a way of life. Citizen is the chief element of democracy. Active
participation of citizens can make democracy successful in all respects. Both citizen
and the state has an obligation toward each other. Citizenship has gained importance
in recent days. A number of political developments of our times have contributed to
this heightened interest in citizenship. Many social movements of modern times have
striven not merely for the inclusion of excluded social groups into the body of
citizens, but also for extending and expanding the zone of equal rights. Despite such
strivings, the notion of citizenship remains deeply ambivalent.

13.12 EXERCISE

1. What do you mean by the concept of democracy. Explain its origin.

2. What is the liberal approach to democracy?
3. What was the Greek concept of democracy and citizenship?
4. What are the obligations of an individual to the state?

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 195

 MPS-101/OSOU

13.13 REFERENCE

Tangian, Andranik (2020). Analytical Theory of Democracy: History, Mathematics

and Applications. Studies in Choice and Welfare. Cham, Switzerland:
Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-030-39691-6. ISBN 978-3-030-39690-
9. S2CID 216190330.
"Definition of DEMOCRACY". www.merriam-webster.com. Retrieved 5 July 2018.
Locke, John. Two Treatises on Government: a Translation into Modern English.
Oxford English Dictionary: "democracy".
Jump up to a b
Watkins, Frederick (1970). "Democracy". Encyclopædia Britannica.
Vol. 7 (Expo '70 hardcover ed.). William Benton. pp. 215–23. ISBN 978-0-85229-
135-1.
Wilson, N.G. (2006). Encyclopedia of ancient Greece. New York: Routledge. p.
511. ISBN 0-415-97334-1.
Barker, Ernest (1906). The Political Thought of Plato and Aristotle. Chapter VII,
Section 2: G.P. Putnam's Sons.
Anderson, Christopher J.; Bol, Damien; Ananda, Aurelia (2021). "Humanity's
Attitudes about Democracy and Political Leaders".
Article IV of the Philippine Constitution.
"8 U.S. Code Part I - Nationality at Birth and Collective Naturalization". LII / Legal
Information Institute.
"Federal Act on Swiss Citizenship (part 7.1)". admin.ch. Archived from the
original on 2021-12-27. Retrieved 2021-02-15.
"Bishops act to tackle sham marriages". GOV.UK.
"Citizenship for sale: how tycoons can go shopping for a new passport". The
Guardian. 2 June 2018. Retrieved 24 August 2018.
Democracy at the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Dictionary of the History of Ideas: Democracy
Index 2008.pdf The Economist Intelligence Unit's index of democracy[dead link]
Alexis de of data sources on political regimes on Our World in Data, by Max Roser.
"Democracy", BBC Radio 4 discussion on the origins of Democracy (In Our Time,
18 October 2001)
Democracy Countries 2022 interactive map of countries at World Population Review

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 196

 MPS-101/OSOU

UNIT 14: ELITIST THEORY OF DEMOCRACY

Structure
14.1 Objectives
14.2 Introduction
14.3 Meaning of the Elite
14.4 Definitions of Elite
14.5 Historical Background of the Elitist Theory of Democracy
14.5.1 Features of the Elitist Theory of Democracy
14.6 Different Approaches of the Leading Elite Theorists
14.7 Main Assumption of the Theory
14.8 Development of the Theory
14.8.1 To Solve the Problems of Liberal Democracies
14.8.2 Mistrust in Peoples’ Capacity for Meaningful Participation in Politics
14.8.3 To Establish Elite as the Crux of Democracy
14.8.4 Futility of Political Participation
14.8.5 For Maintenance of Stability and Equilibrium in Capitalist Liberal
Societies
14.9 Explanation of the Theory
14.9.1 Democracy Means Election of Elites by the People
14.9.2 Decisions are to be taken by Elite
14.9.3 Believes in the Government by Experts
14.9.4 Emphasises the Open, Plural and Competing Nature of the Elites
14.9.5 Maintenance of Political System
14.10 Criticism of Elitist Theory
14.11 Merits of Elitist Theory of Democracy
14.12 Summary
14.13 Exercises
14.14 References

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 197

 MPS-101/OSOU

14.1 OBJECTIVE

After reading this unit, you will be able to understand

• The meaning of elite theory
• The development of elite theory.
• The different approaches of elite theory.
• The democracy and elite theory.
• The advantage of elite theory.

14.2 INTRODUCTION

During the past 30-40 years, the signified ‘scientific temper, skeptical attitude,
behavioural approach, and love for the value-free study of politics of the ‘American
Political Scientists’ has given birth to a new liberal theory of democracy which is
known as an elitist theory of democracy. This theory does not take on the high values
of democracy instead it takes into account it as a process for decision-making or just a
mechanism. V. Pareto, G. Mosca, H. Laswell, C. Wright Mills and R. Michels are the
chief exponent of this theory. They point out that the presumed rule of the people has
been abridged to the rule of elites. The prescriptive words like ‘voice of the people,
‘rule of the general will are replaced by ‘the rule of the chosen few’ with the assent of
the countless. They accentuate that disparity is a universal truth. By its very nature,
all political system has become oligarchic even so in different levels. Hence, the elite
theorists view that all of the public is ruled by the elites or a selected section of the
people. Democracy in practical terms has condensed to the government of an elite
who emerges from the people. In Laswell's words. “In every society, there are three
kinds of people; the most intellectual is called elites; others are mid elites, and the rest
are rank and file”. Consequently, in a democratic society all vital decisions, be it on
wars, revolutions, elections or parliamentary discussions, are taken by elite ones. The
people are made to comprehend that by exercising their votes they are partaking in
the political process.

14.3 MEANING OF THE ELITE

The word ‘elite’ means ‘the chosen elements in the population. The elite theory
connotes the powerfully governing class, self-chosen people who take up positions of
authority in the government, party, and organisations through elections or the
democratic process. The elite theory says that the people have the right of franchise to
choose the governing elites. They vote for this elite or that elite. The elite contest in
the elections as candidates. They are chosen by the people. Once they are elected,
they uphold their advantaged position and distance themselves from the common

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 198

 MPS-101/OSOU

people. The elite theory contains the concept that there are two groups i.e., ‘the
selected few who govern the society because of their ability and the vast masses who
are governed because they are destined to be ruled. This theory declares that men may
be equal before the eyes of the Almighty but they are not so before the eyes of man.
As per the theorists, the disparity is mostly noticed in each state and society, hence
making each one of them oligarchic at different levels. They argue that elites arise
from each kind of society and state due to the ‘ancient traditions, wealth, physical
might, economic status and ability.

14.4 DEFINITIONS OF ELITE

Elitisms have been well-defined by different authorities as follows:

According to Vilfredo Pareto, “Elite consists of those successful persons who rise to
the top in every occupation and stratum of society; there is an elite of lawyers, an elite
of mechanics and even an elite of thieves”. In the words of Gaetano Mosca, “Elite as
those minorities which are set apart from the rest of society by their preeminence in
one or more of those various distributions”. In the opinion of Robert Michels, “Elite
consists of those few persons who are able to control the apathetic, indolent and
slavish people who are susceptible to flattering and obsequious (seviler obedient) in
the presence of strength”. C. Wright Mills tells, “Elites are those who hold the leading
position in the strategic hierarchies”. Laswell defines “Elites are the power holders of
a body politic”. They are “holders of a high position in a given society”. As said by
Hunter “Those who enjoy a reputation for leadership in society and in the eyes of the
community, religion, business, various committees, legislature, civic bodies, and who
are in the real policymakers are the elite”. Presthus says that “Elites are minorities of
specialized leaders who enjoy disproportionate amounts of power in community
affairs”.

From the above-mentioned definitions, we can agree on the ensuing points:

• Distinct qualities which make up the elite.
• Rule by a minuscule minority.
• Prestige, position and prominence of the elite.
• Compacted and unified group sensing.
• Possession of power, authority, influence and other sources.

14.5 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF THE ELITIST THEORY OF

DEMOCRACY

The theory of elites is not a novelty to modern political scientists. Its origin goes back
to the ancient Greeks. Plato’s thought of ‘Philosopher Kings’ typified the

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 199

 MPS-101/OSOU

fundamentals of the elite theory chatted in the righteous attributes which the rulers
were sought after to hold. Plato’s student named Aristotle distinguished between the
‘normal’ and ‘perverted’ forms of government and aristocracy for him was the
government of the gifted and the best and the rulers intended for their vitalities for the
good of the people. Thus, the oligarchy was for Aristotle the ‘perverted and
degenerated form of government’. Even the Cabinet in a Parliamentary system is a
group of elites who are collectively the centre of attention of policy and the Prime
Minister who steers it, is the highest of all, the underpinning of the Cabinet archway.

14.5.1 Features of the Elitist Theory of Democracy

The following features are a broad sketch of the elitist theory of democracy:
1. The elites’ have strong trust in democratic norms. They have to comprehend
that they grip power so long as the electorates want them.
2. The founding of the elite-masses contact is the lone foundation of the elitist
theory of democracy. In other words, democracy creates the necessary
conditions to evolve an elite structure to run democratic institutions.
3. There should be non-interference of the people in elites’ business i.e., in the
formulation of policies and conduct of administration. In other words, in a
democracy, the actual shaping of policy goes to the hands of the elites.
4. The elites’ capabilities and comprehensions in political and public matters are
subjects beyond any interrogation. According to Presthus, democracy through
the electoral process provides ‘specialised leaders who enjoy a
disproportionate amount of power.
5. Efficient and Incisive competition among the groups is regular and time
enduring. C. Wright Mills says that ‘democracy produces power elites through
competition’.
6. The elites rule in the name of the majority. Democracy pitches a small number
of people to the topmost to rule the majority. It is a class of people who have
the highest indices in their branch of activity.
7. Circulation of the elite from among the people. In every party, group, or
organisation, elites come to power.

14.6 DIFFERENT APPROACHES OF THE LEADING ELITE THEORISTS

Vilfredo Pareto (1848-1923)

Pareto maintained that we get two strata in a population i.e., a lower stratum, the non-
elite and higher stratus, the elite which is divided into a governing elite and a non-
governing elite. Hence it is assumed that society is divided into elite and non-elite.
The people with higher abilities are included in the elite and those with lower ability
in the masses or non-elite. The elite is elite by virtue of their superior ability. Pareto’s
main concern is on the ‘circulation of elites. He said ‘History is the graveyard of

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 200

 MPS-101/OSOU

aristocracies’. In each society, there is the circulation of elites. Various ways of

circulation are – circulation between different groups of governing elite and
circulation between the elites and the other people.

Gaetano Mosca (1858-1941): Organisational Approach

According to Mosca, society is divided into two classes i.e., one class rules and the
other one is ruled. The basis for elite power is one’s capability for the organization.
According to this theory, a small group is more simply organized than an unorganized
pointless majority. Its ways of communication and information are worthier and
faster. Consequently, any minority becomes adept to formulate policies promptly.
The belief in minority control works best in political parties which are regulated by
bosses.

Robert Michels (1876-1936): Organisational Approach

Robert Michels has viewed that democracy has become in practice ‘party-cracy’.
Party organization is regulated by a group of leaders who cannot be examined or held
answerable by the people who elect them. This is owing to organizational factors like
‘party funds, control over the press, and mass media by the party in power and
psychological factors like the ‘apathy of the majority, technical incompetence’ etc. In
his ‘Iron Law of Oligarchy’ Michels has propounded that whatsoever form of
government is adopted in practice it is certainly condensed to oligarchy or the rule of
the chosen few.

Harold Laswell
Laswell divided the people into the elite and the masses. He said, “The few who get
the most of any value are the elite, the rest, the rank and file. However, he changed
his position subsequently and said the elite are those with the most power in a group;
mid-elite, those with less power; the mass, those with least power. By power, Laswell
meant decision-making power. Thus, the elite are those who make decisions and hold
the highest position of power in the political system. Although the decisions taken by
the elite are authoritative and backed by force, still they have to get the support of the
masses to be effective. In case the people do not obey, the elite loses their power.
Then the counter elite backed by the people gets power. Laswell says ‘The political
elite comprises the power holders of a body politic. The power holders include the
leadership and the social formations from which leaders typically come, and to which
accountability is maintained, during a given period”.

Burnham: Economic Approach

In explaining the theory of elite Burnham adopts the economic approach. To him, the
power of an elite depends upon the degree of control he has over the principal means

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 201

 MPS-101/OSOU

of production and distribution. Due to this control, the elite manages to get
preferential treatment in society and is able to prevent the rest of the others to enjoy
the same position in society. Thus, he vests control of the means of production in the
hands of the elite.

C. Wright Mills
According to Mills, power tends to be institutionalised. He used the term ‘power
elite’ and to him, the power elite consists of those ‘in the position of major hierarchies
and organisations of modern society. Mills has pointed out that the USA is ruled by a
monolithic elite structure called the ‘power elite’. The power elite consists of military
elites, business elites and political elites. The interests of these elites are
complementary to one another and they have similar values, beliefs, and orientations
owing to similar socio-economic backgrounds and exposure to the similar learning
process. They occupy all ‘command posts’ in society. Thus, in the words of Mills,
‘We may define power elite in terms of means of power – as those who occupy the
command posts’. He states that the so-called superiority of elites was derived from
their family and social backgrounds and the hierarchical organization of society.

Presthus
According to Presthus, ‘the elites as minorities of specialized leaders who enjoy
disproportionate amounts of power in community affairs. To him, the political elites
are those who have considerable power in social and economic formulations and
decision making and they are at the upper strata of society. They provide leadership
to the body-polity by virtue of their wisdom and efficiency and managerial capability.

14.7 Main Assumption of the Theory

• In each society, there is a cluster of persons who are more talented than the
rest and they form the elite of the given society.
• It is presumed that society is split up into elite and non-elite. The people with
greater capabilities are comprised of the elite and those with lesser capability
in masses or non-elite. The elite is elite by means of its higher capability.
• The active minority i.e., the elite governs the passive majority i.e., the masses.
• The elite is not a closed group. It is an open group which is ruled by the
principle of ‘circulation of elites. It means a few new members are let into it
and a few old members exit it. Now and then the entire set of an elite is
substituted by another set of the elite through the uprising.
• Mosca upholds that the give and take between the elite and non-elites keep up
infrequently. The elite does not rule randomly.
• In the current century, usually, three kinds of people are comprised in the
political elite such as the ‘intellectuals, managers of the industries and

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 202

 MPS-101/OSOU

bureaucrats’. Nevertheless, Mills upheld that the ‘high officials of the public
corporations, politicians and the Army Generals’ are the significant members
of the political elite.
• The rapport between the elite and the non-elite is welcoming. There is no
indispensable fight between the elite and the non-elite.

14.8 DEVELOPMENT OF THE THEORY

During the 19th century Karl Marx presented the scientific theory of the ruling class
and upheld that in a class-divided society, the economically dominant class is all the
time the ruling class. The elitist theory was set forth by liberal sociologists in reaction
to this Marxian interpretation. T. B. Bottomore observes, “the idea of elites was
originally conceived in opposition to the idea of social classes”. The social scientists
who supported this sort of study in the fifties in the United States of America (USA)
are Schumpeter, Lasswell, and C. Wright Mills. The writings of these renowned
writers methodically advanced the theory of the elite. Thus, the elite theory became
very popular in the USA in the years ensuing the Second World War. Although this
theory was first commenced in Central and Western European countries as a critique
of democracy and socialism, it was aptly adapted in the USA by a number of scholars
to elucidate political processes as they existed in their country or any democratic
country. The domineering bases of the theory, as they lay in its European origins,
were explained away by saying that there is basic inequality among the people based
on the difference in abilities, and in every society, the political power is shared by a
minority i.e., elite rather than the majority i.e., people. The exponents of this theory
also gave the idea of ‘circulation of elites’ which means movements of the individuals
and the elites from higher to lower levels and from lower to higher levels.

Causes of the Emergence of Elitist Theory

The causes of the emergence of the elitist theory of democracy are as follows:

14.8.1 To Solve the Problems of Liberal Democracies

The elitist theory of democracy has developed primarily during the current century. It
is principally focused on the institutions of democracy and the truths of the Western
liberal democratic political systems. It lays down a description, an explanation, and
occasionally a validation of the present-day political system in Western democracies.
In the contemporary world, the key problems of liberal democracies are ‘stability,
equilibrium and efficiency. At the moment liberalism wants a democracy which may
suit its industrial systems. Kariel states, “We inquire not how industrialism might be
geared to democratic ideals, but rather how democratic ideals might be geared to
industrialism …A stable, large-scale industrial society is said to imply the surrender

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 203

 MPS-101/OSOU

of democratic principles – personal autonomy, equality in decision making,

fraternity”.

14.8.2 Mistrust in Peoples’ Capacity for Meaningful Participation in Politics

The elitists oppose the principles of democracy. The concept of the elite believes in
leadership instead of rulership. They opine that in the current age, liberalism does not
have faith in the people and mass movements. The theory points out that political
power should not and cannot be possessed by the people for the reason that it at all
times reposes with an experienced and talented elite. Citizens should be transformed
into simple electorates who will have participated in the political system through
voting only. It argues that widespread participation of the majorities i.e., the masses
will convert the democracies into mobocracies and symmetry will become not
possible. For instance, on the foundation of the Fascist mass movements in Italy and
Germany, it is upheld that larger participation of people steers to the formation of
dictatorship, for firebrands and slogan-mongering politicians can effortlessly
mispresent the people to gratify their undemocratic ambitions. Like this, the elitist
theory of democracy emerged owing to distrust in the peoples’ capacity for
meaningful participation in politics.

14.8.3 To Establish Elite as the Crux of Democracy

At the root of the political truths of the Western liberal democracies, it is upheld that
the elections do not achieve the purposes which were presumed to be fulfilled by
them in the 19th century. The election procedure in liberal democracies makes it
apparent that elections are not conducted to unmask the will of the people instead
their point is just to elect the governing elite. Hence, representative democracy is
nothing but the rule of an elite and the elections are not held to elect the people’s
representatives who mirror the people’s will but to elect the leaders who in their turn
‘manufacture’ the people’s will. Whilst making the policies the peoples’
representatives do not air the will of the people instead the peoples’ will is formed
through these policies. Hence, the crux of democracy is not the people, but the elite.

14.8.4 Futility of Political Participation

It is upheld that in Western mass societies the people are neither behave reasonably
nor can rational behaviour. Leadership is vital in mass societies and the leaders are
members of the elite. There is nothing like powerful public opinion. People cannot
partake in taking political decisions on a rational basis. The citizen in a mass society
is a mass man who feels very isolated and estranged from the crowd. The archetypal
citizen drops away to an inferior level of rational performing the moment he arrives in
the political arena. From this background, it is mistaken to say that one of the
essential circumstances for the success of democracy is wide-ranging citizens’

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 204

 MPS-101/OSOU

participation. Thus, the futility of political participation has to a certain degree added
to the advent of this theory.

14.8.5 For Maintenance of Stability and Equilibrium in Capitalist Liberal

Societies
The elitist theory of democracy evolved owing to the necessity for the maintenance of
stability and equilibrium in capitalist liberal societies. It does not seek out a change in
the existing socio-economic situation. Its point somewhat is to propose a political
system which may be best suited to the existing order. So, this theory attempts to
explain the existing order and it is based on political truths. It challenges political
ideas and ideals because political ideals aim for the development of existing order and
maintenance of the existing state of affairs.

14.9 EXPLANATION OF THE THEORY

14.9.1 Democracy Means Election of Elites by the People

This theory competes with popular participation in the political system and upholds
that democracy exists where the people elect the ruling elite. Democracy means the
rule of the political elite which has been elected by the people. Without elites, there
can be no democracy. We have democracy when a contest for power between
numerous contending elites keeps on and the people’s vote decides who will have
political power. In a democracy elites contest for the votes of the people and ballot
boxes announce the outcome of this competition. In the words of Plamenatz “In a
democracy those who govern acquire the right to do so by competing for the people's
vote”. There cannot be ‘government by the people, however, there can be
‘government for the people. Hence democracy means the election of elites by the
people.

14.9.2 Decisions are to be taken by Elite

The elitist theory keeps that the real political decisions are to be taken by the elite and
not by the rank and file. This statement has been validated in the words of Mannheim
“The actual shaping of policy is in the hands of the elites, but this does not mean to
say that the society is not democratic. For it is sufficient for democracy that the
individual citizen … have at least the possibility of making their aspiration felt at
certain intervals”.

14.9.3 Believes in the Government by Experts

This theory recommends that policymaking is a multifaceted matter and it cannot be
assigned to the inexperienced public. Only capable leaders can accomplish the
function perfectly. In other words, the people’s participation in policy-making is

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 205

 MPS-101/OSOU

neither feasible nor suitable. The people are not expected to decide on political issues.
Thus, it has confidence in the ‘government by experts’ instead of ‘government by the
people. “The voters’ role is not to decide political issues and then choose
representatives who will carry out those decisions: it is rather to choose the men who
will do the deciding …The citizens’ role is simply to choose between sets of
politicians periodically at the election time”.

14.9.4 Emphasises the Open, Plural and Competing Nature of the Elites
This theory contends that democracy is the rule of elites to which each man with
needed capability and experience can have an open entrance. The elite should be
widespread and, in a democracy, even if the elite is there, it is openly enlisted and it is
closer to the rank and file. The nature of the elite will be plural and contending. In
other words, the elite theory gives a restricted role to people and this role comprises
endorsing or denying an elite in the recurring elections. It upholds that there must be
an open elitist system in the society denoting so that men with high-ranking personal
capacity must have a chance to go in it. T. B. Bottomore says “Democracy will then
be treated as a type of society in which the elites – economic and cultural, as well as
political –, are ‘open’ in principle, and are recruited from different social strata based
on individual merit. This conception is suggested by the theory of the circulation of
elites and it is stated explicitly in Mosca’s writings”.

14.9.5 Maintenance of Political System

The elitist theory of democracy is chiefly focused on the important issue of the
maintenance of the political system. The accountability of maintaining the system
cannot be assigned to the ‘masses’; it can only be assigned to the contending elites.
These elites are the angels who uphold the needed democratic stability and symmetry
in society. This symmetry can be realized by the lesser participation of the people and
by lessening the ideological gap between the parties. The political parties should not
have differing opinions on the basic issues and the people should not think that the
outcomes of elections or change of one party (elite) rule by the other will be far
different. The political parties must represent all the layers of society. Hence, the
elitist theory of democracy does not give value to ideologies and highlights chiefly
the stability and symmetry to maintain the political system.

14.10 CRITICISM OF THE THEORY

The elitist theory of democracy is panned on the following arguments:
No Longer Democratic
The elite theory is no longer democratic. Because democracy means a system where
there is a considerable amount of popular power and civilians’ participation. In this
type of democracy, the public only makes a government but they do not hold up it.

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 206

 MPS-101/OSOU

Does not Foster Equality

The theory does not have faith in equality. Rather it keeps people away from
democracy. But the fans of the theory do not back inequality by birth, in its place,
they uphold that the grounds on which elites are chosen are ‘character, perseverance,
wealth., skill’ and so on.

Creates an Advantaged Class to Rule

Even though the ruled can exercise control over the rulers it does not point out that
the ruled keep under control the rulers. All the agencies and strategies out of which
the people can probably control the rulers keep on under the control of the rulers. The
gap between the ruled and the rulers go on broadening.

Elites do not Rule with Their Innate Ability

It has been apprehended that the elite rule the county owing to their innate abilities
but it is not so. But the fact is that they rule the country as per the assent of the
people. If a minor segment of the people is estranged from the political system at that
point it may make use of strikes and marches which may paralyse the elite rule.

Decision-making does not Lie Solely in the Hands of the Elites

It is contended by eminent exponents of the elite theory that the decision in the
government is usually taken by the elites. But when the government takes a decision,
numerous things drive it and not only the desires of the elites.

Never Look to the Interest of Entire Society

The defenders of the elite theory mistakenly steer us to accept as true that the elites
consider the interests of the entire society. In reality, they never do that but keep
themselves to their interests.

Minority Rules in the Name of the Majority

The elite theory contends that given the complexity of the modern world and the
issues involved, the average citizen can't know enough to participate intelligently in
decision-making. Due to this reason, the theory asserts that the citizen's role is only to
elect the governing elites and they in turn rule the majority i.e., the common citizens.

Leaders are Overvalued and the Masses are Exploited

The elite theory has overvalued the leaders. This theory believes in the ability of the
elites to deliver goods and maintain the system, but actually, they never do that thing.
For elitists, the usefulness of the common man is in its role as the elector essential to

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 207

 MPS-101/OSOU

elect ruling elites at routine gaps. The all-around development of the individual is of
little matter to elitists. Thus, the elitists are leader-oriented.

Common Good and Public Opinion are Least Valued

The elite theorists do not give much value to the ‘common good’ and ‘public opinion.
As said by them, it is hard to describe ‘the common good and worse yet, public
opinion can be fabricated and manoeuvred.

More Elitist than Democratic

Democratic elitism is more elitist than democratic. The point remains that the rulers
i.e., the elite remain a class in themselves. The theory is more elite-oriented and its
democratic views are both formal and fantasy.

It is Anti-liberal
The elitist theory of democracy is anti-liberal. Because it does not value the
individual as a rational human being.

Elites are not Cohesive, Conscious and Conspiratorial

The chief advocates of the elite theory maintain that the elites are connected by links
of public interests and they are cohesive, conscious and conspiratorial but it is not so.
Friedrick states that ‘the elites’ powers are not cohesive because many rival groups
hold power in the society.

14.11 MERITS OF ELITIST THEORY OF DEMOCRACY

• They have Mass Base and are Chosen by the People

• They are Recruited on the Merit Principle
• Continuous Circulation of Elites
The circulation of elites is a significant trait of democracy. Pareto speaks that there
are two kinds of elites i.e., governing elites and non-governing elites. There is
constantly a well-up of transfer of elites from the non-governing to governing layer
and from governing to the non-governing layer. In each society, there is the
circulation of elites. It may be perpendicular circulation from non-governing elites to
the governing elites and vice versa, or it may be horizontal circulation of elites
between diverse groups or parties. The circulation of elites upholds permanence and
symmetry.
• Distance between the Elites and the Masses is Minimal and Temporary
• People choose from among the rural elites.

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 208

 MPS-101/OSOU

14.12 SUMMARY

From the above analysis, we can sum up that the elitist theory of democracy is of
recent origin. Elitism grew as a critique of egalitarian ideas such as democracy and
socialism. It has been developed chiefly by Western scholars. The potency of the
elitist theory of democracy rests in the point that real political power has at all times,
in all societies and ages, continued in the hands of the few i.e., a selected minority.
The theory states that there will continuously be a ruling class controlling others in
society. Though the concept of the elite is against the quality principle and majority
rule of democracy yet its advocates opine that the stability, equilibrium and efficiency
of the political system can be maintained on the limited role of the citizens. The
theory argues that mass participation will turn democracy into mobocracy then it will
be very difficult to have symmetry in the social and political system. The citizen’s
role must be limited to only choosing the governing elite. People should be far away
from the political sphere to have smooth, healthy, and vibrant functioning of
democracy.

This theory has given too much importance to elite politics. The theorists advance a
political theory which is the antithesis to democracy i.e., a government of the people,
by the people and for the people.’ They have elapsed that democracy denotes the
political participation of all sections of society against the domination of the well-off
classes. The theory mirrors the miserable fact of respecting the working of Western
liberal democracies. The theory depicts a poor explanation of the crisis-ridden
Western liberal democracies. If with the purpose of saving democracies the people
are kept away from it, then democracy has no sense of its own. The logic of
democracy is not good government, it is self-government. Even the liberals are
hesitant to accept the elite theory and a more meaningful theory of democracy is
knocking at its doors the theory of ‘participatory democracy. The theory’s worth rests
in the fact that it discloses the undemocratic nature of contemporary Western
democracies.
• The elitist theory argues that society is broadly divided into the ‘elite and the
masses owing to innate differences in the abilities and aptitudes of various
persons.
• The elite control to secure and uphold their political power due to their
superior qualities and ingenuity.
• The elite theorists contend plurality of elites to the competition amongst
numerous elites is accountable for the ‘circulation of elites. So, elites also
circulate in a democratic system.

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 209

 MPS-101/OSOU

• The elitists view the people as a passive lot.

• The elitists do not perceive any unfairness or illogicality in the grouping of
society into the elite and the people. They think of it as innate, rational and
practical and hence do not seek uprising to protect social justice.
• The elite theorists consider that the dominance of the elite is innate in social
organization. This fact itself is virtually unchangeable. Thus, the room for
social change, as stated by the elitists, is restricted to the circulation of elites
i.e. a practice by which an old-fashioned elite is substituted by a new, active
and promising elite.
• The elite theorists contend that democracy can be realised in a liberal society
if two stipulations are completed. First, the staffing of elites will be fairly open
so that the exclusively brilliant and enterprising peoples can get enough
chance to enter into the cadre of elites and the new elite is facilitated to
substitute the governing elite which might have lost its credibility. Secondly,
the common individuals have bestowed a chance to choose the ruling elites at
routine gaps i.e., regular elections based on universal suffrage.
• The elites must believe in democratic principles and processes.
• The elite should stand in for all the segments of society. This will produce the
assurance of all the people in the elite.
• The public should intervene at the minimum in the businesses preoccupied
with the elite.
• The elite should be practised and talented.
• The elite must be plural and contest for the people’s vote.
• Elites must have faith in the politics of consent instead of the politics of
conflict. There must not be an overmuch ideological difference of opinion
between the elites.
• The theory keeps people away from democracy.
• It is a conservative theory.
• The elites cannot maintain symmetry in society.
• The theory does not give any idea of the democratic social system.
• This theory does not give importance to ideologies.
• This theory regards man as the means and the democratic political system as
the end.

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 210

 MPS-101/OSOU

• This theory gives undue importance to leaders.

• This theory does not give also due importance to public opinion.
• This theory rejects the principle of social and political equality.
• This theory accepts the representative character of the government but does
not agree that government is responsible to the electorate.
• Advocates of elite democracy enumerate the various political virtues of elites
in the political arena. It is argued that elites are the educated, active and
dynamic force in modern democracy which is an essential substitute for the
mythical ideal citizen.
• Truman contends that the consensus of elites prevents a demagogic rising of
the masses referring critically to Hitler’s meteoric rise to power in a country
which lacked a leadership elite.
• Wright Mills praises the ability of elites to centralise power and so to control
decisions of national consequence.
• Tussman in his account of political obligation emphasizes the role that the
intelligent elite plays in forming the duties and opinions of ‘the clods’ i.e., the
rest of the population.

14.13 EXERCISES

1. Examine the concept of ‘political elites’ expounded by Pareto, Mosca,

Michaels and C. Wright Mills. How far can we explain political phenomena in
light of the theory of political elites?
2. Define the elite theory of democracy. Analyse the causes for the emergence of
the elite theory of democracy.
3. What is meant by the elite? Critically examine the elitist theory of democracy
in the contemporary era.
4. Discuss different approaches of the leading elite theorists of democracy.

14.14 REFERENCES

Agarwal, R. C. (1976), Political Theory: Principles of Political Science, New Delhi:

S. Chand & Company Ltd.

Arora, N. D. and Awasthy, S. S. (1999), Political Theory, New Delhi: Har-Anand

Publications Pvt. Ltd.

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 211

 MPS-101/OSOU

Ashraf, Ali and Sharma, L. N. (1983), Political Sociology: A New Grammar of

Politics, Hyderabad: Universities Press (India) Pvt. Ltd.

Asirvatham, Eddy and Misra, K. K. (2005), Political Theory, New Delhi: S. Chand &
Company Ltd.

Baral, Jaya Krishna and Baral, Sailabala (2001), Political Sociology: Concepts,
Approaches and Theories, Cuttack: Vidyapuri.

Bhagwan, Vishnoo and Bhushan, Vidya (2005), Political Theory: Principles and
Concepts, New Delhi: Kalyani Publishers.

Gauba, O. P. (2017), Political Ideas and Ideologies: Issues in Contemporary Political

Theory, Part -I, Third Edition, New Delhi: MKM Publishers Pvt. Ltd.

Goodwin, Barbara (1997), Using Political Ideas, Fourth Edition, New York: John
Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Heywood, Andrew (2007), Politics, Third Edition, New York, N.Y.: Palgrave
MacMillan.

Jain, M. P. (2012), Introduction to Political Theory, Delhi: Book Age Publications.

Kapur, Anup Chand (2000), Principles of Political Science, New Delhi: S. Chand &
Company Ltd.
Mahajan, V. D. (1988), Political Theory: Principles of Political Science, Fourth
Edition, New Delhi: S. Chand & Company Ltd.
Raj, Hans (1992), Comparative Politics, Delhi: Surjeet Publications.
Sargent, Lyman Tower (2009), Contemporary Political Ideologies: A Comparative
Analysis, Fourteenth Edition, Japan: Wadsworth Cengage Learning.
Varma, S. P. (1975), Modern Political Theory, New Delhi: Vikas Publishing House
Pvt. Ltd.

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 212

 MPS-101/OSOU

UNIT-15 : NATIONALISM: MEANING AND NATURE

Structure
15.1 Objective
15.2 Introduction:
15.3 The Concept of Nationalism
15.4 Nationalism vs. Patriotism
15.5 Meaning and Definition of Nationalism
15.6 Nationalism: the history of an ideology
15.6.1 Proto nationalism
15.6.2 Early modern nationalism
15.6.3 Nationalism in the age of revolutions
15.6.4 Twentieth-century nationalism
15.6.5 Post-Cold War nationalism
15.7 Nationalism and the serving of political interests
15.8 The impact of nationalism
15.9 Varieties of Nationalism
15.9.1 Ethnic nationalism and Civic nationalism
15.9.2 Classical Nationalism:
15.9.3 Liberal Nationalism
15.9.4 Features of Liberal Nationalism
15.9.5 Reactionary nationalism
15.9.6 Radical nationalism
15.9.7 Economic nationalism
15.10 Summary
15.11 References
15.12 Exercises

15.1 OBJECTIVES

After reading this unit you will be able to understand

• Understand the concepts of nationalism.

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 213

 MPS-101/OSOU

• Know the history of Nationalism: the history of an ideology

• Know the varieties of nationalism

15.2 INTRODUCTION

Modem nationalism originated in Europe in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.

In the nineteenth century, it became a general European movement and in the
twentieth, it has become one of the most explosive political philosophies that rule the
world today. Thus, the concept of nationalism is of European origin. Later it was
exported to different parts of the world. A tough attachment to the motherland where
one is born and brought up, to local traditions and to established territorial authority
had been prevalent throughout history with varying strength.

15.3 THE CONCEPT OF NATIONALISM

Nationalism is a political principle which holds that the political and the national unit
should be congruent. The term nationalism is as debatable as its etymological and
historical roots: nationalism is a theory, an ideology, a movement, a consciousness
and a creed; but it is also an expression of mania. Nationalism is the sense of political
togetherness that makes people feel patriotic about a country, connected to a ‘we-
group’, and distinct from the ‘they-group’.

As an Ideology, nationalism implies that the nation should be the primary political
identity of individuals. Nationalist ideology maintains that the paramount political
loyalty of individuals should be patriotically extended to the nation-state, the political
vehicle of the nation’s self-governance. Nationalists maintain that each nation is a
‘natural’ unit, and the bonds that bind a nation are both natural and good. For the
individual, therefore, the welfare of the nation is a supreme good. Nationalism places
loyalty to the nation above all other forms of political and social loyalty. Religious
beliefs are never above national identity. Nationalism presumes that other beliefs
must give way to loyalty to the nation if there is a clash. Nationalism not only makes
the nation the focus of political loyalty but also insists that the nation is the only
proper basis for the organisation of any political activity.

15.4 NATIONALISM VS. PATRIOTISM

Nationalists believe that their shared interests surpass all other individuals, religious
and group interests. They also rally against any philosophy that supersedes national
loyalties. They are not necessarily militaristic, but they may quickly become so if
threatened. Nationalists' feeling of superiority differentiates their nationalism from

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 214

 MPS-101/OSOU

patriotism. Patriotism equates to pride in one's country and a willingness to defend it.
Nationalism, on the other hand, extends that to arrogance and potential military
aggression. Nationalists believe they have a right to dominate another nation because
of their superiority. They may feel that they are doing the conquered a favour. This
attitude can encourage militarism.

15.5 MEANING AND DEFINITION OF NATIONALISM

Nationalism is nothing more than a heightened national feeling, a sense of belonging

and devotion to a particular nation. Nationalism comprises also "the dogma that the
individual lives exclusively for the nation with the corollary that the nation is an end
in itself, and the doctrine, too, that the nation is or should be dominant if not supreme
among other nations and should take aggressive action to this end. It is synonymous
with patriotism (feeling of loyalty) which means love of the land by birth. This love
of the land was extended to one’s village, tribe, nation or nationality. This patriotism
or the feeling of loyalty to the place, community or the ruler or the king has long
existed in man’s mind. The fixation on man’s supreme loyalty to his nation or
nationality marked the beginning of die age of nationalism. And the fusion of
nationality and patriotism led to the birth of modem nationalism. Many authors
virtually equate nationalism with the consciousness of one's nationality.

According to Ernest Gellner, “Nationalism is a political principle that holds that

national and political units should be congruent.”

Hayes writes: "In simplest terms, nationalism may be defined as a fusion of

patriotism with the consciousness of nationality." Nationalism is defined similarly by
Snyder, "Nationalism is a condition of mind, feeling, or sentiment of a group of
people living in a well-defined geographical area, speaking a common language,
professing a literature in which the aspirations of the nation have been expressed,
being attached to the common traditions, and, in some cases, having a common
origin." Nationalism is not only consciousness or a feeling of belonging to a certain
nation; it is also, according to the definition by experts of the Royal Institute of
International Affairs, "a desire to forward the strength, liberty, or prosperity of a
nation, whether one's own or another." Furthermore, nationalism used to be
recognized as an ideology of national independence, an ideological movement for the
attainment and maintenance of self-government. Smith defines nationalism as:
1) Securing fraternity and equality among co-nationals or citizens, by integrating
them into a homogenous unit;
2) Unification in a single nation-state of extra-territorial co-nationals;

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 215

 MPS-101/OSOU

3) Stressing cultural individuality through the accentuation of 'national'

differentiae;
4) a drive for economic autarchy and self-sustaining growth;
5) Attempts to expand the nation-state, to maintain international power and
status;
6) Renewing the cultural and social fabric of the nation through sweeping
institutional changes, to maintain international parity.

Plamenatz states that nationalism emerges when national identity is threatened or felt
to be inadequate. "Nationalism is the desire to preserve or enhance a people's national
or cultural identity when that identity is threatened, or the desire to transform or even
create it when it is felt to be inadequate or lacking."

Prof. Hans Kohn defines the concept of nationalism as “a state of mind, in which the
supreme loyalty of the individual is felt to be due to the nation-state”. He further adds
that “it is living and active corporate will. It is this will which we call nationalism, a
state of mind inspiring the large majority of people and claiming to inspire all its
members. It asserts that the nation-state is the ideal and the only legitimate form of
political organization and that the nationality is the source of all cultural creative
energy and economic well-being.”

The Cambridge Encyclopedia attempts to define the concept of nationalism as:

“A political doctrine which views the nation as the principal unit of political
organization. Underlying this is the assumption that human beings hold the
characteristic of nationality, with which they identify culturally, economically and
politically... Nationalism is thus associated with the attempts by national groupings to
secure independence from dominance by other nation-states. It is often associated
with die struggle against colonialism.”

According to Prof. C.J.H. Hayes, nationalism is a modem emotional fusion and

exaggeration of two phenomena nationality and patriotism. Nationality is not an
inborn characteristic. The individual’s feeling that he belongs to a nation is the result
of a continuous process of social learning and habit forming. Nationality in this sense
need not be a political entity. It is primarily a cultural phenomenon, although it often
takes political form. Nationality is mainly a matter of psychological feeling. It is a
belief on the part of its members that they belong together and have a common
heritage and common traditions.

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 216

 MPS-101/OSOU

From the above definitions it seems clear that nationalism may be defined in basically
two ways: either as a concern for one's nation, a desire to enhance its strength and
prestige, or, as an overestimation, exaggerated praise of one's nation.

Furthermore, nationalism may be defined as a sentiment, loyalty or sympathy which

binds a group of people together through common institutions and culture, and thus
creates unity among them. Apart from nationalism as an ideology, it has a concrete
meaning. It may be taken to mean some particular way or ways of manifesting the
national spirit and may be defined as the total social, political and national aspirations
of the people. In this sense, the ideas controlling the life and actions of a nation would
constitute its nationalism.

It is shapeless and, like religion, has diverse forms meaning different things to
different persons. It is essentially a state of mind, a strong feeling of personal
identification with people around and consciousness of common destiny with them,
acquired through a long habit of association. Thus, it is not a political doctrine but a
human phenomenon, a continuously changing process, both in time and place. It is
also understood as the universal urge for ‘liberty and progress.’

Nationalism comprises several basic elements: common race, language, religion,

traditions, history, geography, war, etc.; but none of these factors by itself is enough
to create a nation or nationalism. For instance, race is an important factor in the
formation of nationalism, but not quite essential. It is not necessarily true that every
nationality must have one race. In Canada, for example, die two main races -the
English and the French - form one nationality. In India, several races contribute to the
Indian nationality. Nationalism usually leads to war if unchecked, and war again
leads to nationalism.

15.6 NATIONALISM: THE HISTORY OF AN IDEOLOGY

One might identify a number of stages in the development of nationalism:

• Proto-nationalism;
• Early modern nationalism;
• Nationalism in the age of revolutions;
• Twentieth-century nationalism;
• Post-Cold War nationalism

15.6.1 Proto Nationalism

There was some sense of national differences and identifications with kings, princes,
languages and cultures among Europeans before the European Renaissance. The

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 217

 MPS-101/OSOU

context was the Universalist claim of loyalty to Christendom in the shape of the Pope
and the Holy Roman Emperor in the face of the threat from the Muslim world.

15.6.2 Early Modern Nationalism

The disintegration of Christendom during the later Renaissance helped to create a
sense of national identity. Shared language, progressively more open ‘national’
culture, ‘national’ religion, and constant wars all helped strengthen the sense of
national differences, national identity and support for strong centralised states that
increasingly had the ability to create national loyalty among their populations.

15.6.3 Nationalism in the Age of Revolutions

Agrarian and industrial revolutions in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries broke
down many older loyalties. The nation was the replacement of monarchs. The
American Revolution and the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic wars played vital
roles in the development of modern nationalism. Before these revolutions, an
individual’s loyalty was essential to another individual like the monarch or king. The
main form of political loyalty shifted from the monarch to the ‘nation’, or the
‘people’, from an individual who embodied the nation to a group. Although
nationalism today is often related to the political right, during the nineteenth century
it was usually a liberal and revolutionary ideology, certainly up to the revolutions of
1848. It played a vital role in the unification of Italy (1861) and Germany (1871), and
the struggles for national liberation of oppressed nations such as the Irish, the Czechs
and the Poles throughout the nineteenth century. The idea of the nation became more
concrete as people identified the nation as consisting of their fellow citizens, rather
than some remote monarch. Nationalism legitimized a state’s actions and was often
used as a means to suppress opposition to the state’s policies and rule – hence the
development of the vague but powerful concept of the ‘national interest’. By the end
of the nineteenth-century nationalism was spread from Europe to other parts of the
globe.

15.6.4 Twentieth-century nationalism

Nationalism as a compelling ideology for human affairs was century challenged in the
twentieth century because wars were too destructive. The loss of life for nationalism
was to be freed nationalism. A significant degree of resentment to nationalism grew
during the century, especially after the world wars. Efforts were made to distinguish
between imperialist nationalism (‘bad’) and anti-colonialist nationalism (‘good’).
Whatever the form it took, nationalism remained widely perceived as a dangerous and
destructive force; open to little rational explanation and unleashing extreme violence
and intolerance into politics. Fascism had nationalism at the core of its values.
However, the concept of socialist internationalism also gave way to nationalism.

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 218

 MPS-101/OSOU

Communist regimes, such as the Soviet Union and Communist China, created
‘socialism in one country and quarrelled over the ‘proper’ interpretation of the
meaning of socialism along national lines while pursuing traditional national foreign-
policy goals. Nationalism remained the most powerful and widespread ideology in the
world, influencing, challenging and defeating other ideologies.

15.6.5 Post-Cold War nationalism

The collapse of the Soviet Union, the end of the Cold War and the adoption of
globalization in many countries became a driving force for change in world society.
There were also increasing attempts to strengthen international institutions by non-
state actors as alternatives to states and state actors in international politics. Due to
increasingly internationalism through cooperation, mutual understanding and mutual
interdependence thought nationalism appeared to be a weakening idea; but it refused
to die.

15.7 NATIONALISM AND THE SERVING OF POLITICAL INTERESTS

Over the last two centuries, there has been a massive social and technological change,
involving scientific enquiry, greater rationality, the development of a more
centralized state, greater social mobility and the prospect of social reform. These
massive changes created modern wisdom of history and also an understanding of the
processes of social change. Now, Nationalism is intimately linked to the interests of
society as a whole. It is a product of the development of modern statehood and
industrialization. Pre-industrial society and its deep emotional ties to traditional
national identity were the major casualties of this vast social and intellectual change.
Nationalism became an ideological tool of elites to mobilise people to welcome
change. The nation was claimed to have deep historical roots, compensating people
for the loss of their strong pre-industrial social ties.

Opponents who counter these social and economic changes also use nationalism as
support, appealing to some ancient ethnic past in their attacks on modernisation. This
may manifest itself as an ethnic nationalism fighting the nationalism of a dominant
national group within a state or against other competing national groups. For
example, during the nineteenth century, the subject nations of the Austro-Hungarian
Empire resisted Austrian and Hungarian domination and also asserted their national
identity against each other and, especially, Jews. The empire was a seething pot of
nationalism, ethnic rivalries and anti-Semitism. The political uses of nationalist
ideology depend on how one sees it in relation to other major ideological traditions.
The conservatives, Liberals, Social Democrats, and Marxists have different views on
nationalism.

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 219

 MPS-101/OSOU

(a) Conservatives: Conservatives emphasize that nationalism creates social

cohesion and social order. All people have a place and a valued role in the
nation. The organic nature of the nation must be upheld, as being a natural
social unit. Conservatives do not accept that patriotism and nationalism must
lead to aggression and imperialism. Nevertheless, nationalism in late
nineteenth-century Britain was used by the Conservatives as part of ‘popular
imperialism’ to encourage political support for themselves and to support
overseas expansion.
(a) Liberals: Liberals from time to time claim nationalism is intimately linked to
‘freedom’, both national and individual. It is a means by which the common
interests required to enable a society to function can be balanced against the
necessary individualism of a free-market economy and a free society. Indeed,
the idea of national self-determination and free trade is one of the major
means by which world peace can be established.
(b) Social democrats: Social democrats have a related view to the liberals. They
make more of a class analysis of nationalism, but many social democrats will
stress the importance of the nation over the individual. In practice, social-
democratic governments in modern democracies have shown themselves to be
as nationalistic as governments of other ideological hues.
(c) Marxists: Marxists proclaim that nationalism is an ideological instrument of
the ruling capitalist classes and, as such, has developed out of
industrialization. Traditional Marxists claim that capitalists use nationalism to
divert the working class from their ‘true’ predicament by encouraging a sense
of commitment to ‘national’ identity: imperialism is one of the many
unacceptable uses to which nationalism is put in the service of the interests of
the capitalist class.
(d) Modern Marxists: Modern Marxists have argued that nationalism can have
legitimacy when it is identified with the struggle for national independence of
an oppressed nation, or when it is used as the means of challenging class
power within a nation.

15.8 THE IMPACT OF NATIONALISM

Nationalism is the most powerful ideology in modern politics, we need to identify and
discuss the ways in which it has made an impact and transformed the modern world.
Nationalism forms a vital focus of identification for citizens. The membership of a
nation is emotional and intangible. The nation can assure people’s basic
psychological needs to identify with and belong to a group, to be part of something
greater than oneself, and to take part in something that lifts one out of the ordinary
people repeatedly complain that their lives are subject to uncomfortable pressures.

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 220

 MPS-101/OSOU

Unemployment, poverty, and social customs are all regular stress, in many ways, the
essential powerlessness of most people. Identification with the nation, that ‘super-
individual’ made of a collective ‘we’, can give individuals a sense of power, control,
glory, success, and greatness that they rarely, if ever, achieve in mundane, everyday
life.
Membership of a nation is bound up with notions of collective consciousness.
Increased contact with other national groups can stimulate the consciousness of
national differences, cultivate a feeling of ‘us and them’ divisions, and create and
reinforce an impression of superiority over peoples of other nations. Constant
conflicts between nations over centuries reinforce that sense of national identity. Irish
nationalism was forged during the struggle against English power. English and
French, Turk and Greek, Serb and Bosnian Muslim, Indian and Pakistani, all are
nationalities wrought by centuries-old conflicts and wars, the cheering of victories,
the brooding on defeats. History, or mythologized history, is therefore a crucial
feature of nationalism. National identification is inspired by such myths, but also by
flags, national anthems, martial music, founding fathers of the nation, images of the
country – usually rural, rather than urban – and the national stereotyping of the
members of other nations.

Nationalism not only creates a sense of national identity. It presents the state as the
most important form of political organisation for a people. Nationalism promotes the
idea that ‘nations’ should be governed by a ‘state’ made up of members of that nation.
National self-determination strengthens the validity of the state as an expression of
‘nationhood’.

Though, nationalism is only one of a number of ideologies competing for the

attention and allegiance of an individual. Other ideologies, such as socialism or
Marxism, may challenge nationalism. There may be competing nationalisms, such as
‘British’ and ‘Scottish’, or even a growing sense of ‘European’ identity. One can
understand in these circumstances that a certain degree of psychological turmoil may
affect a person.

15 .9 VARIETIES OF NATIONALISM

15.9.1 Ethnic nationalism and Civic nationalism

Historically, the concept of nationalism has been divided between “civic” and
“ethnic” nationalism. The former is linked to the ideas of the French political
philosopher Jean Jacques Rousseau in the context of the French revolution.
According to Rousseau's civic nationalism, the nation is built on demos the people

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 221

 MPS-101/OSOU

and sovereignty thus belonged to the nation and the people. Civic nationalism is
grounded in inclusionary values of freedom, tolerance and equality.

Ethnic nationalism identifies a close connection between national members linked by

race, language or other cultural attributes that persist over centuries. One is a member
of the nation by birth and bloodline, by genetics, and bears an identity that cannot be
sloughed off by becoming a citizen of another nation or acquired by choice and filling
in an application form.

Civic nationalism is the basis of American, French or British nationalism. It identifies

the common historical ties that exist between the people in the nation, ties that can
easily be extended to other people through citizenship and the loyalties and
obligations associated with acquiring that citizenship. There is no ethnic limitation
on who can potentially be a member of the nation. However, one should not forget
the difficulty of attaining this form of nationalism in practice. Existing members of
the nation may have very strong objections to large-scale additions of people to the
nation by the acquisition of citizenship.

15.9.2 Classical Nationalism:

Classical nationalism is the political agenda that visualize the creation and
maintenance of a fully sovereign state owned by a given ethno-national group
(“people” or “nation”). It is the primary duty of each member of the group. Classical
nationalists are usually cautious about the kind of culture they protect and promote
and about the kind of attitude people have toward their nation-state. This vigilant
attitude carries some possible dangers: many elements of a given culture that are
universal or simply not recognizably national may fall prey to such nationalist
enthusiasms. Classical nationalism puts different supplementary demands on
individuals, from buying more home-produced goods in preference to cheaper
imported ones from other nations. Classical nationalism is not only concerned with
the creation of a state but also with its maintenance and strengthening.

15.9.3 Liberal Nationalism

Liberalism is fairly an old political ideology. The Western Enlightenment had refused
to accept moral goals as absolute truths; the English Glorious revolution (1688) had
denounced the divine rights of the kings; The French Revolution gave the cardinal
ideas of ‘Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity and the American War of Independence a
little earlier (1775-76) emphasized the declaration of human rights. According to
Liberal Nationalism of thought, human beings are naturally divided into nations, and
they have certain territorial limits to which they are equally entitled. Each should be
sovereign, self-governing, with its political institutions. National rights are equivalent

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 222

 MPS-101/OSOU

to human rights and are also universal. A world of sovereign nations would respect
each other’s national rights and co-operate readily within international institutions. It
is taken for granted that such nationalism would involve respect for minority rights,
whether ethnic, religious or linguistic. This ‘acceptable’ form of nationalism was
popular among liberals and some socialists during the early nineteenth century.
Liberal nationalism was and remains a very strong element in many modern
nationalist movements.

15.9.4 Features of Liberal Nationalism

a) Individual Liberty: Liberalism is essentially an ideology of liberty and love
for individual liberty is unquestionable. It has become libertarianism. For
liberals, liberty is the very essence of human personality. It is a means to one’s
development.
b) Individual-centred theory: Liberalism begins and ends with the individual.
For liberals, the individual is the centre of all activities, the individual is the
end while all other associations, including the state, are the means, which exist
for the individual.
c) Capitalistic Economy: Liberalism prescribes a free-market economy. I
advocate for the capitalistic mode of economy. It believes in private property
and considers property as a right of the individual. It supports maximum profit
as the only motive; capitalistic mode of production and distribution as the only
essence; the market forces as the controlling means of economy.
d) Limited State: Liberalism sets the idea of a limited state. They view the state
as a means for achieving the good of the individual. They go up against all
types of totalitarian states. In their opinion, a more powerful state means a less
free individual. Locke used to say, “because the functions of the state are
limited, so are limited its powers.”
e) Opposed to Traditions/Superstitions: As liberalism arose as a reaction
against traditions/superstitions, it is, by its nature, opposed to all reactionary
measures. Liberalism, emerging from Renaissance and Reformation, stood,
and stands, for reason and rationalism. As against the feudal model of man as
a passive being, liberalism favours a model of a man who is more active and
more acquisitive.
f) Democracy: Liberalism is an exponent of democratic government. .
Liberalism, McGovern says, is a combination of democracy and
individualism. It seeks to establish a government of the people, by the people
and for the people; a government that functions according to the Constitution
and constitutionalism; a government that upholds the rule of law; a
government that secures the rights and liberties of the people

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 223

 MPS-101/OSOU

g) Welfare: Liberalism is closely associated with welfarism. The liberal concept

of state activity is one where the state serves the people. In other words, the
welfare state is a ‘social service’ state. Welfarism, as a state activity, is the
idea that the state works for the welfare of the people.

15.9.5 Reactionary nationalism

Reactionary nationalism became a means by which the national identity of some
citizens was crushed or suppressed to ensure the unity of the larger nation. This was
especially the case in the sprawling multi-national Austro-Hungarian and Russian
empires, both struggling with rising nationalism and both trying to assert imperial
nationalism and unity over the demands for greater self-government and
independence of restless subservient nations. After 1870 with the setting up of the
Third French Republic and the unification of Germany, reactionary nationalism
became ever more powerful in Europe. It was linked with an organic national identity
as expressed in religion, social order, traditional hierarchies, language, culture and
customs. Overseas, it involved imperialism, racism, and claims of the right to rule
over ‘inferior’ nations, along with vigorous political and military competition with
other nations. Such nationalism repudiated socialism and liberalism and instilled itself
as an ideological alternative in the minds of the newly enfranchised masses. It is
often indifferent to events outside the nation, so long as the rest of the world leaves it
alone.

15.9.6 Radical nationalism

Radical nationalism has been connected with a desire to change the domestic and/or
international order, an order that seemed to need changing in favour of one’s nation.
It takes two major forms. One form of radical nationalism was an essential rightist
form of politics; the other was the mainstay of anti-colonialism.

Radical-right nationalism disapproves of the old order, the privileged classes and
outdated institutions, all of which were condemned as having betrayed the nation. It
advocates for active and dramatic social, economic and political reform, intended to
renew the nation. It sought to offer the working classes an alternative to the
internationalism of communism and socialism after the Russian Revolution.

Radical nationalism may, however, take an almost opposite path: anti-colonial

struggle against reactionary or imperialist radical nationalism. In this form, it uses the
values of nationalism to make a case for independence from a political structure that
is seen as oppressive by the members of the nation. It appeals to the principle of
national self-determination and the logic of national independence. Nationalism
played a significant role in the ending of the European empires during the decades
after the Second World War. After independence, this form of nationalism involved

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 224

 MPS-101/OSOU

resistance to Western economic, cultural and political domination (condemned as

‘neo-colonialism’) and led many developing world states to nationalise the assets of
foreign-owned multi-national corporations based in their countries.

15.9.7 Economic nationalism

Economic nationalism is a form of nationalism that especially advocates domestic
businesses. It tries to defend the home corporations against multinational corporations
that benefit from globalism. It advocates protectionism and other trade policies that
protect local industries. Economic nationalism also prefers bilateral trade agreements
between two countries. It says that multilateral agreements benefit corporations at the
expense of individual nations. It would even adopt unilateral agreements where the
stronger nation forces a weaker one to adopt trade policies that favour the stronger
country. To compensate for less trade, economic nationalism advocates
increased fiscal policies to help businesses, including increased government spending
on infrastructure and tax cuts for businesses. Economic nationalism opposes illegal
immigration, arguing that it takes jobs away from domestic workers. President
Trump's immigration policies followed nationalism when he built a wall on the
border with Mexico.

15.10 SUMMARY

Nationalism is a political principle which holds that the political and the national unit
should be congruent. Nationalism is an ideology and movement that promotes the
interests of a particular nation, especially to gain and maintain the
nation’s sovereignty over its homeland. Nationalism is an ideology expressed by
people who ardently believe that their nation is superior to all others. These feelings
of superiority are often based on shared ethnicity, language, religion, culture, or social
values. Nationalism aims to defend the country’s popular sovereignty—the right to
govern itself—and to protect it from the political, social, and cultural pressures posed
by the modern global economy. In this context, nationalism is seen as the direct
opposite of internationalism and globalism. Economic nationalism strives to protect a
nation’s economy from foreign competition, often through the practice of
protectionism. Carried to its extremes, nationalism can lead to authoritarianism and
the exclusion from society of certain ethnic or racial groups. Nationalism unavoidably
creates a competitive “us” vs. “them” or “love it or leave it” attitude among the
people.

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 225

 MPS-101/OSOU

15.11 EXERCISES

1. Discuss different models of nationalism.

2. Define the concepts of nationalism and discuss its nature.
3. Discuss the history of Nationalism as an ideology.
4. Discuss various types of nationalism

15.12 REFERENCE

• Anderson, B. Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origins and Spread of

Nationalism (NLB/Verso, 1983).
• Gellner, E. Nations and Nationalism (Blackwell, 1983).
• Griffin, R. ‘Nationalism’, in R. Eatwell and A. Wright (eds.), Contemporary
Political Ideologies (Pinter, 1993)
• Heywood, A. ‘The Nation’, in A. Heywood, Political Ideas and Concepts: An
Introduction (Macmillan, 1994)
• Heywood, A. ‘Nations and Nationalism, in A. Heywood, POLITICS:
Macmillan, 1997
• Eric Hobsbawm, Nations and Nationalism since 1780: Programme, Myth,
Reality, Cambridge, 1990.

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 226

 MPS-101/OSOU

UNIT-16: MULTICULTURALISM

Structure
16.1 Objectives
16.2 Introduction
16.3 Two Theories of Multiculturalism
16.3.1 The melting pot theory
16.3.2 The salad bowl theory
16.4 Justification of Multiculturalism
16.5 Bhikhu Parekh's View
16.6 Differentiated and Multicultural Citizenship
16.7 Models of Multiculturalism or Multicultural citizenship
16.7.1 National Minorities
16.7.2 Immigrants Groups
16.7.3 Isolationist Ethno- Religious Groups
16.7.4 Metic
16.7.5 African- Americans
16.8 Critique of multiculturalism
16.9 Summary
16.10 Exercise
16.11 Reference

16.1 OBJECTIVES

After reading this unit, you will be able to understand:

• core ideas of the concept of multiculturalism
• the two main theories and justification of multiculturalism
• Bhikhu Parekh's views on multiculturalism
• differentiated and multicultural citizenship
• models of multiculturalism
• critiques of multiculturalism

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 227

 MPS-101/OSOU

16.2 INTRODUCTION

The main goal of multiculturalism is to accommodate the various cultural diversity of

diverse identities within a single state. Multiculturalism is a serious critique of the
nation-building model adopted by liberal democratic states and emphasizes the
incorporation of marginalized, stigmatized and left-out sections of societies, including
national minorities, immigrants ethnoreligious isolationist groups, women, LGBTQ
(lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender queer or questioning) people, and people with
disabilities, into the mainstream of project of nation-building. Citizenship as a
common right is often challenged by the proponents of multiculturalism.
Multiculturalism becomes an important construct for the 21st century. It allows
societies and peoples to be unified through an appreciation of their cultural
differences and linguistic background. The main merits of a multicultural society are
equity, social justice and freedom. All the peoples all over the world seek to achieve
these merits within their societies. ( Moawad, N.M.I and El Shoura, S.M.:2017: p.1).
Longley describes multiculturalism as the method by which a given society deals with
cultural diversity. Based on the core premise that people from frequently quite
different cultures can coexist happily, multiculturalism expresses the view that
society is enriched by preserving, respecting, and even encouraging cultural diversity.
In the area of political philosophy, multiculturalism refers to the ways in which
societies choose to formulate and implement official policies dealing with the
equitable treatment of different cultures(Longley:2021). Using Gutmann Taylor and
Yung as examples, Sarah Song(2020) has argued that multiculturalism is closely
related to "identity politics," "the politics of difference," and "the politics of
recognition," all of which share a commitment to revaluing disrespected identities and
altering dominant patterns of representation and communication that marginalize
particular groups.

16.3 TWO THEORIES OF MULTICULTURALISM

According to Robert Longley (2021), the "melting pot" and "salad bowl" theories,
which are frequently used to explain how various cultures are merged into one
society, best describe the basic theories or models of multiculturalism.
16.3.1 The melting pot theory of multiculturalism assumes that various immigrant
groups will tend to "melt together," abandoning their cultures and eventually
becoming fully assimilated into the predominant society. Typically used to describe
the assimilation of immigrants into the United States, the melting pot theory is often
illustrated by the metaphor of a foundry's smelting pots in which the elements iron
and carbon are melted together to create a single, stronger metal—steel. According to

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 228

 MPS-101/OSOU

Sarah Song (2020), it is accurate to claim that those who support multiculturalism
agree to oppose the notion of the "melting pot," in which people from minority
groups are expected to adapt to the majority culture. Multiculturalism proponents
favour an ideal in which individuals of minority groups can preserve their own
collective identities and customs. In the case of immigrants, supporters stress that
multiculturalism is compatible with, not in conflict with, their assimilation into
society; diversity policies offer more equitable conditions for their integration.

16.3.2 According to the salad bowl theory, people coexist in diverse societies while
retaining at least some of the distinctive traits of their native cultures. Like a salad's
ingredients, different cultures are brought together, but rather than coalescing into a
single homogeneous culture, retain their distinct flavours. In the United States, New
York City, with its many unique ethnic communities like "Little India," "Little
Odessa," and "Chinatown" is considered an example of a salad bowl society. The
salad bowl theory asserts that people don't need to give up their cultural heritage to be
considered members of the dominant society. This is a more liberal theory of
multiculturalism than the melting pot. ( Longley:2021).

16.4 JUSTIFICATION OF MULTICULTURALISM

Multiculturalism like democracy is the order of the day. A multicultural society that
fails to cultivate the spirit of multiculturalism may eventually disintegrate like
Yugoslavia and Serbia. To secure social justice and freedom it is necessary that
people belonging to different cultures should be given due representation in the
decision-making process of government. (Gauba:2010: p. 348). Multiculturalism
enables different cultures within a community to flourish and treat each other with
mutual respect. This is a necessary condition of an individual's freedom as well. As
Joseph Raj(1994) noted that individual's autonomy is closely related to having access
to his culture. It enables him to make good choices befitting a good life if his culture
is flourishing and getting respect from others. Hence the sense of identity is closely
linked with an individual's self-fulfilment. Charles Taylor (1998) by citing the case of
Quebec in Canada and the case of Hispanics in the United States argues about politics
of recognition and the challenge of new arrivals, as crucial problems for modern
liberal democratic societies. He asserted that to retain their democratic character these
societies should accept the existence of various cultural and ethnic groups affirming
their identity and particularity, sometimes in association with a widespread diaspora
of co-nationals. Their incorporation into the mainstream of nation-building is an
essential condition for a successful democracy. Will Kymlicka (1995) is a chief
exponent of multicultural citizenship. By expanding Marshall's three generations of
rights (civil, political, and social citizenship rights), he wants to create a new border
cultural consensus. He refers to the fourth generation of rights as "cultural citizenship
Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 229
 MPS-101/OSOU

rights." For deeper integration of minority groups in a multicultural society, he

proposed polyethnic rights, special representation rights, and self-government rights.
In order to accommodate the cultural heterogeneity of numerous ethnic groups in a
single state, Kymlicka's multiculturalists' perspective on holy ethnicity advocates for
altering social structures (Shafir: 1998: p.18).

16.5 BHIKHU PAREKH'S VIEW

Bhikhu Parekh (2002), an ardent exponent of multiculturalism, refutes Taylor's idea

of multiculturalism and Kymlicka concept of multicultural citizenship and advances a
theory of multiculturalism which promotes a dialogue between diverse cultural
groups. According to Parekh, The proper conditions of the interactions between many
cultural communities are at the heart of multiculturalism. One culture can't provide
the rules guiding all of its claims, including the principle of justice, without engaging
in an equal and open discourse with all of the other cultures. By definition, a
multicultural society is made up of different cultures or cultural communities, each
having its unique meanings, significance, and perspectives on people and the world.
As a result, it cannot be effectively analysed from within the conceptual framework of
any certain political ideology, which is inherently biased towards different cultural
perspectives since it is ingrained in that doctrine and its structural foundation. (
Parekh: 2000: p.13).

Parekh asserts that no cultural recognition will be successful without a just share of
economic and political power. By rejecting naturalism, which believes relatively
fixed nature of human beings and incidental culture and by denouncing culturalism
which believes in socially and culturally constructed human beings with only a
minimal set of features in common, Parekh argues for dialogue and interplay between
human commonalities and cultural differences. This will pave the way for balanced
and thoughtful compromises on even the most controversial cultural issues in the
modern multicultural societies of today. Thus, Parekh's views on multiculturalism are
closely associated with humanism and the idea of cosmopolitanism.

16.6 DIFFERENTIATED AND MULTICULTURAL CITIZENSHIP

Iris Marion Young(1990) focuses on 'politics of difference' and insists on

'differentiated citizenship rights. Politics of difference is closely associated with
politics of identity. These both are identical. To maintain its difference from other
groups a disadvantaged group wants to preserve its identity. Politics of difference
itself implies the idea of liberation or emancipation. An interesting number of
theorists argue that different groups can be accommodated into common citizenship

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 230

 MPS-101/OSOU

by adopting what I.M. Young calls differentiated citizenship, which implies that
members of particular groups should receive accommodations not only as individuals
but also through their groups and that the extent of their rights would be dependent in
part on their membership in such groups.

These rights are referred to as group-differentiated rights by Kymlicka. Young insists

that people should put aside their cultural attachments and experiences and embrace a
broad point of view, saying that such a society is one in which some groups are
privileged while others are subjugated. The unified public will tend to be dominated
by the perspective and interests of the wealthy, marginalising and silencing those of
others ( Bhargava& Acharya: 2008: pp.141-142). Therefore, "the provision of
particular group-based legal or constitutional rights to national minorities and ethnic
groupings" constitutes differentiated citizenship (Mintz, Tossutti and Dunn 2013: p.
89).

According to Kenneth A. Stahl, "this model of differentiated citizenship would

incorporate people into the political life of the city as members of their cultural
subgroups rather than as individuals. Differentiated citizenship, thus, enables
historically marginalized groups to assert collective rights that have often been denied
them under the individualistic liberal model. These groups would have the ability to
exercise control over places with which they share deep cultural, economic and
political ties... Differentiated citizenship rejects both the republican insistence upon a
homogenous political community that rigidly polices its borders as well as the
postmodern refusal to draw boundary lines at all. Ultimately, differentiated
citizenship is problematic because it reinforces the marginalization of the groups it
wishes to empower by legitimizing the status quo of racially identified places" (Stahl:
2020).

16.7 MODELS OF MULTICULTURALISM OR MULTICULTURAL

CITIZENSHIP

On the other hand, Multicultural citizenship is the idea that ethnic, racial, gender and
other minoritized groups can maintain significant aspects of their community cultures
and values and freely participate in the national civic culture and community. Will
Kymlicka is the chief exponent of multicultural citizenship. He is an ardent advocate
of minority rights in a liberal democratic state. He identified five models of
multiculturalism - a) national minorities, b) immigrant groups, c) isolationist ethno-
religious groups, d) metrics,e) and African-Americans (Kymlicka:2005: pp.348-365).
These ethnocultural groups are major areas of nation-building where these cultural

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 231

 MPS-101/OSOU

identity groups are in discomfiture with the process of nation-building projects

adopted by the modern liberal democratic states.

16.7.1 National Minorities

According to Will Kymlicka, the national minority are those communities that were
fully established and carried on in their ancestral country before assimilating into a
larger community. They are further separated into two groups: indigenous peoples
and substate nations. Substate nations are those which had a majority state in the past
but currently, they do not have a majority state, though may have sought such a state.
Indigenous peoples are those whose traditional lands were confiscated by foreign
settlers. They are integrated into states ruled by foreign monarchs either violently or
by treaties. Sami, Inuit, Maori, and American Indians are some instances of
indigenous people, while Basques (Spain), Flemish (Belgium), Scots and Welsh
(UK), Puerto Ricans (North America), and Quebecois (Canada) are some examples of
sub-state countries. It has been difficult for them to be included in nation-building
initiatives. Native Americans have suffered far worse effects than other national
minorities as described by Kymlicka in both North America and Europe. (
Kymlicka:2005:p.350.).

16.7.2 Immigrants Groups

According to Kymlicka, immigrants are the groupings created when people and
families decide to emigrate from their native country and settle in another nation,
frequently abandoning their friends and family behind (Kymlicka:2005:p.352-353).
Immigrants are those who are legally settled and have gotten citizenship from other
countries but face the unfair terms of integration in new countries. Pakistani in the
UK, Sikhs in Canada, Mohammedans in the USA, and Indians in Australia are
prominent examples of the immigrant model. These countries have the traditional
policy of governing immigration. Campaigns to assimilate immigrants into society's
mainstream have not encountered resistance from the immigrant population, rather
they are demanding fairer terms of integration because having had legal citizenship
they are feeling themselves being discriminated against, marginalized and alienated in
new countries. The actual integration of immigrant groups into the concept of
citizenship has been a serious challenge for liberal democratic states.

16.7.3 Isolationist Ethno- Religious Groups

Isolationist ethnoreligious groups are those that actively distance themselves from
society at large and refrain from taking part in politics and civic society. They are
referred to as "half citizens" by Jeff Spinner. because they voluntarily abdicate both
of the obligations of democratic society (cited in Kymlicka:2005: pp.355-356). This
type of voluntary marginalization offers a stiff challenge to nation-building.

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 232

 MPS-101/OSOU

Hutterites in Canada, Amish in the United States and Negroes in Andaman and
Nicobar in India etc., are some examples of such groups. Their accommodation into
the mainstream of society has been a tedious task for democratic states.

These three types of groups, mentioned above, have all been the targets of democratic
states for diffusing a common societal culture in process of nation-building
integration. On the other hand, Metics and African Americans have been excluded or
prohibited from national integration.

16.7.4 Metrics
Metrics are typically referred to as irregular or illegal immigrants, people who have
overstayed their visas, entered the nation unlawfully, and are thus not authorised to
reside in the country. There are other notable cases of this, including Mexicans in
California, Turks in Germany, North Africans in Italy and Spain, and Bangladeshis in
India. Metrics frequently live on the periphery of a wider society because they
encounter significant barriers to inclusion on all fronts—legal, political, social, and
psychological. Metrics are undocumented immigrants, no doubt. Although they didn't
expect or have any right to citizenship when they arrived in foreign countries, the
conditions of their entry eventually lose their significance. The metrics are now
effectively living here and are de facto contributing members of the community who
require assistance (Kymlicka: 2005: pp. 357-359).

16.7.5 African- Americans

Blacks and African-Americans are descendants of Africans who were transported to
America as slaves between the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Black people
were treated as slave-property owners under slavery rather than as citizens or even as
people. (Kymlicka 2005, page 360) Historically, African-Americans were not allowed
to join the country as citizens. They were effectively stripped of their nationality and
refused citizenship in the United States. The dispersed black population do not
constitute an effective nation or effective electoral pressure. Even the American civil
rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s was unable to achieve true integration.
Blacks continued to be disproportionately at the bottom of the economic ladder
notwithstanding the civil rights movement's legal triumphs and the integration of
more recent (non-white) immigrants (e.g. Asian Americans). However, the option of
separatists has also become impossible due to the territorial dispersion of black
people. There is no part of the United States where black people make up the
majority, even if they did have a similar black national identity (Kymlicka:2005:
p.361) Kymlicka suggests that for actual integration of African-Americans
affirmative action, delimitation of electoral constituencies, and subsidized assistance
to their educational and cultural identities could be significantly instrumental.

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 233

 MPS-101/OSOU

Effective national integration of Muslims in India can also be sought through

Kymlicka's formulation.

However, Kymlicka suggests the following ways in which the demands of national
minorities and ethnic groups may be accommodated within a framework of
democratic citizenship: (a) by protecting the common rights of all citizens and (b) by
accommodating cultural diversities through special legal and constitutional measures,
with members of specific groups being guaranteed special rights or Young(1990)
would call them, group-specific or group -differentiated rights. In this context
Kymlicka suggests three categories of group-differentiated rights: self-government,
poly-ethnic, and special representation rights. Self-government rights affirm some
degree of political independence or geographical dominion for national minorities,
which they argue was not given up as a result of their (often unwilling) integration
into the larger state. Secondly, poly-ethnic rights concern themselves with specific
rights of immigrant communities and represent a challenge to the Anglo-conformity
model, which assumes that they should abandon all aspects of their ethnic heritage
and be assimilated into existing cultural norms and practices. Third and lastly, special
representation rights have evoked interest amongst national and ethnic groups as well
as non-ethnic categories- women, the poor and the disabled. This translates into
democratizing the structure of the state by making it more representative. (
Bhargava& Acharya: 2008: p. 142).

Mustafa Ettoualy writes that many scholars think of multiculturalism as an official

policy to deal with conflicts between majorities and minorities; that is, to develop
institutions that will be able to deal with the injustices produced by intolerance.
Multiculturalism redresses injustices, where minority ethnic groups had to suppress
their cultural identities and practices upon migration and acculturate themselves into
the dominant group in the host country. Multiculturalism emerged to stop racial
discrimination in the developed nations of the West. For example, in the early 1970s,
multiculturalism emerged in Canada as a response to the open challenges of the
French-speaking to the dominance of English-speaking Canadians. Kymlicka claims
that "most people, most of the time, have a deep bond to their own culture is
empirical in nature." Thus, perhaps what makes Kymlicka's defence of minority rights
distinctively liberal is that they are endorsed only in so far as they are consistent with
respect for the freedom or autonomy of individuals ( cited in Ettoualy: 2012).

16.8 CRITIQUE OF MULTICULTURALISM

Some cosmopolitan critics contend that theories of multiculturalism are premised on

an essentialist view of culture. Cultures are not distinct, self-contained wholes; they

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 234

 MPS-101/OSOU

have long interacted and influenced one another through war, imperialism, trade, and
migration. People in many parts of the world live within cultures that are already
cosmopolitan, characterized by cultural hybridity (Song: 2020).

Some scholars argue that multiculturalism causes a division within the country for
example; this division is created when a specific group refuses to speak the
commonly accepted language and resists becoming part of the culture by refusing, for
example, to recognize the same holidays and demanding recognition of their own.
Multiculturalism will have negative effects on the country because it boldly stands as
an obstacle in the way of developing or sustaining common goals and national bonds
( Sias: 2004: P.1).

Some critics argue that multiculturalism essentialisms cultural affiliations that will
lead to cultural ghettos and undermine national unity. Moreover, multiculturalism
increases anxiety about the loss of cultural homogeneity and national identity. The
political theorist Brian Barry argues that "some forms of multiculturalism can divide
people when they need to unite to fight for social justice.” BY attacking William
Galston, Will Kymicka, Bhikhu Parekh, Charles Taylor, and Iris Young Berry
contends that multiculturalists think all cultures have distinctive characteristics that
should be protected merely because they exist and are regarded as distinctive. In the
sense that "multiculturalists tend to be intellectual magpies, scooping up alluring
ideas and putting them into their theories without caring too much about how they fit
together," Barry is sceptical of their claims". If we accept this multicultural notion of
protecting culture for its own sake, then the abuse of women, children, and prisoners
can all be cloaked as legitimate parts of any number of the world’s cultures. This
view leads to protecting genocide as a cultural practice(Barry: 2001).

The major critics against multiculturalism claim that even in liberal democracies,
multiculturalism is seen as leading to disunity. It has been accused of impeding the
full integration and acceptance of immigrants into the host country where individuals
are seen first as ethnics and only secondly as Neil Bissondath has therefore proposed
as an alternative, ‘reasonable diversity within vigorous unity (Bissondath: 1994: p.
224).

By citing the arguments of Green, Eisenberg, and Spinner-Halev, Sarah Song (2020)
contends that the issue of "internal minorities" or "minorities within minorities" has
sparked one of the most passionate discussions about multiculturalism. She contends
that granting protections to minority groups may reinforce their oppression of weaker
members.

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 235

 MPS-101/OSOU

In conclusion, we can say that the concept of multiculturalism highlights the major
challenges of the modern liberal democratic states having cultural diversities. For a
successful democracy, it is necessary to give recognition and protection to the cultural
traits of the diverse groups living together. This is not the case only associated with
Europe and America, even a multicultural and plural society like India needs to
maintain the cultural identities of diverse cultural groups to ensure proper
consolidation of democracy and goals of social justice.

16.9 SUMMARY

In this unit, you have studied the basic concept and core assumptions of
multiculturalism, its two main theories, justification of Multiculturalism, Parekh's
views on it, differentiated and multicultural citizenship, models of multiculturalism
and its major critiques. The main goal of multiculturalism is to accommodate the
various cultural diversity of diverse identities within a single state. Multiculturalism is
a serious critique of the nation-building model adopted by liberal democratic states
and emphasizes the incorporation of marginalized, stigmatized and left-out sections
of societies, including national minorities, immigrants ethnoreligious isolationist
groups, women, LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender queer or
questioning) people, and people with disabilities, into the mainstream of project of
nation-building. Using Gutmann Taylor and Yung as examples, Sarah Song(2020)
has argued that multiculturalism is closely related to "identity politics," "the politics
of difference," and "the politics of recognition," This is a necessary condition of an
individual's freedom as well. As Joseph Raj(1994) noted that individual's autonomy is
intimately tied up with access to his culture. Charles Taylor (1998), citing the case of
Quebec in Canada and the case of Hispanics in the United States, argues about
politics of recognition and the challenge of new arrivals as a crucial problems for
modern liberal democratic societies. By expanding Marshall's three generations of
rights (civil, political, and social citizenship rights), he wants to create a new border
cultural consensus. He refers to the fourth generation of rights as "cultural citizenship
rights." Bhikhu Parekh (2002), an ardent exponent of multiculturalism, refutes
Taylor's idea of multiculturalism and Kymlicka concept of multicultural citizenship
and advances a theory of multiculturalism which promotes a dialogue between
diverse cultural groups.

Iris Marion Young(1990) focuses on 'politics of difference' and insists on

'differentiated citizenship rights. Politics of difference is closely associated with
politics of identity. Differentiated citizenship, implies that members of particular
groups should receive accommodations not only as individuals but also through their
groups and that the extent of their rights would be dependent in part on their

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 236

 MPS-101/OSOU

membership in such groups. Multicultural citizenship is the idea that ethnic, racial,
gender and other minoritized groups can maintain significant aspects of their
community cultures and values and freely participate in the national civic culture and
community. Kymlicka identified five models of multiculturalism - a) national
minorities, b) immigrant groups, c) isolationist ethno-religious groups, d) metrics,e)
and African-Americans. Kymlicka identifies three types of the group- differentiated
rights: (1) self-government rights, (2)poly-ethnic rights and (3) special representation
rights for greater integration of minority or ethnocultural groups with the mainstream
of society.

Multiculturalism receives severe criticism also. Some critics argue that theories of
multiculturalism are premised on an essentialist view of culture. Some scholars argue
that multiculturalism will have negative effects on the country because it boldly
stands as an obstacle in the way of developing or sustaining common goals and
national bonds. BY attacking William Galston, Will Kymicka, Bhikhu Parekh,
Charles Taylor, and Iris Young Berry contends that multiculturalists think all cultures
have distinctive characteristics that should be protected merely because they exist and
are regarded as distinctive. Barry is sceptical about their arguments. The major critics
against multiculturalism claim that even in liberal democracies, multiculturalism is
seen as leading to disunity. Sarah Song (2020) contends that the issue of "internal
minorities" or "minorities within minorities" has sparked one of the most passionate
discussions about multiculturalism.

However, the concept of multiculturalism highlights the major challenges of the

modern liberal democratic states having cultural diversities. For a successful
democracy, it is necessary to give recognition and protection to the cultural traits of
the diverse groups living together.

16.10 EXERCISE

1) Define multiculturalism. Discuss its core concerns.

2) Examine two theories of multiculturalism in view of their justification.
3) Discuss in brief Bhikhu Parekh's views on multiculturalism.
4) What do you mean by differentiated citizenship? Illustrate.
5) Critically examine the models of multicultural citizenship. Outline its major
critiques.

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 237

 MPS-101/OSOU

16.11 REFERENCES

Barry, B.( 2001). Culture and Equality: An Egalitarian Critique of Multiculturalism.

Cambridge. Harvard University Press.

Bhargava R. & Acharya, A.( 2008). Political theory: An introduction. Pearson

Education India. New Delhi.

Bissondath, N. (1994). Selling Illusions: The Cult of Multiculturalism in Canada.

Penguin Books.

Ettoualy, Mustafa. (2012). The Multiculturalist Theory. Accessed from

https://www.moroccoworldnews.com/2012/08/53020/the-multiculturalists-theory-2.
on 29th June 2022.

Gauba, O.P.(2010). Political Ideas and Ideologies: Issues in Contemporary Political

Theory. Macmillan: New Delhi.

Kymlicka, Will. (2005). Contemporary Political Philosophy: An Introduction.

Oxford: Delhi).

Longley, Robert. (2021). "What Is Multiculturalism? Definition, Theories, and

Examples." Accessed from ThoughtCo, Dec. 6, 2021, thoughtco.com/what-is-
multiculturalism-4689285.

Mintz, E., Tossutti, L., and Dunn, C.( 2013). Canada's Politics: Democracy, Diversity
and Good Government. Loose-Leaf Version. Canada. Accessed from
https://www.abebooks.com/book-search/author/eric-mintz-livianna-tossutti-
christopher-dunn/

Moawad, N.M.I and El Shoura, S.M.(2017). Toward A Richer Definition of

Multiculturalism Accessed from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319064787_ [accessed Jun 24 2022].

Parekh, Bhikhu. (2000). Rethinking Multiculturalism: Cultural Diversity and Political

Theory. Basingstoke. Macmillan Press/Palgrave.

Raz, Joseph. (1994). Multiculturalism: ALiberal Perspective Access from

https://www.dissentmagazine.org/article/multiculturalism-a-liberal-perspective.

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 238

 MPS-101/OSOU

Sias, Russell. (2004). The Negative Aspects of Multiculturalism. Accessed from

https://sites.google.com/site/ufirenow/Home/the-negative-aspects-of-
multiculturalism.

Shafir, Gershon. (1998). The Citizenship Debates: A Reader. University of Minnesota

Press. London.

Song, Sarah. (2020). "Multiculturalism", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

(Fall 2020 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL =
<https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2020/entries/multiculturalism/>.

Stahl, Kenneth A. (2020). Differentiated Citizenship. CUP. Accessed from

https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/local-citizenship-in-a-global-
age/differentiated-citizenship/B83B73A1623BB4B295B454AF42220632.

Taylor, Charles. "The Dynamics of Democratic Exclusion." Journal of Democracy,

vol. 9 no. 4, 1998, p. 143-156. Project MUSE, doi:10.1353/jod.1998.0068

Young, I.M.(1990). Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton. NJ: Princeton
University Press

Odisha State Open University, Sambalpur Page 239