Wednesday 14 December 2016
Comparative political thought ALMOND
Almond’s Model:
Structural Functionalism
by Nitisha Articles
Basic Concepts Defined:
We have already analysed in details the general
systems theory as propounded by David Easton
which is also called Easton model. But Easton is
not the only political scientist who can be
credited with being associated with this model
or concept. In fact there are a number of
political scientists who are actively associated
with general systems theory and one of them is
Gabriel Almond who died in 2003 at the age of
91. Almond’s model is popularly known to the
students of political science as structural
functionalism.
It is so called because Almond has explained his
views keeping these structures of political
system in mind. He has, in fact, stressed that
every political system has some structures and
these structures perform certain functions
meant for it. In his noted work The Politics of the
Developing Areas Almond has drawn our
attention to an interesting issue. He says that
though there are differences between developed
and developing countries so far as structures
are concerned, the structures perform almost
similar functions.
What is structure? Here the word structure is
used in a sense different from sociological
sense. Structure means institutions. Every
political system has several institutions such as
political party, legislature, executive, judiciary,
etc. Almond claims that all these were
previously called institutions. But he has
changed the nomenclature.
Why has he changed the names? The reason
forwarded by Easton is that he wants to adopt
concepts and categories which will be suitable
for analysing political systems which are
radically different from each other. So he wants
to adopt such terms as will enable him to
analyse and compare all (or at least major)
political systems.
His innovative terms do not end with structure.
He uses political system instead of state. In his
opinion the term state is mainly a legal concept.
But political system includes many other ideas
besides legality. Almond further says that
“power” is a legal term and for that reason he
cautiously avoids the use of the term state.
The concept function can conveniently be used.
Even the word “function” is more
comprehensive. He also prefers role to office. In
this way Almond has made strenuous efforts to
acquaint his readers with the new concepts and
he has expressed his intention of doing this.
Elaborating his intention Almond has said: “the
search for new concepts is not an ad hoc
matter. It reflects an underlying drift towards a
new and coherent way of thinking about and
studying politics that is implied in such slogans
as behavioural approach…… We are not simply
adding terms to an old vocabulary, but rather
are in the process of developing or adapting a
new one”.
Almond claims that the new terms do not
constitute a corpus of conceptual vocabulary
but they indicate a new dimension of the nature
of political science. He wants to revolutionise
the system and study of political science.
Almonds’ conceptualisation process has really
revolutionised the political science in general
and comparative politics in particular.
Why Structural Functionalism?
In structural functionalism the structures of the
political system (such as political parties,
interest groups, legislatures, executives,
bureaucracies and courts) are not clearly
defined and properly patterned and yet inspite of
this their importance is immense. In the opinion
of Stephen Wasby, “In structural-functional
analysis, one determines the important
structures and then attempts to trace out the
functions of these structures”. In every political
system there are certain structures and these
cannot be confused with each other. So far as
the functions are concerned there is certain
amount of overlapping among the function of
the structures. But this overlapping should not
be over-emphasised.
This is a very common picture of every political
system. The structural functionalism enables us
to have a clear conception about the role of the
various structures. This is essential at least for
two purposes. One is a student of political
science will be able to compare various political
systems.
The second is, the student will be able to assess
the various aspects of the political system.
From the structural-functionalism we come to
know about the operational process of the
political system. In the concept structural
functionalism the students must know both the
structures and the functions.
Origin of Structural
Functionalism:
Davies and Lewis in their noted work writes:
“structural functional analysis can be said to
have originated in the biological and mechanical
sciences. Within the social sciences it was first
used in anthropology and was later developed
and refined as a mode of sociological analysis,
predominantly by Talcott Parsons”. For clarity
and smoothness of thought and analysis we
want to make a very brief survey of the origin.
Emile Durkheim (1858-1917) is treated as “an
inheritor of a long French tradition of social
thought”.
Durkheim elaborately analysed the basic
structure of society, their various parts, different
social systems and he did this in an organismic
outlook. Society, according to Durkheim, is to be
viewed as an entity. There are several parts of
any society and all of them are well-connected.
The parts perform their allotted duties but the
parts are not completely independent on each
other. He also viewed that the systems or the
parts of the society are quite normal divisions
and the functions which they perform are also
normal.
Two renowned anthropologists Bronislaw and A.
R. Radcliffe-Brown were heavily influenced by
the organicism of Durkheim. Radcliffe-Brown
(1881-1955) believed that the concept of
function applied to human society is based on
an analogy between social life and organic life.
Radcliffe-Brown’s views have been summarised
by Turner in the following manner:
(1) One necessary condition for survival of a
society is minimal integration of its parts.
(2) The term function refers to those processes
that maintain this necessary integration.
(3) In each society structural features can be
shown to contribute to the maintenance of
necessary solidarity. In this way, briefly stated,
Radcliffe-Brown has offered us a picture of
structural functional feature of any system
especially social system.
Bronislaw Malinowski (1884-1947) is another
sociologist who introduced structural
functionalism to the study of society. He has
divided the society into three system levels: the
biological, the social-structural and symbolic.
Turner writes: “At each of these levels one can
discern basic needs or survival requisites that
must be met if biological health, social structural
integrity and cultural unity are to exist. These
system levels constitute a hierarchy with
biological systems at bottom. He stressed that
the way in which needs are met in one system
level sets constraints on how they are met at
the next level in the hierarchy”.
Talcott Parsons:
The structural functionalism has also been
elaborated by Talcott Parsons who “was most
probably the most dominant theorist of his time.
It is unlikely that any one theoretical approach
will so dominate sociological theory again”. This
assessment of Turner about Parsons is not
without any reason.
In the fields of sociology and structural
functionalism the contribution of Parsons is still
gratefully remembered by the students of
sociology and political science. Parsons has
pointed out four important prerequisites of
structural functionalism and these we can treat
as the main functions of structural
functionalism.
These are adaptation, goal attainment,
integration and latency. Adaptation involves the
problem of securing from the environment
sufficient facilities and then distributing these
facilities throughout the system. Goal
attainment denotes the problems of establishing
priorities among system goals and mobilising
system resources for their attainment.
Integration refers to the problem of coordinating
and maintaining viable interrelationships among
system units.
Latency implies two related problems—one is
pattern maintenance and the other is tension
management. There are many actors in the
social system and how they play their role that
requires to be ascertained. In every system
there arises tension and conflict and all these
should be managed. In any system there are
many subsystems and all these functions are
performed by them.
Characteristics of Political
System:
Mention has been made that Almond’s analysis
has built-up a huge structure of general
systems theory and he has thrown light on the
subject from different angle.
According to Almond all the political systems
have in common four main characteristics. He
has also admitted that there may be minor
variations in some of the characteristics but the
main theme remains unaltered.
The characteristics are:
(1) There are simple and complex political
systems in different parts of the globe. The
industrialised matured societies of the West
have complex political structures where as the
developing countries of the Third World have
simple structures. Almond’s point is that all the
political systems have political structures.
Even the simplest political systems have
political structures which may be compared with
the developed structures of the West. Almond
has admitted that the comparison between two
types of structures may not be completely
relevant but they can be compared. Moreover, -
the emergence of the new state systems in the
Third World encouraged Almond to devise a
technique that will be helpful for comparison.
Here lies the credit of Almond.
2. There may be differences between the
systems and structures but all the systems
perform almost same political functions. For the
purpose of comparative analysis the frequency
of the performance can be studied.
3. The political structures may be specialised,
non-specialised or may be primitive. But
thorough study of the various aspects has
revealed that the structures are multifunctional
which means that though the functions of a
particular structure have been specifically
stated, in practice the structure performs other
functions.
For example, the chief function of the court is to
adjudicate, but in practice it performs legislative
functions. In the same way the legislative wing
of the government has been found to act like a
court of law. In liberal democracies the pressure
groups participate in the legislative function. In
both democratic and authoritarian systems the
multifunctional character of structure is found.
4. All political systems are mixed systems in the
cultural sense. The culture of any political
system is the mixture of modern and traditional
cultures. From the study of the cultures of
various political systems Almond has found that
there cannot exist any all-modern and all-
primitive cultures. Even the cultures of primitive
political systems are partially moulded by the
developed cultures of the West.
Of course there may be difference of
predominance of any particular culture on the
cultural aspects of another system. For
example, during the British rule Indian society
and culture were influenced by British culture.
But at the same time the British culture and
society could not keep itself away from Indian
culture.
However, the percentage of mixture may be
different in both cases. There are also stages in
the process of assimilation. These are the four
main characteristics of all the political systems
and by finding out the characteristics Almond
has made attempt to generalise the political
systems.
Functions of Political Systems:
The chief objective of Almond was to make a
comparative study of the major political
systems and for that purpose what he has done
ultimately became the foundation of general
systems theory/analysis. For the purposes of
comparison Gabriel Almond has divided the
functions of political system into two broad
categories—Input functions and output
functions.
Easton and Almond have borrowed the terms—
input and output from economics for the
purpose of analysing the functions and
behaviour of political systems and their different
structures. This approach helps comparison
considerably.
The input functions are:
1. Political socialisation and recruitment.
2. Interest articulation
3. Interest aggregation
4. Political communication.
The output functions are:
1. Rule making
2. Rule adjudication
3. Rule application.
If we focus our attention to these two types of
functions performed by political systems we
shall find that the input functions are generally
done by the nongovernmental organisations and
agencies which include pressure groups,
interest groups, parties, educational institutions.
The government has very little part to play in the
input functions.
While performing the input functions the
agencies have little scope to violate the
common law and existing legal and
constitutional structure. But if the agencies have
in mind the idea of changing the existing
structure, they can do otherwise.
Input Functions:
(i) Political Socialisation and Recruitment:
The first input function of the political system is
political socialisation and recruitment. One
expert of political socialisation calls it “a
continuous learning process involving both
emotional learning and manifest political
indoctrination”. Through the process if political
socialisation people gradually adjust themselves
with the political system. “Political system”
defines Almond “is the process of induction into
the political culture. Its end product is a set of
attitudes—cognitions, value standards and
feelings —towards the political system, its
various roles and role incumbents”.
In developed political systems of the West
schools, churches, political parties and other
voluntary organisations generally play the
leading role in socialising the people. The
socialisation process is not very much
prominent in the Third World states but the very
existence can never be denied. As society
gradually develops the process of socialisation
also proceeds.
From the study of political system Almond has
come to know that socialisation may be latent
and manifest. When the transmission of values,
ideas, thoughts, feelings etc takes place in a
direct way, it may be called manifest
socialisation. Latent political socialisation does
not take place directly.
The values, thoughts, ideas, feelings of one
system are influenced by those of other
systems. Both latent and manifest socialisation
work simultaneously in any political system and
both are important. In order to revolutionise the
people’s thought and outlook the latent method
is resorted to.
When the boundaries of political systems are
not clearly demarcated the differences among
the different cultures are found to be
insignificant. In that situation political
socialisation fails to assume a clear shape. But
when the boundaries are well-settled the impact
of one culture falls upon the culture of another
political system and vice versa. In this way the
political socialisation advances.
Defining political recruitment Almond says:
“Political recruitment function takes up where
the general political socialisation function leaves
off. It recruits members of the society out of
particular subcultures, religious communities,
statuses, classes, ethnic communities and the-
like and inducts them into specialised roles of
the political system, trains them in approapriate
skills, provides them with political cognitive
maps, values, expectations and affects”.
The definition is self-explanatory. Here also the
non-governmental orgnisations such as political
parties, groups etc. recruit persons and train
them to perform specific functions. The purpose
of political recruitment is to train the general
public to make them suitable for the political
system.
The objective of both political socialisation and
recruitment is to ensure the stability of the
political system. If any external force threatens
the political system the citizens, on their part,
can resist it and socialisation makes it possible.
Plato suggested a scheme of education for the
ideal state whose purpose was to train the
citizens to make them suitable for ideal state. It
is also socialisation.
(ii) Interest Articulation:
The second important input function of political
systems is interest articulation. In every political
system, specifically pluralist political system,
citizens claim the fulfilment of their demands or
materialisation of interests.
But there is a big gap between the raising of
demands and their realisation. Demands must
be placed before the competent authority in an
articulated form and they must pass through
proper channel. So we find that both the
articulation of demands and their placement are
vital.
From the analysis of Almond we come to know
that the interest articulation is a complicated
and broad concept. Many agencies are involved
in this function.
Almond has pointed out four such agencies:
(1) Institutional interest groups.
(2) Non- associational interest groups,
(3) Anomic interest groups and
(4) Associational interest groups.
Institutional interest groups generally consist of
legislatures, executives, bureaucracies etc.
These institutional interest groups articulate
interests (of their own) in various ways and they
exert pressure upon the authority for the
realisation of interests.
The institutional interest group is a formally
organised group and consists of professional
persons. Particularly the bureaucracy in various
ways creates pressure upon the authority for the
fulfilment of their demands and the authority is
forced to act accordingly.
There are non-associational interest groups.
People form associations or groups out of their
sociable character. Man is by nature a social
animal. But non-associational interest groups
are formed on the basis of different grounds.
Such groups are formed by persons of the same
religious, ethnic or family, community. Affinity
develops among the people of the same religion,
ethnic group, or kinship.
The members of the non-associational groups
complain about their non-delegation to the
legislature, or the non-fulfilment of their
legitimate demands. The presence of non-
associational interest groups is very common in
developing societies because of the great
attachment of people to religion, kinship, caste
etc.
It has been found that these groups or
subgroups fight together against the authority
and on political consideration the authority of
the political system is forced to comply with
their demands.
In almost all political systems riots or militant
demonstrations frequently erupt and these are
led by men who want to snatch away few
privileges from the political system. These
groups are called anomic interest group. These
groups have no permanent structure or
organisations. On certain important political or
social or economic issues they spontaneously
form agitation or lead demonstrations.
Emphasising their role Almond says that the
anomic groups besides articulating interests
also perform adjudication functions, rule
application function such as to free the
prisoners and communication function which
means communicating the news to various
anomic interest groups.
Finally we shall deal with associational groups.
Such groups are formed by the trade unions,
businessmen, industrialists or professional
groups and persons. The articulation of interest
by such groups is quite prominent in all political
systems. Trade unions create pressure upon the
industries or authority in support of their
demands and if necessary launch agitation.
This form of technique to articulate interest is
not only common but also very effective. In
democratic countries the right to form
association and through it to process is an
important right and workers and professional
groups taking this opportunity agitate for
realisation of demands.
In the opinion of Almond: “The performance of
the interest articulation function may be
manifest or latent, specific or diffuse, general or
particular, instrumental or affective in style”.
Sometimes the groups or agitators place
specific demands before the authority such as
revision of pay scale or lessening of working
hour etc. This is called manifest interest
articulation. If the groups demand in indirect or
ambiguous ways and do not demand specific
solution and do not place clear formulations it
may be called latent interest articulation.
The failure of the political system forces the
people to demand that the present political
system should be changed. Capitalism is to be
replaced by socialism. The demands may be of
general type such as poor people should be
given more financial relief and rich people ought
to be taxed more. In all these forms, interest
articulation takes place.
(iii) Interest Aggregation:
Interest aggregation is the third function of the
political system. In our analysis of the second
function we have noted that various
organisations, groups and agencies as well as
political parties raise demands and grievances
in an articulated form. Now the problem is mere
placing of demands or problems is not sufficient
for their translation into fruitful policies. For that
reason the issue of interest aggregation arises.
Various demands and claims are to be
aggregated into a consolidated form and after
that the political system takes action.
“Aggregation may be accomplished by means of
the formulation of general policies in which
interests are combined, accommodated or
otherwise taken account of or by means of
recruitment of political personnel, more or less
committed to a particular pattern of policy”.
The political system cannot take separate steps
or adopt measures for each set of demands and
claims. Naturally a general policy is formulated
which covers all demands and claims. Almond’s
specification of interest articulation and interest
aggregation does not always work in all
systems. In developed political systems these
two are clearly demarcated but not in less
developed systems.
In democratic countries the process of interest
articulation and interest aggregation are
different because the voluntary organisations
demand-to the government on behalf of the
common people and these are passed through
different channels to the authority. But in
authoritarian system of administration or in
tribal society both the functions are performed
by same person.
(iv) Political Communication Function:
So far we have noted the three different
functions of political system—political
socialisation, interest articulation and interest
aggregation. These three functions are
performed by means of political communication.
All sorts of interests are articulated through
communication and, again, they are aggregated
by means of communication. Naturally, without
communication the political system will not be
in a position to discharge any function.
In every political system there must exist a
network of elaborate communication system
and it must have enough autonomy to work
independently. We can treat it as an important
precondition and it is essential for successful
functioning of the political system. All the
organisations must have freedom to articulate
interests, these, after being aggregated, must be
communicated to the relevant authority.
Since in authoritarian systems there is no
elaborate and effective network of political
communication a political system is generally
characterised by the political communication
function. “Thus it is essential in characterising a
political system to analyse the performance of
the communication function. Just because of
the fact that all the political functions are
performed by means of communications
political communication is the crucial boundary-
maintenance function.” In one area or
subsystem claims are made and it is
transmitted to another subsystem through
communication.
The success of the input functions of the
political system to a large extent, depends upon
the efficient and independent network of
communication. But is unfortunate that such a
network is not always available in all systems.
Governments are inclined to control
communication.
Output Functions:
Output functions of political system include—
rule making, rule application and rule
adjudication. Gabriel Almond and many others
have made thorough study about the output
functions of various political systems and he
has concluded that the output functions or the
governmental functions are not uniform in all
political systems.
In liberal democracies such as United States,
Britain, France, Canada etc. the governmental
functions bear striking similarities. But in the
newly independent states of the Third World
these functions assume different nature. This is
mainly due to the nature of their political
systems.
Edward Shills in the Political Development of
the New States has divided the new states into
the following categories:
1. One category is political democracy. In
political democracies legislature, executive and
judiciary are comparatively autonomous and
their functions are different. The parties and
groups also enjoy sufficient freedom in
discharge of their functions.
2. There are tutelary democracies in some
countries. The characteristic feature of such
democracies is there is the combination of the
formal forms of democracy and the structural
forms of democracy. Elites have gained
ascendancy over other groups and classes. In
such democracies the legislature and judiciary
are not allowed to enjoy full autonomy and
authority.
In fact, power is concentrated in the executive
and bureaucracy. Executive and the bureaucracy
are controlled by elites. The formal structure is
maintained.
3. Modernising oligarchies are characterised by
powerful bureaucracy. Also, army has a
tremendous influence in the administration of
state. Top-ranking army officers and
bureaucrats control the administration. In such
types of political systems emphasis on
economic development is laid.
4. Totalitarian oligarchic systems are found in
some countries. The entire state administration
is controlled by ruling elite, top bureaucrats,
party bosses and leaders. ‘Common people or
the rank and file of the party has no say in the
policy formulation and implementation. It has
been maintained that is former Soviet Union and
other communist states totalitarian oligarchy
existed.
5. There is, finally, traditional oligarchy.
Hereditary or dynastic monarchy falls in this
category. Relatives and henchmen of monarchy
are generally recruited to the posts of top
bureaucracy. In fact, these persons fully control
the state administration in the name of the king.
The structures of government in ancient India
and European countries belonged to this
category. Ordinary people had no access to
power and authority. The priests and relatives of
king enjoyed power.
The common forms of political system found in
the Third World states are tutelary democracy,
modernising oligarchy and traditional oligarchy.
The three governmental functions are not
clearly defined which exists in political
democracies. Such democratic systems prevail
in Japan, Israel, and Turkey etc.
Adaptation and Change:
The core idea of Almond’s structural
functionalism is how the structures of the
political system function and how (through the
functions and other ways) adjusts with other
systems as well as with the environment
surrounding it. This, like Easton’s analysis, lays
the foundation of general system analysis.
It has been held by Almond and many others
that behind the building up of a general system
there is the very crucial role of adaptation and
change. The two, of course, cannot be
effectively separated. If the political system
adjusts (or adapts) itself with the new
challenges emanating from the environment,
then that means that the political system has
succeeded is adapting with the outer conditions
which we call the environment.
Again, change travels with the adjustment or
adaptation. Adaptation means make suitable for
a new use or purpose. When a political system
is faced with new circumstances, it cannot
outright neglect or reject them. So it tries to
accommodate itself with the new situation.
Moreover, in a democratic set up, it is not an
easy task to neglect the new situation because
the citizens might have support or weakness for
these.
Naturally, the political system will gradually
adjust itself with the challenges. This adaptation
or adjustment brings about change in the
political system. The change is inevitable
because in an open system the political system
cannot keep itself aloof from other systems.
Thus adaptation and change are linked.
We thus find that Almond’s theory of general
system is also a theory of political change.
Because of the influence of outer factors the
political system is impelled to adapt it or self with
them and this finally causes change. This
change may be qualitative or quantitative. But
the fact remains that in both Easton’s and
Almond’s general systems analysis there is
both adaptation and change.
Almond’s theory of political change denotes:
“those transactions between political system
and its environment that affect changes in
general system performance”. The traditional
political scientists did not deal with the concept
of political change so elaborately. Their main
concern was the functions of institutions.
Almond calls this adaptation or adjustment
conversion process. The demands or claims
coming from other systems or from the
environment do not remain unattended. Today
or tomorrow they are converted into decisions or
policies. The demands, claims and supports for
these are called inputs and the decisions/
policies are called outputs. This is the
conversion process. Inputs are converted into
outputs. The conversion takes place through
feedback.
But the conversion depends upon the
capabilities of the political system. Here
capabilities indicate the ability of the political
system to receive the demands and claims
(which are called inputs) and to act accordingly
(which means to implement them). The question
of the augmentation of capability is also a
pertinent issue.
For this purpose it is essential on the part of the
political system to proceed the work of political
socialisation and political recruitment. This will
help the political system to create a support
base for the existing system. “Thus” Almond
asserts, “capabilities analysis is the method by
which the empirical investigation of political
system is undertaken. It links the deductive
analysis with the reality”.
How does the change take place? It is the
function of political system to respond to the
demands, claims and supports and this finally
leads to change.
Almond identifies three different sources from
which these originate:
(1) The elites and their associates and affiliated
groups.
(2) Numerous social groups and organisations
which are active in the society and the
environment.
(3) Finally, within the political system the
demands may originate. Whatever may the
sources of demands be, the political system, for
convenience, should respond. It is mainly due to
the fact that if the political system deliberately
neglects the demands some sort of political
turmoil will disturb the political system. So, for
the sake of stability of political system, it is
really incumbent for it to take care of demands
and to do something so that stability is not
disturbed.
Almond’s system analysis also throws light on
the stability and, along with it, the balance or
equilibrium. Both Easton and Almond were
concerned with the stability of the political
system. This stability largely depends on the
equilibrium position or the balance between
inputs and outputs.
Explaining Almond’s views, Davies and Lewis
have made the following observation: “A political
system is stable when the flow of inputs and
outputs is such that inputs are converted in a
way that does not result in any strains
(emphasis added) being imposed on the
systemic capacity to respond to them) for such
strains may have led the structure of the system
itself to suffer basic changes”.
Both Easton and Almond have greatly
emphasised the stability of political system and
this they have done purposely. Their purpose
was to counteract the advance of Marxism.
Their intention was to prove that liberalism was
superior to Marxism.
Easton, Almond and several other exponents
apprehended that Marxism would destabilize the
American system, and for that reason they
vigorously argued that the self-regulatory
mechanism of capitalism had the ability to resist
any attack on it and restore (if it is at all
disturbed) equilibrium or stability.
Hence we find that the stability, equilibrium,
balance etc. are specially coined terms to
denote the nature and function of political
system. We have already noted that Easton and
Almond were concerned about the rapid
progress of Marxism and they built up a
theoretical structure which would be capable to
resist any external onslaught.
They believed that the capitalist system
possesses certain self-regulatory mechanisms
by which can defend itself. The internal system
or arrangement can combat any recalcitrant
elements/forces. In order to strengthen their
stand both Easton and Almond have strenuously
advocated the general systems theory.
An Evaluation:
Structural functionalism strongly advocated and
minutely elaborated by Gabriel Almond suffers
from a number of shortcomings some of which
are:
1. The critics are of opinion that Almond
borrowed the chief elements and aspects of his
structural functionalism mainly from sociology
and specifically from Parsons —the most noted
sociologist of the second-half of the twentieth
century. The problem is the term and concepts
having abundant relevance in sociology may not
have the same in political science.
But Almond’s structural functionalism has done
it and because of this the sociological terms
applied in political science do not carry with
them proper meaning and importance. The
critics are of the view that this method of
analysis makes the subject cumbersome.
For example, he has used “system” and
“interactions” which have been borrowed from
anthropology. But the import of the two terms in
political system is unlikely to be same and the
entire analysis appears to be confused.
2. Defining political system Almond says that
interaction is to be found in all independent
societies that is in order to be a system there
shall be interactions among various parts or
subsystems of independent societies. Now
critics say that what is exactly meant by
“independent” is not clear from Almond’s
definition. Are the societies free from foreign
domination? If it so means then should we say
that a system does not exist in societies
controlled by foreign power? We cannot form a
definite reply.
Hence the ambiguity overcasts the definition of
Almond. It would have been better if he had
clarified his stand. We are, however, of opinion
that Almond uses the term independent in
general sense. A society will be called
independent if it enjoys power to take decision.
3. Some critics are of the view that he has
thrown very little light on the structural aspects
of political systems. He has given them new
nomenclatures. He calls state a political system,
institutions, structures etc. But by giving new
names he has not been able to change the
character and functions of political system/
state.
The units remain the same and there do not
occur changes in functions, behaviour etc. We
can say that the structural functionalism of
Almond can, at best, be called a new attempt to
view politics/states. It can be called a model
and not more than that.
4. Numerous factors operate behind the
interaction among the system. But it is
unfortunate that he has not drawn our attention
to these factors. We believe that for a
comprehensive analysis and for the purpose of
general systems theory all these are to be
brought into active consideration. Otherwise, the
general systems theory will remain incomplete.
5. The gravest charge against Almond is he has,
in a clandestine way, supported the existing
structure of the capitalist system. He wants to
establish that the capitalist system, through its
management and self-regulatory mechanism,
can defend itself. It is a better system in
comparison with other systems.
6. In spite of all these criticisms one might say
that Almond’s model (structural functionalism)
is the most suitable one for comparative
analyses and we come to know from his
writings that he modelled this aiming at a
comparative analysis. We think that his purpose
has been served. With the help of structural
functionalism we can easily compare the
different political systems. Not only this, his
model will help us compare the various systems
systematically and methodologically.
7. In this age of globalisation his model has a
clear and overriding importance. Because of the
tremendous impact of globalisation the world
has become too small. Almost all the countries
of this world have come closer and no state can
claim that it is outside the influence of other
states. Naturally, the influence of one or more
states is bound to fall on the activities and
systems of other states.
In the light of this we can say that Almond’s
theory has special significance. The political,
cultural, economic and other elements, today,
can very easily create impact upon different
states. This influence is never a one-way traffic.
The result is that the structural functionalism of
Almond has received new dimensions in this age
of globalisation. Particularly the capitalist states
of the West are, in different ways, influencing
and dominating the states of the Third World.
We must take note of it.
8. There is no denying the fact that the General
Systems Theory has opened the new vistas of
comparative politics. Though Aristotle is
considered by many as the originator of
comparative politics, the credit of expanding its
base and periphery should go to Almond. To do
justice to Almond, one must say that it is
Almond who has modernised and popularised
the concept of comparative politics.
9. It is true that the main purpose of Almond and
his supporters was to corner the advance of
Marxism. But simultaneously it is also true that
he has strengthened the foundation of
liberalism.
10. Some critics object to the use of terms
borrowed from other disciplines but only this
method has enhanced the acceptability and
reliability of political science.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
SHARE KWA MARAFIKI ZAKO HAPA
Popular Posts
-
INTRODUCTION This work has contain four parts which are introduction that consist of meaning of the key terms, historical background of Leop...
-
Question: Discuss the role of Delegated Legislation in ensuring smooth administrative functions in Tanzania. 1.0 Introduction This work is...
-
INTRODUCTION. This document contains the definition of key terms which are natural justice, principle of natural justice andadministrative t...
-
COMMUNICATION AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS COMMUNICATION It is obvious fact that communication is such vital part of each of us that it contribut...
No comments:
Post a Comment
Show your comments here