Zusammenfassung
Die komplexen Untersuchungen und Ergebnisse ALMONDs, VERBAs und PYEs wurden zum Anlaß einer Vielzahl gravierender, konkreter Einwände genommen,l Dabei haben die Kritiker aber meist vergessen zu berücksichtigen, daß ALMOND/VERBA und PYE/VERBA einige dieser Einwände selbst schon antizipiert hatten und deshalb neben der ausdrücklichen Betonung des experimentellen Charakters ihrer Studien vorsichtige Einschränkungen in ihren Ergebnissen gemacht hatten,1 aber auch viele von ihren Kritikern meist übersehene, weiterführende Hinweise gegeben haben.2
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Literatur
Vgl. Y.C.KIM, 1964, The Concept of Political Culture in Comparative Politics, in: The Journal of Politics, Vol. 26, 1964, S. 313–336;
B.WALTER, 1965, Book Review: The Civic Culture, in: The Journal of Politics, Vol. 27, 1965, S. 206–209;
B.J.L.BERRY, 1966, By What Categories May a State be Characterized? in: Economic Development and Cultural Change, No. 15 /1966, S. 91–94;
J.P.NETTL, 1966, Centre and Periphery in Social Science: The Problems of Political Culture, in: American Behavioral Sciences, Vol. IX, 1966, S. 39–46;
J.P.NETTL, 1967, Political Mobilization. Sociological Analysis of Methods and Concepts, New York;
M.M.CZUDNOWSKI, 1968, A Salient Dimension of Politics for the Study of Political Culture, in: American Political Science Review, Vol.62, 1968, 5. 878–888;
D.C.HITCHNER, Political Sciences and Political Culture, in: The Western Political Quarterly, Vol. 21, 1968, 5. 551–559;
R.R.FAGEN, 1969, The Transformation of Political Culture in Cuba, Stanford;
J.D.MONTGOMERY, 1969, The Quest for Political Development, in: Comparative Politics,1969, S.285–295, Globalbesprechung der Bücher des CCP;
B.MOORE jr., 1969, Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: Lord and Peasant in the Making of the Modern World, Harmondsworth;
B.BARRY, 1970, Values and Stable Democracy: Three Theories, in: ders., Sociologists, Economists, and Democracy, London 1970, S. 47–74;
F.PARKIN, 1971, Class Inequality and Political Order: Social Stratification in Capitalist and Communist Societies, London;
C.PATEMAN, 1971, Political Culture, Political Structure and Political Change, in: British Journal of Political Science, Vol.1, 1971, 5. 291–305;
D.KAVANAGH, 1972, Political Culture, London; E.W.LEHMANN, 1972, On the Concept of Political Culture: A Theoretical Reassessment, in: Social Forces, Vol. 50, 1972, S. 361–369;
J.A.BILL/R.L.HARDGRAVE, 1973, Comparative Politics. The Quest for Theory, Columbus;
L.N.STERN/L.D.DOBSON/F.P.SCIOLI, 1973, On the Dimensions of Political Culture: a New Perspective, in: Comparative Political Studies, Vol. 5, 1973, S. 493–511;
R.C.TUCKER, 1973, Culture, Political Culture,and Communist Society, in: Political Science Quarterly, Vol.88, No.2/1973;
J.MEISEL, 1974, Political Culture and the Politics of Culture, in: Canadian Journal of Political Science, Vol. 7, 1974, S. 601–615;
R.ROGOWSKI, 1974, Rational Legitimacy, Princeton; W.A.ROSENBAUM, 1975, Political Culture, London;
R.VERNON, 1975, The Secular Political Culture: Three Views, in: Review of Politics, Vol. 37, 1975, S. 490–512;
A.BROWN/J.GRAY (eds.), 1977, Political Culture and Political Change in Communist States, London;
D.ELKINS/R.E.SIMEON, 1979, A Cause in Search of its Effect, or What Does Political Culture Explain?, in: Comparative Politics, 1979, S. 127–145;
C.PATEMAN, 1980, The Civic Culture: A Philosophic Critique, in: G.ALMOND/ S.VERBA (eds.), The Civic Culture Revisited, Boston 1980, S. 57–102;
J.WIATR, 1980, The Civic Culture from a Marxist-Sociological Perspective, in: G.ALMOND/S.VERBA (eds.), The Civic Culture Revisited, Boston 1980, S. 103–123;
D.P.CONRADT, 1981, The Changing Political Culture, in:West European Politics, Vol. 4, No. 2/May 1981.
Vgl. oben, S.66 ff., 88 ff., 101, 102, 104, 124 ff., 133.
Vgl. oben, S. 63 f., 113 ff. Vgl. L.PYE, 1972, Culture and Political Science: Problems in the Evaluation of the Concept of Political Culture, in: Social Science Quarterly, Vol.53, No. 2/1972, 5. 285–296.
Vgl. B.WALTER, 1965, Book Review: The Civic Culture, in: The Journal of Politics, Vol. 27, 1965, S. 206–209.
WALTER selbst kritisierte dort das Kultur-Konzept, die mangelnde statistische Kontrolle durch strukturelle Indikatoren, den improvisierten ‘sampling plan’ und falsche statistische Vergleiche. Die offenkundigen Mangel änderten indessen nicht “the book’s seminal importance, this is measure enough.” (a.a.O., S.109).
Ich beschranke mich hier zunächst auf die ‘anglo-amerikanischen’ Kritiker; die deutsche Auseinandersetzung mit ALMOND, VERBA und PYE, die natürlich die amerikanische Kritik aufnahm, erfolgt detailliert bei den einzelnen deutschen Autoren.
Vgl. z.B. sehr ausführlich bei v.BEYME,unten, S.178. Deswegen kann ich die interne Kritik an dieser Stelle summarisch zusammenfassen. Vgl. oben
U. Teil, S.152–306.
Zu ALMONDs Hypothese einer klaren Trennung der Politischen Kultur vom allumfassenden Kultursystem, fragt R.TUCKER, ob dies nicht- verfälschend - einen ‘kulturellen Bias’ widerspiegele? Wenn man wie ALMOND/VERBA (ausdrücklicher noch ALMOND/POWELL 1966) davon ausgehe, daß eine Gesellschaft ohne klar ausdifferenzierte Politische Kultur auf einer niedrigeren Entwicklungsstufe kultureller Säkularisation stehe, vergesse man die ganz besondere kulturelle Evolution des Westens in bezug auf seine politische Entwicklung zu berücksichtigen.
Vgl. R.TUCKER, 1973, Culture, Political Culture, and Communist Society, in: Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 88,No. 2/1973, S.179 ff.: “The Question of Autonomy”.
Vgl. auch D.KAVANAGH, 1972, Political Culture, London, S. 62.
B.MOORE gesteht ‘culture’ nicht mehr als den Rang einer ’intervenierenden Variablen’, keinesfalls aber einer unabhangigen Variablen zu: “Cultural values do not descend from heaven to influence the course of history.” Deshalb bedeutet für MOORE “to explain (political) behaviour in terms of cultural values is to engage in circular
reasoning.“
Vgl. B.MOORE jr., 1969, Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: Lord and Peasant in the Making of the Modern World, Harmondworth, S.484 ff. B.WALTER spricht von einem “amphibial term”, dessen Inhalte, wie die “Lord High Executioner’s list” unendlich ausgedehnt werden könnten.
Vgl. B.WALTER, a.a.O., S.206 f. KIM führt aus: “The comprehensiveness dimension associated with the term culture makes it easy for political artifacts and ‘environmental’ data to creep in to blur the conceptualization of political culture. The abstractness of the concept of political culture is thereby jeopardized. The patterned character underlying the concept of culture tends to restrict in scope a study of politically relevant values, beliefs and expressive symbols.”
Vgl. Y.KIM, 1964, The Concept of Political Culture in Comparative Politics, in: The Journal of Politics, Vol. 26, 1964, S. 335.
Die mangelhafte Konzeptualisierung korrigiert D.LAITIN durchdieEntwicklung “of a more rigorous framework in which to analyze the interrelationships of culture and politics. A re-examination of Max Weber’s approach to culture, exemplified especially in his study of the Protestant ethic, will provide the necessary framwork.”
Vgl. D.LAITIN, 1978, Religion, Political Culture, and the Weberian Tradition, in:World Politics, No. 4/1978, S.563–592.
It was the virtual ignorance of the cultural differences within the five nations that led the autors of the Civic Culture to present overly simple views of the respective national cultures.“
Vgl.D.KAVANAGH, 1972, a.a.O., S.67. Vgl. auch J.BILL/R.HARDGRAVE, 1973, Comparative Politics. The Quest for Theory, Columbus, S.94 ff.:
Problems in Cross-Cultural Methodology’;
vgl. R.HARDGRAVE, 1969, Political Culture and Projective Techniques, in: Comparative Political Studies, No. 2 /1969, S. 249–255.
Als ein Beispiel für viele macht WALTER darauf aufmerksam: “Occupation is seldom controlled, and income or social class not at all.”
Vgl. B.WALTER, 1965, a.a.O., S.208. Vgl. auch die Rezension der Civic Culture-Studie von S.ROKKAN, in: American Political Science Review, Vol. LXII, 1964, S. 676–679.
Weniger scharf als bei den deutschen Kritikern, aber doch recht deutlich wird, wie sehr gerade dieser vermeintlich rein empirische Forschungsansatz von einem besonderen - reduzierten - normativen Demokratieverständnis bestimmt war. Für BILL/HARDGRAVE dient das Civic Culture-Konzept schlicht als “an ideological justification for apathy and non-participation in democratic systems. The parochials are assumed to be uninvolved not because of the cumulative deprivations - poverty, lack of education, low media exposure - which may deny them effective political capital nor because they may be systematically prevented from gaining political access, but because they are regarded as fundamentally satisfied with the system: if they were not satisfied, they would be ‘pounding at the door’(ALMOND/VERBA).”
Vgl. J.BILL/ R.HARDGRAVE, 1973, a.a.o., S.91. B.BARRY gesteht den Autoren zu, daß sie allenfalls “a correlation between the civic culture and democracy rather than any causal relationship of the former to the latter” demonstriert hätten.
Vgl. B.BARRY, 1970, Sociologists, Economists and Democracy, London, bes. Kap.3 ‘Values and Stable Democracy: Three Theories’, S. 47–74.
Eine Definition von Demokratie sei ängstlich vermieden worden, es gebe nur die Annahme,daß ein funktionierendes demokratisches System dem britischen und amerikanischen System ähnele (vgl. ebda.).
Vgl. z.B. Y.KIMs Kritik an der Verwendung des Begriffs: “To introduce the term political culture in a literature where another term culture is bound to be interspersed is a source of confusion and hampers communication among scholars. Terminological ambiguities and confusion impede the formation of fruitful propositions.”
KIM schlägt deshalb vor: “There is a relatively neutral term ‘orientations’ which might be used fruitfully in lieu of political culture. The term political orientations is free from any indication of the dimensions mentioned above and others such as: intensity, extent, composition or configuration, variability, and direction. Since the term has no existing connotations or denotations that are undesirable or incompatible with the technical meaning we attach, the term political orientations promises to be a more fruitful concept.”
Vgl. Y.KIM, 1964, The Concept of Political Culture in Comparative Politics, in: The Journal of Politics, Vol. 26, 1964, S. 336.
Für D.KAVANAGH gilt ohnehin, die Erforschung von “norms, sentiments and beliefs… is not amenable to survey methods.”
Vgl. D.KAVANAGH, 1972, Political Culture, S.61 f.
Weil in der politischen Realität das politische Gewicht und die Intensität der politischen Orientierungen von Individuen äußerst unterschiedlich sei, man denke an die Bedeutung der politischen Eliten, sei die Aggregierung problematisch. “Aggregation is only legitimate where the units to be aggregated are similar.”
Vgl. D.KAVANAGH, 1972: 61 f. Dahinter steht insgesamt das ‘Mikro-Makro’-Problem politischer Analyse, der Frage des Verhältnisses von Individuum und (hier:) Nation. “Almond and Verba, for example, explain the political culture of each nation in terms of the frequencies measured at the lower levels of the individuals. But reasoning by inference from the individual to the larger collectivity of which he is a part, and vice versa, or generally linking the two phenomena, may fall prey to two ’fallacies’. To assign to individuals the attributes of the larger group of which they are a part is an example of the ’ecological fallacy’. The ’individualistic fallacy’ involves a causal argument from the aggregated features of individuals to the global characteristics of a group of which the individuals are members.”
Vgl. D.KAVANAGH, 1972, Political Culture, S. 63.
Zu tiefergehenden Meinungsunterschieden kommt es bei der Frage, ob das Konzept auch ‘politisches Verhalten’ einschließen solle. Es scheint ein Streit zwischen psychologischen und anthropologischen Theorien zu sein. “Should the concept embrace patterns of behaviour as well as psychological orientations to the political process, objective as well as subjective factors, or should an analytical distinction be made between political culture, on the one hand,and political behaviour, on the other…” fragen BROWN/GRAY und antworten im Blick auf ALMOND und VERBA: “The risk of tautology would certainly seem to be less if behaviour is not subsumed under political culture, though even writers who view political culture as ’the subjective orientation to politics’ have not always avoided the danger of circularity inherent in making inferences about values from behaviour and then using values to explain behaviour.”
Vgl. A.BROWN/J.GRAY (eds.), 1977, Political Culture and Political Change in Communist States, London, S.9. Vgl. auch R.TUCKER, 1973, Culture, Political Culture and Communist Society, a.a.O., S.178 f.
Obwohl ALMOND/VERBA “a coarse but serviceable solution of the tricky measurement problem” entwickelt hätten, “they then strangely refuse to apply it… They also have a lamentable habit of averaging together scores on different ordinal scales, a practise that has little besides arithmetical convenience to recommend it.”
Vgl. B.WALTER, 1965, Book Review: The Civic Culture, a.a.O., S. 209.
Vgl. R.TUCKER, 1973, Culture, Political Culture and Communist Society, in: Political Science Quarterly, Vol.88
June 1973. DITTMER bestßtigte:“(It) has gained virtually unanimous acceptance in the field.”
Vgl. L.DITTMER, 1977, Political Culture and Political Symbolism, in: World Politics, Vol. XXIX, No. 4/1977, 5. 553.
KAVANAGH beklagte deshalb geradezu “the fatal attractiveness of the political culture approach”.
Vgl. D.KAVANAGH, 1972, Political Culture, London, S.55. Noch 1979 bezeichnet INGLEHART die Civic Culture-Studie als ‘influential book’ und
bedient sich ihrer Ergebnisse.
Vgl. R.INGLEHART, 1979, in: S.BARNES/ M.KAASE et al., Political Action, Beverly Hills.
Vgl. S.H.BEER/A.B.ULAM, 1962, Patterns of Government, New York;
vgl. Y.C.KIM, 1964, The Concept of Political Culture, in: Journal of
Politics, Vol. 26, 1964, 5. 313–336;
vgl. H.ECKSTEIN, 1966, Division and Cohesion in Democracy. A Study of Norway, Princeton; vgl. J.P.NETTL, 1966, Centre and Periphery in Social Science: the Problems of Political Culture, in: American Behavioral Science
Vol.9, 1966, S.39–46; vgl. F.G.CASTLES, 1967, Pressure Groups and Political Culture. A Comparative Study, London;
vgl. R.ROSE, 1967, Studies in British Politics, London (bes. 5. 4–52 );
vgl. M.M.CZUDNOWSKI, 1968, A Salient Dimension of Politics for the Study of Political Culture, in: American Political Science Review, Vol. 62, 1968, S. 878–888;
vgl. L.J.EDINGER, 1968, Politics in Germany. Attitudes and Processes, Boston (besonders 5. 53–122 );
vgl. S.C.PATTERSON, 1968, The Political Cultures of the American States, in: Journal of Politics, Vol. XXX, February 1968, S. 187–209;
vgl. R.R.FAGEN, 1969, The Transformation of Political Culture in Cuba, Stanford; vgl. D.J.DEVINE, 1971, The Political Culture of the United States, Boston; vgl. C.PATEMAN, 1971, Political Culture, Political Structure and Political Change, in: British Journal of Political Science, Vol. 1, 1971, S. 291–305;
vgl. R.D.PUTNAM, 1971, Studying Elite Political Culture: The Case of Ideology, in: American Political Science Review, No. 3, 1971;
vgl. R.SOLOMON, 1971, Mao’s Revolution and the Chinese Political Culture, Berkeley;
vgl. D.KAVANAGH, 1972, Political Culture, London;
vgl.E.W.LEHMANN, 1972, On the Concept of Political Culture: A Theoretical Reassessment, in: Social Forces, Vol. 50, 1972, 5. 361–369;
vgl. J.A.BILL/R.L.HARDGRAVE, 1973, Comparative Politics. The Quest for Theory, Columbus (besonders Chapt. III: Political Culture and Socialization);
vgl. L.N.STERN/L.B.DOBSON/F.P.SCIOLI, 1973, On the Dimensions of Political Culture: A New Perspective, in: Comparative Political Studies, Vol.6, 1973, 5. 493–511;
vgl. R.C.TUCKER, 1973, Culture, Political Culture and Communist Society, in: Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 88, No. 2, June 1973;
vgl. W.T.BLUHM, 1974, Ideologies and Attitudes: Modern Political Culture, Englewood Cliffs;
vgl. D.P.CONRADT, 1974, West-Germany: A Remade Political Culture?, in: Comparative Political Studies, Vol.7, July 1974, 5. 222–238;
vgl.J.MEISEL, 1974, Political Culture and the Politics of Culture, in: Canadian Journal of Political Science, Vol. 7, 1974, S. 601–615;
vgl.R.E.WARD, 1974, Culture and the Comparative Study of Politics or the Constipated Dialectic, in: American Political Science Review, Vo1.68, 1974, 5. 190–201;
vgl. W.A.ROSENBAUM, 1975, Political Culture, New York; vgl. R.VERNON, 1975, The Secular Political Culture: Three Views, in: Review of Politics, Vol. 37, 1975, S. 490–512;
vgl. A.BROWN/J.GRAY (eds.), 1977, Political Culture and Political Change in Communist States, London; vgl. L.DITTMER, 1977, Political Culture and Political Symbolism: Toward a Theoretical Synthesis, in: World Politics, Vol. vol. xxix, No. 4/July 1977, 5. 552–583;
vgl. H.R.WINTER/T.J.BELLOWS, 1977, People and Politics. An Introduction to Political Science,New York;
vgl. D.P.CONRADT, 1978, The German Polity, New York;
vgl. G.A.BENNETT, 1979, Chinese Political Culture, in: Problems of Communism, Vol. XXVIII, January 1979, S. 67–74;
vgl. D.ELKINS/R.E.SIMEON,1979, A Cause in Search of its Effect or What Does Political Culture Explain?, in: Comparative Politics
Vol.11, 1979, S.127–145;
vgl. S.WHITE, 1979, Political Culture and Soviet Politics, London;
vgl. L.DITTMER, 1981, The Comparative Analysis of Political Culture(Paper presented at the International Conference on ‘Political Culture in the United States in the Seventies’), Frankfurt/Main 1981.
Vgl. hierzu ausdrücklich A.I.ABRAMOWITZ, 1980, The United States: Political Culture under Stress, in: G.ALMOND/S.VERBA (eds.), The Civic Culture Revisited, Boston 1980, S. 177–211;
vgl. D.P.CONRADT, 1980, Changing German Political Culture, in: G.ALMOND/S.VERBA (eds.), The Civic Culture Revisited, S. 212–272;
vgl. A.L.CRAIG/W.A.CORNELIUS, 1980, Political Culture in Mexico: Continuities and Revisionist Interpretations, in: G.ALMOND/S.VERBA (eds.), The Civic Culture Revisited, 5. 325–393;
vgl. D.KAVANAGH, 1980, Pdlitical Culture in Great Britain: The Decline of the Civic Culture, in: G.ALMOND/S.VERBA (eds.), The Civic Culture Revisited, S. 124–176;
vgl. A.LIJPHART, 1980, The Structure of Inference, in: G.ALMOND/S.VERBA (eds.), The Civic Culture Revisited, S. 37–56;
vgl. C.PATEMAN, 1980, The Civic Culture: A Philosophic Critique, in: G.ALMOND/S.VERBA (eds.), The Civiv Culture Revisited, S. 57–102;
vgl. G.SANI, 1980, The Political Culture of Italy: Continuity and Change, in: G.AIJIOND/S.VERBA (eds.), The Civic Culture Revisited, S. 273–324;
vgl. J.WIATR, 1980, The Civic Culture from a Marxist-Sociological Perspective, in: G.ALMOND/ S.VERBA (ads.), The Civic Culture Revisited, a.a.0., 5. 103–123.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1985 Leske Verlag + Budrich GmbH, Leverkusen
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Iwand, W.M. (1985). Innerwissenschaftliche Kritik und Kontroverse um den ‚Political Culture Approach‘ in der amerikanischen Political Science. In: Paradigma Politische Kultur. VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-322-97171-5_21
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-322-97171-5_21
Publisher Name: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden
Print ISBN: 978-3-322-97172-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-322-97171-5
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive