The political culture of a society can be analyzed both by indicators of the political cultures of its members - citizens, their social groups and strata, institutions, and by indicators characterizing society as a whole. The latter include the nature of the existing political organization of society, the forms and methods of functioning of political institutions, the degree and methods of participation of citizens in the political life of society, the accumulated socio-political experience, existing political traditions and customs, the system of political ideas, knowledge, and principles.
Political cultures are classified in connection with the nature of power and political and managerial values; participation in politics; political civilizational genesis, etc.
In connection with the nature of power and government, the following are distinguished: democratic, authoritarian, totalitarian and transitional types of political culture.
A democratic political culture is characterized by an orientation towards truly democratic values and ideals, the rule of law and civil society, free participation in politics, ideological, political and economic pluralism, the priority of human and civil rights, and a rich political language. The main “carrier” of democratic political culture is the middle class.
Authoritarian political culture is focused on the determining role of the state and one party in society, the corresponding forms and methods of government and control over political life and participation in it. Political consciousness and values of society are formed centrally, by the state. In accordance with them, state interests are more important than the interests of individuals and social groups. Political language is standardized.
A totalitarian political culture presupposes state-directed and controlled forms of people's participation in politics, strictly ideological stereotypes of behavior, a loyal focus on official institutions and symbols, complete control over the activities of the media, the presence of an extensive system of monitoring and control over ideology, public speeches and private conversations about politics. Political language is formalized and ideologically rigidly defined.
The following approach focuses on differences in the nature and extent of people's participation in politics in relation to their political orientations. G. Almond and S. Verba (based on a comparative analysis of the USA, Great Britain, Italy, Germany and Mexico), based on the nature of political participation and behavior of people, identified the following main types of political cultures: parish (patriarchal), subject and participatory (subtype - civil) cultures .
Parish(patriarchal) type of political culture is characterized by a lack of proper knowledge about politics among the population and weak participation in political events. In such societies there are no specialized political roles: the power of chiefs and shamans represents the inseparability of political, economic and religious roles. Patriarchal orientation is the absence of any expectations associated with the political system.
Subject The type of political culture is characterized by “passive political behavior”, an exclusive focus on dominant values with very little understanding of them. The subject understands state power well and knows how to effectively (for the system) obey it. In all other respects he is passive.
For participatory(from English, participation -“involvement”), a type of political culture, is characterized by the active participation of individuals in political life, their influence on decision-making processes, and the skillful articulation of their own interests. This type of culture is also qualified as “rational-activist”. An orientation towards the “activist role of oneself” is characteristic, and this latter does not depend on a positive or negative attitude towards the system and its roles.
A special type of political culture is civic culture, which was most typical in the period under review for the USA and Great Britain. This mixed type is characterized by consensus on the legitimacy of political institutions, the direction and content of public policy, tolerance for pluralism of interests, competence and mutual trust with citizens. Within this type of political culture, many citizens can be quite active in politics, but a significant part of others play the passive role of subjects: political activity represents only part of a citizen’s interests, and, as a rule, not a very large part of them.
G. Almond and S. Verba assumed that the formula of the political culture of the developed industrial countries of the West looks approximately as follows: 60% - “participants”, 30% - “subjects”, 10% - “persons of parish culture”. The formula for an authoritarian political culture (using the example of Portugal until 1974) was determined by the following approximate ratio: 10% - 60% - 30%. For a pre-industrial society (using the example of the Dominican Republic), the ratio looked like: 5% - 40% - 55%.
According to G. Almond and S. Verba, the pure types of “patriarchal”, “subjective”, “participatory” and “civil” political cultures do not exist in the modern world. Typically, a given political culture is a combination of these types. In this regard, G. Almond and S. Verba also identified three mixed types of political cultures - provincialist-submissive, subject-participatory and provincialist-artistic culture.
The specificity of the provincialist-subject type is that a significant part of the population rejects the exclusive claims of diffuse tribal, village or feudal power and shows loyalty to a more complex political system with specialized government structures.
The features of the Noddani-participatory type of political culture are that with it a significant part of society develops a “specialized orientation” in relation to the political system and its elements, as well as “activist self-orientations.” But at the same time, a significant part of the population continues to focus on the authoritarian government structure and adhere to a passive system of self-orientation.
Provincialist-participatory political culture is characteristic of many developing countries. The political system in most of them is characterized by provincial fragmentation, and the problem is to ensure active participation of citizens in political life.
Political culture varies rational And emotionally strong-willed levels. The first is formed on the basis of indigenous socio-economic and political interests, the social status of various categories of the population, as well as corresponding orientations, attitudes, etc., formed on the basis of these interests; the second is based on rational and irrational elements and phenomena, which are determined primarily by sociocultural and sociopsychological factors.
An important place in the development and functioning of political culture is occupied by stable general cultural socio-psychological phenomena: traditions, rites, rituals, mentality, accumulated experience, stereotypes, myths, religion, etc.
Thus, mentality expresses character, style, method of group thinking, perception of social life, influences the state of mentality and stable norms of behavior. Depending on the prevailing mentality, a class, people, nation and other communities and groups have a certain sensitivity to one or another type of ideologies, cultural norms, political values, etc. In transitional societies, the mentality is unstable: old value orientations are destroyed, new ones are in their infancy or are illusory. With the development of society and its structures, the influence of international factors in the mentality, corresponding changes occur.
In the context of political culture, the concept of political identity is widely used. This concept refers to the final result of the identification process - self-identification, self-determination of individuals. As a rule, identifications are associated with the main social institutions, and as a result, the destruction of the latter entails disorientation and disidentification. There are several levels and aspects to considering identity. One can distinguish national-ethnic, state-territorial, civilizational and other levels of identity, and consider it as an orientation towards the cultural-geographical area of distribution of society or the phenomenon of “radiation of culture” (A. Toynbee). The criteria for national identity are language, culture, way of life, behavioral characteristics, common customs and traditions, the presence of ethnonyms, and the state. For identity in politics, the criteria are language (political), political culture (in the totality of its constituent elements), the corresponding ethnic group (people, nation, community), statehood, etc.
The main groups of criteria (foundations and guidelines) for political identity are identified.
- 1. By the completeness and depth of identification with political institutions and values, which can manifest themselves at the collective, emotional, evaluative and behavioral levels.
- 2. By place and role in the reproduction of the political structure of society (functional or dysfunctional).
- 3. According to the mechanism and genesis of the formation of external solidarity - conformist, non-conformist.
- 4. According to the vector of political orientations and party affiliation (socialist, liberal, conservative, left, right, centrist, etc.).
- 5. By object and subject (personal, group, party, class, state), etc.
Political identity is embodied primarily in the value system of a particular political group. This identity is most clearly manifested in such forms of political activity of the population as participation in elections on party lists, social support for political actions and events, solidarity with political demands, etc.
To analyze political culture, the concept of national character is used. It helps to synthetically cover three research areas: historical and cultural tradition, socio-political practice and individual way of thinking. In a certain sense, national character can be interpreted as the most common personality type in a given people and a set of typical patterns of behavior, developing on the basis of impulses and traditions that regulate the behavior of a nation over a long period of time. The study of national character and traditions is an essential prerequisite for understanding the political culture of any nation.
Approaches that pay attention to the characteristic national characteristics and features of political culture in connection with its civilizational foundations are relevant. We are talking about cross-cultural analysis and synthesis of the politics and culture of different societies. Accordingly, the political culture of Western, Eastern, Russian and other civilizations is distinguished. The studies of a number of scientists show the influence of civilizational and religious values on the development of political and managerial cultures, as well as on the role of the culture of elites and leaders in promoting relevant political, cultural and ethical values.
The distinctive features of Russian political culture are sovereignty, orientation towards subjects of power, social-collectivist orientations, high level of education of the population, rational and respectful interaction of major religions, centuries-old friendship of peoples, etc. It is advisable to pay attention to the special significance and value of the political culture of Russia as a unique civilization and powers; all spiritual, linguistic and moral foundations, patriotism. Those political and managerial values that are of direct importance for successful socio-economic and political development are also highlighted: effective management culture, optimal interaction of traditions and innovations, focus on the competitiveness of the country, institutions and people, on management strategies for overcoming the crisis, on improving the qualities of political elite and leadership, on the competitiveness of the country and society in the context of globalization. Sometimes key, orientational political and mobilization guidelines for modernization development are put forward from the value system. For example, the well-known “five I’s”: innovation, institutions, infrastructure, investment, intelligence.
In various macroregions of Russia, based on historical and cultural traditions, certain political values may have corresponding priorities. Depending on the severity of the problem, certain values are updated. Thus, after the return of Crimea to Russia, patriotism became a dominant political value.
Both democratic and authoritarian and traditionalist-patriarchal layers (values and orientations) of political culture already coexist.
The “Russian idea” has been updated for a long time. In relation to modern conditions, one can raise the question of the “Russian Eurasian Dream” as a value guide. It is based on an understanding of Russia as a special unique civilization and the development of innovative, socially equitable development programs based on public consensus.
It is clear that the strength of a system of political values lies in their unification and (or) interconnection. However, in practice, various political forces (subjects) use them unilaterally, in private interests. Even within the same culture, conflicting values can exist. In addition, there are anti-values. That is why the issue of integrative political values and the corresponding political course is becoming urgent. Today, a state anti-crisis, innovation program supported by business and society can become a course that unites Russian citizens based on Russian political values.
Socio-political values and their understanding, due to the characteristics of cultures, traditions and historical genesis, differ in a number of societies and civilizations (Western, Confucian, Islamic, Hindu, Russian, etc.). Thus, in Western civilizations liberal (liberal-conservative) value systems are emphasized; in East Asian - traditionalist (Confucian, communitarian) with elements of liberalism, etc.
Political cultures can also be considered both from the point of view of ideal models of socio-economic development of society (traditional - industrial - post-industrial) and culture (modern - postmodern).
A number of characteristic features of postmodern society can be identified.
- 1. Post-industrial, information production, the emergence of a vast sector of “integrated communications” and its contradictory impact on society.
- 2. Developed middle class, fragmented social structure.
- 3. Increasing the role of post-material values and industrial culture, aestheticization of everyday life.
- 4. Construction of identity based on individual choice and the value of independence.
- 5. Different experiences of time and space, the role of competition.
- 6. Reducing the social role of the state.
- 7. Diktat of the consumer, various agencies, castings, indexes, “experts”, etc.
In a post-industrial, post-modern society, new value systems appear that coexist or conflict with systems of traditional, modernist attitudes and orientations. In post-industrial countries, post-material values are common: cultural pluralism and freedom of expression, the Internetized sphere of public life, attention to the environment, multiple social connections and identifications, etc. Post-material values have become the source of the emergence of new civil groups, such as environmental and women's movements, as well as associations to protect public interests.
Changing value systems are reforming the political agenda of many governments; a number of parties and citizen associations are calling on the authorities to be more active in preserving the environment, increasing the role of local government, etc. (Table 2.3).
Table 23.
Characteristics of value systems and foundations of materialistic (modern) and nostmaterialistic (postmodern) consciousness
|
Postmodern |
||
|
Policy |
The need for strong institutions and leaders; order priority; xenophobia; fundamentalism |
|
|
Economy |
Prioritizing economic growth; achievement motivation. I-IV technological structures. |
Highest priority on quality of life; subjective well-being; IV-VI technological structures (nanotechnology, biotechnology, robotics, etc.) |
|
Communication |
Traditional media of the modern era: print, radio, television |
Electronic integrated communications, increasingly compatible with humans |
A changing value system is reforming the political agenda.
Under the influence of technical innovations in the field of communications, disharmony occurs in the existing culture, and many of its basic meanings are destroyed. Thus, gradually integrating into the modern cultural environment, the computer, the Internet, and other interactive electronic media not only differentiate the social structure of society in their own way or create a disproportionate representation of political minorities on the Internet, but also, in a new way, combining old and new in the interpretation of individual and people’s group experience, actively provoke new social and political expectations in them, and change the very structure of their politically significant interests. We can say that the new possibilities for moving information by modern teletechnomediums also provoke the emergence of a new type of life activity: everyone with everyone at the same time and at the same time separately. This is also facilitated by the virtualization of political space, the intertwining of reality with fictional events, artificially constructed information, which violates some features of the rational type of social and political orientation of a person, giving rise to stable elements of skepticism and irony in relation to such a combined reality. By forming special ways of cultural assimilation of politically significant information, new communications create a completely new social atmosphere both for the formation of various forms of political life and for the reproduction of culture.
Thus, citizens’ mass ideas about politics are now increasingly shaped by means and images characteristic of the entertainment industry. As a result, a certain “culture of political entertainment” is inevitably formed in the structure of the political culture of such an information-advanced society. It is obvious that such a culture, through the created utopian worlds, gives media users a simplified understanding, interpretation and comprehension of political reality. It is also clear that such a schematic perception of political realities leaves a lot of opportunities for manipulating public opinion, artificially constructing political reactions, and increasing the controllability of a person’s political activity.
A postmodern political culture stands out, emphasizing the theatricalization of the surrounding life, hyperreality, consumption of symbols, fragmentation of life, distrust of the state, authorities and avoidance of real politics.
In modern political culture, the role of racial, ethno-national, gender, age, environmental, global, sexual and other orientations that have little in common with previously familiar class orientations is increasing. There is a transformation of the traditional political spectrum with the accepted division into “left” and “right”, cross-class coalitions are emerging, as a result of which it has become more difficult for many leaders and citizens to navigate what is happening in the political sphere. There is increasing support for policies aimed at solving specific problems, increasing the role of new social movements, promoting informal leaders, and expanding citizen participation in governance. The ideas of a new management culture are widespread primarily among younger, educated and wealthy people and societies.
Today, the urgent tasks of reforming the Russian state and society are: the development of political culture based on democratic values; awareness of the significance of traditional cultural dominants of Russia as a unique civilization; taking into account the increasing role of innovative and modernization subcultures in the 21st century.
The question of the types of political culture is determined by the diversity of political systems, the difference in the level of socio-economic, political and cultural development of countries, their historical traditions, which results in the diversity of political cultures of peoples, nations, social communities, and individuals.
The classic typology of political culture was proposed by American political scientists G. Almond and S. Verba in their work “Civic Culture”. They distinguish three main types of political culture: parish or patriarchal, subject-matter and participatory or activist culture.
The parish culture is characterized by a lack of knowledge about politics and interest in political life among citizens. The parishioner is focused on the so-called primary relationships in groups, is committed to traditional connections, and is focused on local and ethnic solidarity. The horizons of parishioners are limited to their narrow world of immediate existence.
Submissive culture is based on the passive attitude of subjects to the political system as a whole. The bearers of a subservient political culture are aware of the existence of specialized political institutions, have a negative or positive attitude towards them, show a willingness to obey the demands of the administration, but are not inclined to take proactive participation in political activities. In this case, orders or benefits are expected from the central government.
Participatory culture (activist culture) is characterized by a strong orientation towards the existing political system and active participation in the political life of society. The bearers of such a culture are interested not only in what the political system gives them, but also in playing an active role in ensuring the functioning of its institutions. They relate to power not only in terms of the need to submit to its instructions and decisions, but also in terms of the need for their participation in the processes of development, adoption and implementation of these decisions.
These types of crops, as a rule, are not found in their pure form. Each political culture is a combination of these three types, but one type nevertheless always dominates, thereby determining the type of political culture of a given society as a whole. Thus, in the political culture of Russia, the dominant type is the subject type.
Of course, this typology is a somewhat simplified version and does not reflect the full complexity of political relationships in society. Subsequently, the results of the empirical study made significant adjustments to the theoretical assumptions of G. Almond and S. Verba. The assumption of universal participation of citizens in politics turned out to be a utopia. It has been observed that in an ideal culture of citizenship, the activity and involvement of citizens should be balanced with a certain dose of passivity and non-participation. The results of the survey revealed the “imperfection” and “non-ideality” of the American and English models of political culture, which were given the status of the most developed cultures.
G. Almond and S. Verba created a model of a culture of citizenship, which was characterized by a number of advantages:
– a general positive assessment of the activities of the national government for him personally and a deep awareness of this fact;
– a high level of interest in government activities and good awareness in this area;
– a sense of pride in the political institutions of one’s nation;
– the expectation that he will receive equal and considerate treatment from officials;
– a desire to discuss political issues publicly or among friends and acquaintances;
– open and loyal manifestation of opposition sentiments;
– a feeling of satisfaction in connection with the conduct of national political events, for example, election campaigns;
– competence in judgment regarding government policy and a clear understanding of the responsibility to influence this policy personally or jointly with one of his fellow citizens;
– competence in using laws to successfully counteract acts of arbitrariness;
– the belief that participatory democracy is necessary and desirable.
As a result of the survey, the “ideal model” collided with the real political positions of citizens of the five countries surveyed. Thus, the impact of politics on their daily lives was completely denied by 11% of Americans surveyed, 23% of the British, 17% of West Germans, 19% of Italians, 66% of Mexicans. 27% of Americans, 23% of Britons, 35% of West Germans, 11% of Italians, 15% of Mexicans are regularly interested in political events. The election campaigns look “ridiculous and stupid” in the eyes of 58% of Americans surveyed, 37% of the British, 46% of West Germans, 15% of Italians and 32% of Mexicans.
If we compare the nature of orientation towards the political system of citizens in developed European countries in modern conditions, then “dissatisfaction with the way democracy works” was expressed in 1985 by 43% of the British, 48% of the French, 38% of the Dutch, 45% of the Irish, 72% of Italians . Naturally, it is necessary to take into account that the level of citizens’ aspirations has increased significantly. However, the expressed negative attitude towards the existing democratic political system in developed countries does not prevent it from remaining the most stable and socially effective.
Criticism of G. Almond's concept of political culture for its emphasis on the psychological side of the matter does not detract from its revolutionary influence on political science. The introduction of the idea of political culture into political science analysis made it possible to formulate a universal explanatory principle: “the ultimate cause of politics is the cultural system of a particular society.” This gave impetus to the development of comparative political science. It turned out to be possible to explain why similar political institutions in different countries operate with different effectiveness. It's all about the dominant political culture in society and its level of homogeneity.
This allowed G. Almond to identify four types of political systems depending on the nature of culture:
– Anglo-American political systems with a homogeneous secularized (free from the influence of the church) political culture;
– continental Western European systems with a political culture consisting of mixed political subcultures;
– pre-industrial and partially industrial political systems with differentiated political cultures;
– totalitarian political systems with a homogeneous political culture, and this homogeneity is artificial or forced.
According to G. Almond, in the Anglo-Saxon countries (USA, Great Britain, a number of countries of the British Commonwealth) a secular homogeneous political culture dominates. It is characterized by the coexistence of many competing but complementary values, attitudes, orientations, rational calculation when making decisions and resolving disputes and conflicts, individualism, experimentation, etc. At the same time, it is homogeneous in the sense that the vast majority of subjects of the political process share the fundamental principles of the structure of the existing political system, generally accepted norms and rules of the game, and values. Role structures such as political parties, interest groups, and the media enjoy a significant degree of autonomy. Individuals simultaneously belong to many mutually intersecting groups. As a result, the legitimacy of all interests and positions is recognized, mutual tolerance prevails between them, which creates the conditions for a strong consensus and a pragmatic political course.
The political culture of continental European countries is also secular, but at the same time, as G. Almond emphasized, it is fragmented. In a fragmented political culture, there is no necessary agreement among various factions regarding the fundamental rules of the political game. Society is divided, or fragmented, into many subcultures with their own values, behavioral norms and stereotypes, often incompatible with each other. As the most typical example, G. Almond cites France during the Third and Fourth Republics and Italy, whose political culture was divided into opposing subcultures rooted in different institutions. Group loyalties reinforced each other. For example, Catholics voted for Catholic parties, joined Catholic trade unions, read Catholic newspapers, and even chose close Catholic friends.
The ability of interest groups, parties and the media to translate needs and demands into acceptable political alternatives was thus severely limited. At the same time, the mutual strengthening of social, religious and political loyalties stimulates contradictions between different subcultures. As a result, countries with this type of political culture are characterized by political instability.
G. Almond called the next type pre-industrial and industrial political culture. It is characterized by the coexistence of traditional and westernized (from the word western - western) institutions, values, norms and orientations. We are talking about such attributes of the Western political system as parliament, the electoral system, bureaucracy, etc., which in one way or another are superimposed on the traditionalist realities of the respective countries in a modified form. As a result of this overlap, a special type arises, which, using the terminology of M. Weber, G. Almond called charismatic political culture.
The latter is often formed in conditions of violation of traditional norms and customs and connections considered sacred, and a growing sense of instability and uncertainty. As a result, people look to a charismatic leader for protection and stability. This shift creates enormous challenges in terms of communication and coordination within society. Different groups often have very different views on the political issues facing society. As a result, instability and unpredictability are not an aberration, but an inevitable result of such a political culture. It dominates in modernizing developing countries.
According to G. Almond, totalitarian political culture is radically different from all these types. Outwardly, in its homogeneity, it resembles the first type. But here this homogeneity is artificial, imposed from above. Therefore, there are no voluntary organizations and associations, and the system of political communication is controlled from the center. It is impossible to determine with any approximate degree the degree of real commitment of the population to the dominant system.
It is obvious that the considered typologizations have a number of advantages, since in them the models of political culture differ on the basis of the specific national socio-cultural, confessional, traditional-historical and other characteristics existing among peoples and countries.
But at the same time, there is a need for certain adjustments to these typologies. For example, only with quite serious reservations can one contrast homogeneous and fragmented political cultures on the basis of their ability to ensure the stability of the political system. And commitment to a charismatic leader, which G. Almond considered the property of pre-industrial or mixed political culture, in various new forms and modifications, is becoming particularly relevant at the present time in the most developed countries. Moreover, charismatic leaders and charisma as a factor determining the likes or dislikes of voters and, accordingly, their choice have become the most important elements of political culture of all types in the era of the information revolution and electronic media. As for the totalitarian type of political culture, charisma in extreme forms of worship of the leader - the Fuhrer - is also an integral part of it.
There are other inconsistencies that reduce the persuasiveness of the considered typologies. But the arguments expressed also show the need to find more acceptable criteria for typologizing the political cultures of the modern world. In this case, the main condition is to take into account the main types or models of political systems within which the corresponding types of political cultures are formed and function.
A slightly different typology of political culture was developed by the Polish sociologist E. Wiatr. His typology was based on the Marxist approach, according to which four types of political cultures can be distinguished.
1. Traditional, inherent in pre-capitalist societies. It is characterized by recognition of the sacred nature of power, the operation of traditional norms (“it has always been this way”) regulating the rights of the subject and the rights of power, recognition of the immutability of the political system and its basic norms.
2. Political culture of class democracy (also formed in the pre-capitalist era): the majority of the people are completely excluded from participation in the political system, and existing institutions and norms guarantee the right of political activity only to a privileged minority.
3. Democratic and autocratic (in its two varieties - authoritarian and totalitarian) cultures, characteristic of the era of capitalism.
4. The political culture of socialist democracy, establishing itself in the conditions of the transition to socialism.
There are many other typologies of political culture:
– on the basis of social class, political culture is divided into proletarian, peasant, bourgeois, etc.;
– in relation to social progress and transformations, political culture is divided into progressive and reactionary, patriarchal and modernized, stagnant and dynamic;
– on ideological grounds, political culture is divided into communist, anarchist, social democratic, liberal;
– on the basis of “equality-inequality” of a person in society, political culture is divided into egalitarian and egalitarian;
– on a national-territorial basis, political culture is divided into Western European, Eastern, Anglo-Saxon, Asian;
– on the basis of the regime of power and management, political culture is divided into democratic, totalitarian, authoritarian;
– according to the nature of political interactions, political culture is divided into confrontational and consensual;
– according to the degree of influence on the political life of society either by state management structures or by self-organizing market relations. Then we have a market political culture, which is focused on the specific rivalry of political actors, the free exchange of the products of their activities, and a state (statist) political culture, focused on strict state regulation of the political process. For the second, the interests of the state are higher than the interests of the social strata, organizations, and individual citizens that make up society. Competition and political conflicts are regulated primarily by forceful methods of state influence;
– by type of political regime – totalitarian, authoritarian, democratic. The more obvious the dominance of a certain regime, the more defined the society. But this does not mean that other types disappear without a trace. They continue to exist and can manifest themselves with varying degrees of openness and strength. For example, in a democratic society there are still elements of both totalitarian and patriarchal political cultures, which, under certain conditions, provide the possibility of society transitioning to the path of totalitarianism.
One of the most common typologies is the division of political culture according to civilizational criteria. For example, I.A. Vasilenko identifies several types of political culture: Hindu-Buddhist, Confucian-Buddhist, Islamic, Western, Orthodox-Slavic.
It also seems important to divide political culture into western and eastern. The ideals of Western-type political culture go back to the polis organization of power in Ancient Greece, to Roman law; the religious values of Christianity, especially its Protestant and Catholic branches, had a huge influence here. Western political culture is characterized by an understanding of power as the superiority of man over man, the perception of politics as a conflicting social activity, which at the same time is based on fair rules of the game and equality of citizens before the law, the supremacy of the ideals of freedom, private property, on the recognition of the individual as the main subject and source politician. The state is treated here as a guarantor of individual rights and freedoms; many forms of political participation, pluralism, democracy, control over power, and ideological awareness of citizens are assumed.
The specificity of Eastern norms and traditions is determined by the communal, collectivist nature of the agrarian Asian society, the influence of the values of Arab, Muslim and other Eastern religions. The eastern type of political culture is characterized by confidence in the divine origin of power, an attitude towards politics as the sphere of the chosen ones, recognition of the dominant role of the state and elites, personal preference for executive functions in political life and collective forms of political participation, a tendency towards an authoritarian type of government, the search for a charismatic leader, deification ruler in the absence of control over his activities, the priority of customs and religion.
In their classical form, these values and traditions form opposing political cultures. And even the restructuring of political institutions based on the models of another culture does not affect the stable values of the main culture. For example, India inherited from the colonial rule of Great Britain a fairly developed party system, a parliamentary institution, etc., but nevertheless, the eastern type of political culture dominates in it, and in elections the main role is played not by party programs, but by the opinion of village elders, leaders of religious communities, etc. Japan, being one of the industrial powers, has absorbed many liberal democratic values and patterns of political behavior of citizens into its political culture, nevertheless, it remains an eastern country. In Russia, political culture is also formed on the basis of combining some traditions of Western and Eastern political cultures.
Political culture is an integral part of national culture. This is, first of all, a value-normative system that society adheres to. It includes: the watered experience of humanity gained in the course of historical development. This experience influences the formation of people's political consciousness and is expressed in their orientations and attitudes that determine political behavior.
Functions of political culture:
Cognitive function is the formation in citizens of the necessary general political knowledge, views, beliefs and political competence.
Integrative - achieving agreement on the basis of generally accepted values within the framework of the existing political system. system and the political system chosen by society.
3. The communicative function allows you to establish a connection between the participants in the watering process both “horizontally” and “vertically”.
The normative and regulatory function is to form and consolidate in the public consciousness the necessary political values, attitudes, goals, motives and norms of behavior.
Educational function - makes it possible to form a personality, a citizen.
The structure of political culture includes 3 components: Cognitive - includes political knowledge, education and elements of political thinking. Moral - concerns political feelings, traditions, values, ideals. Behavioral - attitudes, types, forms, styles, patterns of political behavior.
Levels of political culture:
Worldview level - where a person’s ideas about politics are combined with an individual picture of worldview; a person defines himself in the world of politics.
The civil level is where a person develops an attitude towards power and how to exercise it.
Political level - all a person’s value ideas are formed, an attitude towards all political phenomena is developed. At this level, the role of politics in human life is determined.
Types of political culture: There are three ideal types of political culture: patriarchal, subservient and participatory culture.
Patriarchal is characterized by an orientation toward local, national values and can manifest itself in the form of local patriotism, nepotism, corruption, and mafia. A member of such a society is passive in politics and does not perform specific political roles (for example, voter). This type of culture is typical for young independent states.
Subjective presupposes a passive and detached attitude of the individual to the political system. He is tradition-oriented, although politically conscious. Submitting to power, an individual expects various benefits from it (social benefits, guarantees, etc.) and fears its dictates. It was this political culture that dominated the USSR, starting in the 20s and 30s.
Civil is distinguished by political activity, involvement and rationality. Citizens strive to actively influence political culture and direct its activities using legal means of influence (elections, demonstrations, etc.).
The political culture of a society cannot be absolutely homogeneous. The diversity of interests of different communities gives rise to models of political subculture that differ from each other. Among the most significant in political science, there are five types of subcultures: regional, socioeconomic, ethnolinguistic, religious, age.
The main ways of forming political culture. The condition for the formation of people's political culture is their involvement in the political process and interaction with political reality. Various spheres of public life interact with the political system; all of them, to one degree or another, participate in the formation of political culture and determine the main directions of this process. They are: targeted educational, spiritual and ideological activities of the state, political parties, public organizations and movements, churches, media, the impact of business, science, educational institutions, families, labor collectives, clubs and interest organizations.
In modern political science, there are many models for typologizing political culture.
A) By the nature of the orientation of participants in the political process towards specialized political objects(institutions, ideologies, forms of participation) (classification by G. Almond and S. Verba ).
In 1958-1962. American political scientists G. Almond and S. Verba carried out a comparative empirical study of the political cultures of the USA, Great Britain, Germany, Italy and Mexico. In each of the five countries, they interviewed about 1,000 people from different social strata. When studying the political culture of each country, people's political orientations (cognitive, affective, evaluative) were examined for:
1) the national political system as a whole;
2) the government of your country;
3) “national elections;
4) the personality itself.
In 1963, G. Almond and S. Verba, in their book “Civic Culture,” summarized the results of their research. They identified three types of political culture:
1) Patriarchal (traditional, parochial political culture). Characteristic of politically undeveloped societies. Social roles in such societies have not yet been distributed among subjects. People do not have clear political orientations. Orientations towards local values (clan, clan, tribe) are most clearly manifested - local patriotism, nepotism, groupism, corruption. Ideas about political life are vague, the attitude towards it is indifferent. People don't expect anything from politics. People with a traditional orientation are less susceptible to the values of world political culture.
2) Submissive political culture (culture of submission). Formed under conditions of feudalism, totalitarian and authoritarian political regimes. Subject culture is characterized by the political passivity of citizens, their detachment from politics. Subjects are aware of the existence of specialized political institutions, are able to evaluate their activities and navigate politics, but they show interest only in the practical results of the rule of political leaders. Subjects always and in everything submit to the authorities out of fear of reprisals and out of a secret expectation of benefits for their “obedience.”
3) Activist (participatory) political culture (culture of participation). Corresponds to a modernized society with a developed and differentiated political system. Citizens show a high interest in politics, strive to actively participate in it, rationally directing the political process in the desired direction with the help of legal means and instruments (“rational-activist” type of attitude towards the political system). Members of society are guided not only by dominant, but also by alternative political values - this manifests pluralism, tolerance and a creative attitude to politics.
G. Almond and S. Verba warned that the “pure” types of political culture they identified do not occur in reality. In practice there is mixture of features of different types, with the layering of later cultural elements on the earlier ones, also preserved in a “muted” form. The authors of the classification considered such a mixture of types dignity political culture, since the traditional and subservient orientations of one part of the population balance and restrain the political activity of another part of the citizens, stabilizing the functioning of the political system and society as a whole.
In all five countries surveyed, G. Almond and S. Verba found the presence mixed type political culture, which they called "culture of citizenship".
The study showed that not all citizens actively participate in the political life of both developed and developing countries. It turned out that the Anglo-American political culture extolled by many previous researchers is by no means ideal. However, in general, bearers of the “culture of citizenship” have undoubted ten advantages:
1) they consciously evaluate the activities of their government as positive for them personally;
2) they show a high and stable interest in the activities of their government and are well informed about it;
3) they are proud of their country's political system;
4) they expect attention from officials;
5) they are willing to discuss political issues publicly or among friends;
6) they openly and loyally express opposition sentiments;
7) they enjoy participating in various political events (election campaigns, etc.);
8) they competently evaluate the policies of their government and are ready to influence them both personally and jointly with other persons;
9) they competently use existing legal norms to protect themselves from arbitrary government;
10) they believe in the necessity and desirability of democracy as a system of government.
Research by G. Almond and S. Verba has convincingly proven that The initial factor of politics in any country is its political culture. This created an incentive for the development of comparative political science.
At the same time, through research into different types of political culture, it was possible to find out the reason for the different effectiveness of the application of the same political institutions in different countries of the world. It was on this basis that G. Almond identified four types of political systems:
Anglo-American;
Euro-continental;
Pre-industrial and partially industrialized countries;
Totalitarian.
No less important is the fact that the definition of political culture through a set of political orientations allows us to measure effectiveness of political interactions in any modern society.
However, the Almond-Verba classification is not the only way to typologize political cultures. Other classification options are based on other factors of political reality.
B) According to the degree of agreement of the population regarding basic values and forms of political structure(classification by American political scientist V. Rosenbaum).
V. Rosenbaum identified two types of political culture:
1) A fragmented type of political culture is characterized by a lack of consensus among citizens in accepting the main political values, in assessing political institutions and the need for their reform. Society fragmented social fault lines (economic, ethnic, linguistic, religious). As a result, the political life of such a society becomes unstable, uncompromisingly conflict-ridden, explosive (countries in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and partly Canada, Belgium, Northern Ireland).
2) The integrated type of political culture is distinguished by a high degree of agreement among citizens on the issue of basic values, ideas about the effectiveness of the functioning of political institutions, and the acceptability of certain forms of political participation. In such countries, political life is stable; political conflicts are resolved peacefully, through the use of well-established mechanisms; the political activity of citizens is civilized and, as a rule, low; citizens are loyal to the existing political system, tolerant of each other and of alternative political views (USA, England, Scandinavian countries).
IN) By type of relationship between participants in the political process(classification by Russian political scientist E. Ya. Batalov).
E. Ya. Batalov contrasted two types of political culture with each other.
1) Market political culture is characterized by the penetration of market competitive mechanisms into politics. Political activity becomes a type of business. Professional political skills and abilities are a specific product, an object of purchase and sale on the political market. Means and methods of satisfying the political demands of some groups of the population are exchanged for support of the power claims of other groups.
2) Etatist (state) political culture has the state as its core basis. Citizens, interest groups, and organizations are focused on supporting the state and turn to it to resolve most of their problems. A strong, well-functioning state ensures social justice. State forms of regulation of social life prevail over the mechanisms of self-government and self-organization.
G) According to the social level of carriers of political culture highlight:
1) Elite political culture;
2) Mass political culture.
D) By type of political regime highlight:
1) Liberal political culture;
3) Totalitarian political culture.
E) By type of civilization(classification by Russian researcher Yu. V. Irkhin and others) there are two types of political culture:
1) Political culture Western civilization. This culture is characterized by: a predominantly activist model of participation; stable traditions of political democracy, the predominance of national interests and modernism in political culture; the presence of a “solid” middle class and its political mentality; reliance of the political system on the individual as the main element of politics; a certain satiety of the individual with politics (with a persisting perception of the rules of participation in it); the formation by Western religions (Catholicism, Protestantism) of an open type of participation in politics; the increasing role of political leaders (due to personal factors, the spread of media, the complication of political development); consensus in the relationship between civil society and the state and, finally, a weak perception of the values of Eastern political culture (with an increasing general interest in the East).
2) Political culture eastern civilization. This culture is characterized by: a predominantly subservient nature of subordination; priority of community (family, clan, ethnic, professional) as a leading element of policy; stable traditions of authoritarianism; weak involvement of the individual in politics; formation by Eastern religions (Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Confucianism) of a hidden type of participation in politics; the predominance of the national-ethnic factor; sustainability of traditions; the increasing role of political leaders (due to charisma, increasing the role of parties and social movements); a sharp social and mental gap between the elite and the masses; the special role of the state and its persistent priority over the emerging civil society and, finally, the refraction of Western political culture by traditional cultures of the East (while maintaining their originality).
The significant discrepancy between the norms, values and traditions of the political cultures of the West and the East in the modern integrating world leads to ambiguous consequences. A number of advanced countries of the East (Japan, South Korea, Singapore, etc.) have found a combination of Western-style political institutions with preserved traditional cultural values that is quite acceptable to them. However, in general, the expansionism of Western political culture continues to run into “impregnable bastions” that deny it in many aspects of Eastern political culture.
The clash of different types of political cultures is one of the sources fueling anti-globalization movements in developing countries. For a certain part of the population of these countries, the unfolding of globalization processes raises concerns about the possible loss of their own ethnocultural self-identification.
Political culture depends to a large extent on the level of historical development; it changes in the course of any significant political events or other, quite significant and important, circumstances (but does not always keep up with them). The type of political culture is used to record common features of political consciousness and behavior among people living at the cross-section of one historical era, belonging to similar strata of society and having similar clichés of behavior and reactions to events occurring in the political sphere.
There are different approaches to classifying types of political cultures. For example, the Marxist approach, according to which political cultures existing in the same type of society have significant similarities, thus this approach distinguishes three types of political culture: slave, feudal and bourgeois society. Irkhin Yu.V. and others. Political Science: Textbook, p. 28
The most developed classification of political cultures based on this approach was carried out by the Polish scientist Jerzy Wiatr. In his opinion, a slave-owning and feudal society corresponds to a type of traditional political culture characterized by recognition of the sacred nature of power and tradition as a regulator of political relations. Within this type of political culture, the scientist identifies tribal, theocratic and despotic varieties, which can be combined with each other in various ways. In bourgeois society, Vyatr identifies two main types of political culture: democratic and autocratic. The first is characterized by high activity of citizens and their broad political rights. The second type of political culture, as the ideal of the state, recognizes strong and uncontrolled power that limits the democratic rights and freedoms of citizens.
In modern political science, the typology proposed by G. Almond and S. Verba is widely used to analyze and compare political cultures. They identify three main types of political culture, without strictly linking them to a specific time or social group, but focusing on values, patterns of behavior, and ways of organizing power:
- - patriarchal political culture, its main feature is the lack of interest in the political system in society;
- - subservient political culture, characterized by a strong orientation towards the political system, but weak participation in its functioning;
- - activist political culture, with traits of interest in the political system and active participation in it;
Patriarchal, or parish, political culture is inherent in social communities whose political interests do not go beyond the boundaries of their community, village or district. Its distinctive feature is the complete lack of interest among community members in political institutions and central authorities. In modern reality, the closest equivalent to such a political culture may be the relations existing in African tribes.
In modern society, two main types of political culture dominate and interact: subservient and activist, or political culture of participation.
The advantage of the first type of political culture is its ability to be a factor in the effective and rapid mobilization of huge masses of people, directing their energy to carry out socially necessary or, as it may later turn out, far-fetched transformations. The bearer of the expediency of these transformations is not the individual - a direct participant in the events, thanks to whose energy they are carried out, but history, which subsequently gives an assessment of the usefulness and necessity of the work done.
Since the socio-political initiative and the person acting in politics find themselves separated from each other in such a situation, it is possible to move a large mass of people in this case only with a very high level of discipline, orderliness, and organization in the functioning of the political mechanism. A necessary component of this type of ordering of social connections is the strict, ever-increasing centralization of management, the localization of the process of making political decisions in an increasingly narrowing circle of trusted, dedicated persons.
Initiative as a political quality is leaving society and is being replaced by discipline, diligence, work to implement next instructions and fulfillment of plans. Since the need for a source of instructions and plans exists and deepens, purely authoritarian methods of political leadership are growing, and the need for a visible embodiment of the power and authority of political power - in a political cult - is growing. Therefore, it is inevitably reproduced again and again around the personality of the highest political leader, almost regardless of the abilities and qualities of the real person occupying this post.
In an activist political culture, the main source of political action is a person, and the most important criterion for assessing a political organization is its ability to initiate active political action.
Activist political culture is more complex in its content, structure and forms of expression than the type that precedes it. To replace simple diligence with qualified and constructive initiative in politics, a different level of knowledge and ideas about the political process is required.
Changing the types of political culture, no matter how urgent the need, requires some time. The features of the transition are a variety of political orientations in the absence of a definite and obvious dominance of at least one of them, a rapid change in political preferences, an outbreak of extremism with its tendency to use extreme forms, means of political influence, such as hunger strikes, strikes, etc. In turn, the authorities in this period they go to use criminal and administrative measures, where political ones can be used, etc.
Of decisive importance for determining the type of political culture is the combination between those elements of political relations that are associated with the past, present and future of politics. The optimal state is when the elements of political culture are associated with all these aspects of existence.
The whole variety of national typologies of political culture varies within three main types:
- -liberal-democratic;
- -authoritarian;
- -totalitarian.
There are other types of typologization of political culture. For example, W. Rosembaum developed Almond's concept. In his classification there are two types: fragmented and integrated, and between these two types there are many intermediate variations. A fragmented type of political culture is characterized mainly by a lack of agreement in the sphere of the political structure of society. This type predominates in most African and Latin American countries, partly in northern Ireland and Canada. It is based on noticeable social, sociocultural, confessional, national-ethnic and other fragmentation of society. This creates conditions for ideological intransigence and uncompromising between conflicting groups, prevents the development of certain generally accepted rules of the political game, etc. The integrated type is distinguished by a relatively high degree of consensus on fundamental issues of the political structure, the predominance of civil procedures in resolving disputes and conflicts, a low level of political violence, and a high degree of various forms of pluralism (which must be distinguished from fragmentation).
D. Eleizar proposed his typology of political culture. It is based on three main types: moralistic, individualistic and traditional. W. Blum recognized only the liberal and collectivist type of political culture.
The listed types of typology allow us to conclude that there are many fairly developed concepts of types of political culture. Each researcher focused on something special, and by studying all the main types in detail, one can get a holistic idea of the typologization of political culture, and therefore better understand its structure and essence.
That. political culture plays an important role in modern society; it is a relevant science, its methods are widely used in studies related to the political sphere. And now political science can no longer be imagined without political culture.