PSIR Optional Paper I and Paper II by R P Singh

Model Answer

Question #1. Comment: “Power flows throughout the system like blood in the capillaries of our body”. (Foucault)

Michel Foucault, one of the most important figures in critical theory, has been the centre of attraction on the concepts of power, knowledge and discourse. His influence is perceptible in post-structuralist, post-modernist, post-feminist, post-Marxist and post-colonial theories. The impact of Foucault’s works has been reflected across a wide range of disciplinary fields such as, sociology, anthropology, philosophy and history. The thought provoking nature of Foucault’s theoretical works has been the reason for very productive debates from the nineteen sixties to the present.

In Foucault, we get to know Postmodernism, the Post-structuralist approach to power. Foucault theory is also called as “sociological theory of power”. He has not just concentrated on the macro view of power rather than has taken into account micro-view of power.

The prominent components of Foucault’s theory of power are:

•   Concept of discourse
•   Idea of disciplinary power
•   Bio-power
•   Governmentality

Rather than focusing on who has power, he has analysed the manner in which power is exercised in the society.

He calls the conventional view of power as the “Juridico-discursive model”.

•   It is believed that power lies with the state or govt.
•   The exercise of power is unidirectional from top to bottom.
•   Nature of power is coercive or repressive.

According to him, the above understanding of power is very narrow and superficial. According to him, power is present throughout society like a network of capillaries. He further suggests that power is everywhere. Power is applied in a multidimensional way. Power comes from everywhere and power goes everywhere. Power is not just repressive. Power is productive. Power is not just exercised on a person, they are vehicles of power. They embody power. According to him, Power is a part of everyday life. Power is exercised as routine. Power is strategy. Whenever power exists there is scope of resistance.

Power is present throughout the society in the form of discourses. Like Nietzshe, he also believes in “Knowledge-Power connection”. Discourse represents prevalent ideas, cultural practices, institutions which determine the limit of persons’ understanding and his conception of right and wrong.

Thus, according to him, it is wrong to think that the king is sovereign and no power is being exercised on him. King is also the embodiment of discourses. Thus, as a member of society we all carry power and exercise power on each other. The exercise of power is not one way from top to bottom. It is multi-directional. It comes from everywhere and goes everywhere. According to him, Power is not just repressive, power is also productive. It produces a person's identity. It is also a source of a person's well-being.

A key point about Foucault’s approach to power is that it transcends politics and sees power as an everyday, socialised and embodied phenomenon. This is why state-centric power struggles, including revolutions, do not always lead to change in the social order. For some, Foucault’s concept of power is so elusive and removed from agency or structure that there seems to be little scope for practical action. But he has been hugely influential in pointing to the ways that norms can be so embedded as to be beyond our perception – causing us to discipline ourselves without any willful coercion from others.

Foucault insists that power “is everywhere, not because it embraces everything, but because it comes from everywhere.” He acknowledges there is no power that is exercised without a series of aims that results from the choice or decision of an individual subject. He also concedes that “where there is power, there is resistance, and yet, this resistance is never in a position of exteriority in relation to power.”

Question #2. "Comparative method is certainly an effective method to study and analyse contemporary politics, but researchers must be aware of the problems related with this process". Discuss.

Although comparative approach in political science is considered to be advantageous in linking theory to evidence, enhancing it as a scientific discipline, there are a number of constraints that limit its possibilities and can impair its usefulness.

Arend Lijphart claimed that “the phrase comparative politics specifies the “how” but does not postulate the “what” of the analysis”. Comparativists usually compare and contrast different component parts of countries’ political systems and try to discover differences and certain tendencies. Comparison entails following basic operations:

•   Compiling a list of things to compare,
•   Sorting and classifying them and, eventually,
•   Carrying out a basic act of comparison and making relevant conclusions.

Comparative methods can be applied to compare political systems of different countries and also it can be used to compare political systems over time. There are different “schools” of the subject in the study of comparative politics as well institutionalism and functionalism. Institutionalism denotes the practice of comparing political institutions such as governments, political parties. It has been documented that the main advantage of the comparative method is that it makes the study of politics more structured and conclusions derived with this method are more precise. Despite the benefits, there are certain difficulties and drawbacks in comparative methods as well.

Common problem of politics is that there are usually too many variables and too few cases. There are more than 200 countries in the world, but regrettably, they are all quite different. It is impossible to compare drastically different or completely identical countries, so in order to take advantage of the comparative method, only similar countries with minor differences should be compared and in some cases, it may prove to be complicated to find such.

The problem raised by researchers with the comparative method is that research might be not objective and the researcher purposely chooses countries to demonstrate negative or positive moments to proof his/her opinion. For example, consider the proposition that countries with weak trade unions are more economically efficacious than countries with strong trade unions. Here, trade unionists and, on the opposite side, managing directors have a political point to make, so more than likely their conclusions might completely diverge.

It is shown in political studies that in other subfields of political science, investigators may commonly work within definite general research programmes that offer clear base level assumptions to devise testable theories. But in comparative politics, analysts usually do not draw precise research programmes. Instead, they get theoretical inspiration in a wide range of general orientations-strategic choice models, state- centric approaches, patron-client models, theories of international dependency, and many more that emphasis certain major causal factors but that lack the all-encompassing generality that people normally associate with a research programme.

Comparative Politics tend to dangle normative evaluation of the world in favour of defining the political world and clarifying why it is the way it is. Nonetheless, it is important to recollect that comparativists do this not because they lack preferences or are unwilling to make normative judgments, but because as social scientists, they are committed first to offering systematic explanations for the world as it is. So they try to draw a realistic rather than normative model.

Comparative researchers may disagree about whether the assimilated knowledge may help make the world a better place or help people to make better judgments about politics, but they usually accept that the job of defining and explaining is big enough. It can be cited through example, rather than evaluating whether democracy is good or not. Comparativists spend enough time to understand and identify the general conditions such as social, economic, ideological, institutional, and international under which democracies originally appear, become unstable, collapse into despotism and sometimes re-emerge as democracies. Additionally, sometimes in Comparative Politics, it has been tried to draw parallel between two or more incomparable themes leading to imprecise conclusions. But the most bothersome weakness of comparative politics is the uncertainty of the area of study.

It is assessed that the comparative approach has many limitations. Major concern is that researchers often have too many theories that fit the same data. This means that collecting valid and reliable data for the case researchers have selected to test theoretical relations can turn out to be a formidable task. If this problem is insufficiently solved, it will undermine the quality of results. Other disadvantages of comparative approach are that if inadequate data is available, it may be impossible to apply. Adjustments must be made as no two properties are ever identical. Precision of the method depends upon the appraiser’s ability to recognize differences, and to make the proper adjustments for those differences.

To summarize, Comparative method is certainly the effective method to study and analyse contemporary politics, but researchers must be aware of the problems related with this process. Comparative method is used as a basis in all methods of valuation. Comparative method make simpler to a complex political reality and makes it more manageable. Comparative politics brings researchers into contact with political worlds other than political and cultural horizons. Comparative approach to studying of politics also enables researchers to move beyond mere description, toward explanation and within these method researchers can talk about comparative politics as a science. But negative side is that there is difficulty of operationalising variables. Any research of comparative method is susceptible to personal interests and motivations.