Tuesday, June 14, 2005

AUTHORITARIAN DEMOCRACY

Armenian News Network / Groong

http://www.groong.com/

Review & Outlook - 06/14/2005


AUTHORITARIAN DEMOCRACY

Armenian News Network / Groong
June 14, 2005

By Tugrul Keskin


We have been experiencing so-called democratic revolutions
around the world today. These opposition movements from the
Caucasus to Central Asia, from Iraq to Ukraine, are toppling
the old regimes and their state structures. Inexperienced
opposition movements and their leaders are taking over the
state and have continued to control the entire society on behalf
of democracy in the Ukraine, Kyrgyzstan, Georgia, Iraq,
Lebanon and many more countries both now, and more to come[1].
However, no one questions the social nature of the democratic
ideas contained in these opposition movements. Where are they
emerging from,and what exactly do they attempt to achieve? Is
the problem in these countries really democracy, or perhaps
instead the exploitation of the market and natural resources
through the use of these so-called democratic movements. The
purpose of these movements is not really democracy, but use of
political goals to achieve economic means.

The process of colonialization involves many different stages
that take place within different historical time periods. As
part of this, both political and economic methods are used as
tools in these stages of its development. For instance, the
cultural, political and economic occupation of Sri Lanka and
India in the 18th century, or similarly the method of `divide
and rule' in Africa was undoubtedly similar to today's tragedy
in Central Asia and the Middle East. As Franz Fanon points out
in his book describing this dynamic, titled `Blacks Skin, White
Masks,' [2] democracy is a mask used as exploitation by the
powerful. We have been witnessing the neo-colonialization process
by colonialist powers and Trans National Corporations (TNC) in
the context of the so-called democratic structure and movements.
The meaning and the real notion of democracy have changed, and
today democracy and civil society are part and parcel in a
process that serves the interests of the powerful, rather than
creating freedom and equality within modern society. Freedom,
free speech and civil society are the true nature and
characteristics of a democracy; however replacing dictators
with puppets will not bring democracy and solve the
socio-economic issues for these underdeveloped and developing
nations, but will only serve to sustain further relationships
of exploitation.

The recent cases of the Ukraine, Kyrgyzstan, Georgia, and Iraq
have shown us that old and corrupt, anti-democratic regimes
cannot survive by disregarding the people's democratic demands
and sustaining economic equality. On the other hand, the
opposition movements of Ukraine, Kyrgyzstan, Georgia, and Iraq
stepped up and demanded more democracy supported by other
exploiters. A dichotomous situation for a so-called democracy.

In contrast to the argument of some scholars, democracy is
actually a very vague term that is defined in the context of
cultural parameters rather than within a universal pop-culture.
Democracy in Iran may be exercised differently than that of
Western Europe, because there exists in Iran a unique cultural
and historical development of democratic structure and
institutions and socio-economic paradigms that are specific to
the Iranian context. Therefore, we must define and understand
the democratic ideal within its appropriate cultural context.
Democracy does not serve the interests of TNCs, but that of the
people in these countries. Yet, today some neo-liberal scholars
argue that the meaning of `democratic' openness has transformed
into a description of democracy as a political approach that is
unable to survive without the free market. However, the state
structure in developing countries has become dispersed and
polarized by NGOs and their financiers, the TNCs. The state has
been weakened in this way and has lost control over the society
in favor of the interests of the elite or petit bourgeois. For
the TNCs, in order to sell more products, the state structure
should be weakened and tariffs should be abolished for their
own good, not for the good of the people of these countries.
This was the beginning of the decreasing power of the nation
state regarding the neo-liberal capitalist policies. According
to some views, such as those of Thomas Friedman, foreign direct
investment (FDI) and free market capitalism bring more
opportunities and democracy to the underdeveloped and
developing nations. In reality, FDI has not brought freedom to
the developing nations, but has produced an environment
in which there results cheap labor, the existence
of workers without unions, socio-economic chaos, more debt
to the IMF and World Bank, and last but not least, meaningless
independence and sovereignty. There has been an increase in the
power of the nation-state and national borders in the developed
nations, whereas the economic, cultural and political borders of
developing countries have been weakened. Moreover, invisible
borders and the diminishing power of nation state in the
developing nations have generated socio-economic anarchy and
chaos for these nations.

In the context of imperialism and neocolonialism, democracy
cannot be imposed on nations from the `outside.' In his book,
`Democracy in America [3]' Alexis DeTocqueville argues that
American democracy has been developed and constructed within
a democratic societal and state structure, which is by the
people for the people. It took a long time to build and
construct American democracy and the free institutions and
democratic behavior that support this. This was influenced
by the ideas of freedom and equality. Some other scholars
argue that American democracy has developed just within the
last two hundred years. If this is the case for the development
of the democratic process in America, then one must argue that
it will take a long time to build democracy and to shape a
civil society in countries such as Iraq or Kyrgyzstan. Most
importantly, Americans built their democratic state after they
received their independence from England. Democracy was not
begun under British colonialist rule because democracy cannot
be exercised under military or `civil' occupation. Each is
examples of the occupation of both mind and culture and
prevents democratic political organization and idea of civil
society.

It is important to note that the next colorful revolution may
take place in the Caucasus region. The case of Azerbaijan in
the context of democratic struggle is also a good example of
and reflects the power struggle between the puppets of
colonialism (so-called democratic opposition movements) and
the authoritarian state structure. This conflict will have a
considerable impact on the region, because colonialists do not
discriminate between the exploitation of either Armenia or
Azerbaijan. How do you define democracy within this class
of power struggle?

Democracy is neither a product of pop-culture nor exercised by
colonialist powers. Colonialism cannot be the watchdog for any
democratic structure and ideas, because the power holders'
economic interests overlap with anti-democratic movements and
paramilitary organizations, as we have seen in Latin and Central
America. In this sense, how can colonialism protect the real
nature of a democracy, when the `black skin white masks'
attempt to sell their products or to exploit the countries they
have occupied? It is a dichotomic process. We are within a
certain historical stage of human development; therefore in order
to improve our society and to continue along this path of social
and economic achievement, we cannot live without democracy.


NOTES:

1 http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/05/20050527.html
2 Franz Fanon, Black Skin White Masks
3 Alexis DeTocqueville, Democracy in America


--
Tugrul Keskin is a Ph.D. Candidate and Graduate
Teaching Assistant at Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University, Department of Sociology. He may be reached at
tugrulk@vt.edu

Redistribution of Groong articles, such as this one,
to any other media, including but not limited to other
mailing lists and Usenet bulletin boards, is strictly
prohibited without prior written consent from Groong's
Administrator.
© Copyright 2005 Armenian News Network/Groong.
All Rights Reserved.

Monday, June 13, 2005

Book Review: Irving M. Zeitlin, Ideology and the Development of Sociological Theory

Irving M. Zeitlin, Ideology and the Development of Sociological Theory(6th Ed.)

Tugrul Keskin

In this article, I will review Irving M. Zeitlin’s work of Sociological Theory. Zeitlin is a sociologist from University of Toronto. His book, Ideology and the Development of Sociological Theory, has been published 7 times. His approach is clearly unique and unlike that of other Sociological theory text books in American universities. The book has a much stronger social theory approach, than the more limited perspectives based just on theory. This book reminds us of the European viewpoint of Sociological theory; therefore Zeitlin uses the term “Enlightenment” as the starting point of his approach to social theory, because he refers to Enlightenment as “the intellectual movement that developed within the hundred-year span beginning with English Revolution and culminating with the French Revolution.” Enlightenment is a departure point in the origin of sociological theory. Many Sociologists agree with Zetlin’s view.

Zeitlin intends to explain Sociological Theory from the Marxist perspective and he sees Sociological theory as a combination of both Political and Social Theory. He did not have clear definition of social theory as its own field of inquiry in an independent sense; and does not distinguish between sociological ad political theories. Zeitlin attempted to combine Enlightenment with the Marxian legacy in the context of Social theory. At the time of the Enlightenment, Europe was under the influence and largely the control of religious fanatics in Europe, and Zeitlin traces Sociological theory from the philosophical foundation provided by the Enlightenment. According to him, sociology is science of critique. He makes reference often to British and French social thinkers, and hence, began his book with theoretical points from Montesquieu, Rousseau and Saint Simon.

During the last decade, there have been many publications on Sociological theory, and most of them have their own unique perspective. Each scholar who works and writes on Sociological theory tries to put his or her own ideological background and perspective into his or her writings. Zeitlin’s methodology is also different than the methodology contained in other social theory textbooks, specifically his historical methodology.

The book contains four main Chapters, and each of them supports and expands further on his approach to social theory. Marxist theory is the central argument and starting point of the book, and most of the social theorists that are referenced are either Marxist or socialist thinkers. Zeitlin uses Marxist theory to construct his sociological ideas. There are four different categories of sociological theory; Enlightenment, Post-Revolutionary Thought, The Marxian Watershed, and The Debate with Marx’s Ghost.

One of the most important points of this book is that Zeitlin gave great attention in his work to the thoughts of women social theorists, unlike most other writers. It is not common in the social theory literature to find such as attention to women theorists and social thinkers and in many cases women are not referred to at all.

In the first Chapter, he refers to Mary Wollstonecraft as “a true child of the Enlightenment.” Mary Wollstonecraft’s work is also important in the context of women rights in the 17th century so it is significant that he takes the work into account, within its historical context.

The other central figures in his book include Saint Simon, the utopian French Socialist and social thinker. Zeitlin views Marx’s theory as originating from the influence of Simon’s work. Thinkers and philosophers in Zeitlin’s book, such as Montesquieu, Rousseau, Saint Simon, Alexis de Tocqueville, Pareto and Mosca are more related with political theory than with sociological theory but are given strong preference in Zeitlin’s theoretical framework. As we have mentioned before, he does not have clear definition of sociological theory, therefore combines the works of both political and social theorists. Another key thinker made reference to in Zetlin’s book is Saint Simon. If we compare Zetlin’s work with that of other social theory textbooks, we would not be able to see much influence from Saint Simon’s theories in their work. However, Zeitlin provided an entire chapter on Simon’s ideas, and the part his work played in influencing Enlightenment thinkers in the 19th century.

For Zeitlin, the philosophy of intellectual movements is one ideological foundation of Marxism. Enlightenment created an environment that resulted in a change in the social structure of Europe. There was a revolution in human thought, which at the time was the most important factor that contributed towards moving forward in human history and the development of intellectual thought.

In Zeitlin’s view, the reaction against Enlightenment, particularly in reference to the revolution is a conservative and non-progressive event in history. These conservative thinkers that were against the revolution, sought to discontinue the secularization process in Europe. According to Zeitlin, secularization was an inevitable event of ‘bridge’ in human history which worked towards the collective good. In c7, Zeitlin provides historical details of the secularization process in Europe. He perceives the process as an escape from the darkness of religious authorities. In the same Chapter, Zeitlin concludes that there are two different types of philosophy and sociology; the conservative and the revolutionist types or strains. He categorizes Burke, Hegel, Bonald and Maistre as conservative thinkers.

In Chapter 8, Zeitlin introduces both Saint Simon and Comte as official founders of sociology. In most of the book, he distinguishes between conservative and progressive social thinkers. Zeitlin obviously shows that he takes the side of the Marxist view, and regards this as the progressive strain of social thought. From the beginning of the book to the end, he provides a Marxist perspective, and then throughout tries to find support for these view from many different social thinkers.

According to Zeitlin, Alexis de Tocqueville is “one of the most important social and political theorists of the nineteenth century,” because Tocqueville emphasizes two important revolutions and he wrote of them as critical factors of social transformation. The first one is a democratic revolution and the other an industrial revolution.

Zeitlin argues that John Stuart Mill, English philosopher, was greatly influenced by Harriet Taylor who was “one of the major figures who shaped the thinking of the later Victorian era.” According to Zeitlin, in Chapter 12, John Stuart Mill’s concern was the relationship of government to liberty.

In Chapter 13, Zeitlin talks about Marx and his philosophical orientation and in Chapter 14, continues on to have a discussion about Marx’s relation with Hegel and Feuerbach, and the way that both thinkers influenced Marxist theory. Zeitlin states that Marx’s dialectic method is different than the Hegelian one, however, in that he did not clearly define the Marxian dialectic. Zeitlin also highlights the importance of historical sociology in Marx’s work. Another important thinker/philosopher and businessman in Zeitlin’s book, Frederick Engels has a whole Chapter devoted to the discussion of his theories. It is unlikely to have a whole chapter dedicated to Engels in any other sociological theory book.

In the last main chapter, The Debate with Marx’s Ghost, Zeitlin covers Weber, Pareto, Mosca, Durkheim and Karl Manheim. Mosca and Pareto, both Italian sociologists and political scientists, are rather more political theorists than sociologists. Zeitlin introduces them as “the New Machiavellians.” It seems to be that theories of Mosca and Pareto are more state-related than society-related; therefore it is not often that we find both theorists discussed in sociological theory textbooks.

Zeitlin always uses Marxian theory as the center argument of the book. He compares other theorists with Marx, and critiques them using the Marxist methodology and perspective. The book is historically very well organized, in the way that it contains different social thinkers and sociologists starting from the early 17th century to the early 20th century. The last sociologist he mentions in the book is Karl Manheim. He analyses Karl Manheim’s famous work, Ideology and Utopia, and links Manheim’s work with Marx. Zeitlin stresses that in Manheim’s sociology of knowledge “Manheim considered political, legal, philosophical, religious, and other ideas in their relationship with economic and social changes.”
Zeitlin’s Approach

His approach to sociological theory is based on Marxist view and Marxist theory is always present at the core of the book. Consequently, he accomplished his goal. To me, Zeitlin’s book is more history of social theory book rather than just a sociological theory textbook.

In short, Zeitlin’s stated goal was to explain sociological theory as an evolutionary idea with a historical process and trajectory that begun with the Enlightenment. Irving Zeitlin certainly achieved his goal, because his methodology shows us that the intellectual foundation of sociological theory follows the historical process of evolution.