H. Edward Flentje
II. POLITICAL CULTURES A LA WILDAVSKY AND ASSOCIATES
A second stream of scholarly work on political culture has been led by Aaron Wildavsky and his associates (Wildavsky, 1987; Thompson et al., 1990; Ellis, 1993; Coyle and Ellis, 1994; Ellis and Thompson, 1997; Chai and Swedlow, 1998). These scholars commend the pioneering work of Elazar but suggest im- provement may be made in his categorization of political cultures. They have advanced the concept of political cultures by drawing upon theoretical work of anthropologist Mary Douglas—defining political culture as a set of values and beliefs upheld by social relations (Douglas, 1978). These cultural theorists assert that social organization may best be understood by examining an organization's underlying cultural biases which are justified and sustained by patterns of inter- personal relations (Thompson et al., 1990:1-24).
In contrast to Elazar's categories derived inductively from observation of state politics, Wildavsky and associates deduce inferences on political cultures from Douglas' assertion that essential cultural biases in social relations may be analyzed through cultural polarities, specifically a two-dimensional, grid-group typology (see Figure I).2 The group dimension, according to Douglas, measures the degree to which "the individual's life is absorbed in and sustained by group membership." Strong group suggests a high level of group involvement, strong boundaries separating group members from nonmembers, group restrictions on
1 Illustrative of this research is "State Political Subcultures Further Research," an issue of Pubhus The Journal of Fedei ahsm 21 (Spring 1991).2
2 A six state study of the impact of political cultures on state policy in education suggests ' 'the impor tance of understanding culture as sets of polarities At the core of the cultural paradigm are polarities of preference and social relations that give meaning to the whole Intuitively, as well as analytically, such a view of culture seems to fit—to describe, explain, and predict—the political activity in the American states" (Marshall et al , 1989 162)
State Administration in Cultural Context 71
Strong Grid Fatalism
• seeing the world as random and capricious—immune to rational action or management,
• believing that community action is hopeless, and
• hoping for luck or divine intervention
Weak Group Individualism
• enhancing individual liberty through political competition and limits on political authority,
• enhancing liberty through free markets, bidding and bargaining, barter and exchange,
• maximizing self regulation and minimizing the scope of governmental regulation,
• encouraging innovation, trial and error, experimentation, and
promoting equality of opportunity
Hierarchy
• promoting individual sacrifice in behalf of collective good,
• establishing order through rule of law, hierarchial structures, division of labor, and standards generated by experts,
• redeeming individual deviation through good institutions, and
• utilizing the power of conscience and reason to regulate and restrain baser passions and impulses
Strong Group
Egalitananism
• promoting equality of conditions through measures such as
redistribution of wealth, progressive taxation, and quotas based on sex or race,
• rectifying social inequity and injustice by reducing differences, and
• equalizing power relations by diminishing established authority
Weak Grid Figure 1 Political cultures
72 Flentje
individual autonomy, and individual reliance on the group for residence, work, recreation, or other life sustaining resources Weak group suggests greater mdi vidual autonomy in social relations either through a low level of group involve ment or multiple group involvements of a nominal kind The grid dimension, according to Douglas, involves external prescription or regulation "leaving mini- mum scope for personal choice '' Strong grid suggests strict regulation of individ- ual behavior through environmental forces weak grid suggests "a good degree of independence" in negotiating social relations (1978 16)
From the grid group typology, Douglas defines four essential cultures un derpinnmg social relations individualism (weak grid-weak group), hierarchy (strong grid-strong group), egalitanamsm (weak grid-strong group), and fatal ism (strong grid-weak group) Wildavsky and associates draw upon and extend these constructs to develop a theoretical basis for political cultures Culture, they argue, aids understanding of a wide range of political phenomena, most impor tantly, political preferences which take form in social relations
People get their preferences from their involvement with others Social relations are the great teachers of human life They provide us with our con ception of what is desirable beautiful horrible normal outlandish Pref erences are formed from the most basic desire of human beings—how we wish to live with other people and others wish to live with us (Thompson etal 199056-57)
Such relationships, mostly without conscious design, create cultural biases, that is, the "shared meanings, the common convictions, the moral markers, the subtle rewards, penalties, and expectations common" to a particular political culture (Thompson et al, 1990 59)
At the same time political culture is not deterministic "Our theory of cul- tural biases attempts to leave room for individual discretion by viewing individu- als as actively pursuing their preferred way of life, as well as by testing rival ways to determine which is preferable " Further, cultural theory envisages "a permanent dynamic imbalance in which adherents are constantly changing posi tions and, in so doing, transforming the relative strength of the rival ways '' From this framework, politics may be seen as a contest among rival political cultures ' 'Political culture is transmitted from generation to generation, but it is not trans mitted unchanged, nor is it transmitted without question or by chance It is a lively and responsive thing that is continually being negotiated by individuals"
(Thompson et al , 1990 177-177, 186, 218)
Wildavsky and associates then explain the political cultures of individual ism, hierarchy, egalitanamsm, and fatalism in terms of core values, world view of man and nature, assessment of blame when things go wrong, and pnncipal prescriptions for society underlying these cultures (see Thompson et al, 1990)
State Administration in Cultural Context 73