Political Sociology

Within the broader framework of sociology.

What is Sociology then ?

Sociology- Founder- August Comte.

Comte coined the term.

Robert Nisbet argued that sociology came into its own
in the latter decades of the 19th Century when
European intellectuals realised the importance of
community and group ties in moulding individual
action.
Sociology is predisposed towards the COLLECTIVE at
its centre.

Doesn’t mean individual is analytically irrelevant.

Marx. Weber & Durkheim…Founders of Contemporary

sociology
Marx as sociologist- Mode of production

Durkheim as sociologist.- Society more than sum total

of its parts

Weber as a sociologist- Collective appears differently

in his work. Individual makes choices through
accepted genres of thinking prevalent within a
society.
To be able to give meaning to action is
understanding that we are part of the collective even
though we might not be aware.
Power & Authority- Basic features of sociology.

Political Sociology is about politics - but of a

different kind.

When politics concerns itself with power in the

broadest sense of the term, Pol Soc is really
interested in authority. I.e, legitimate power.
The distinction between power & authority frames all
scholarship in this sub-discipline.

Legitimate authority can be properly explicated only

at the level of State.

Political Sociology therefore, has to do with the

struggle to influence or capture state power either
directly or indirectly.
Weber defines the state as the institution that
legitimately monopolises the means of physical
coercion.

Weber distinguishes 3 main types of authority-

traditional, rational-legal & charismatic.
“Charismatic” is not a permanent feature but comes
up when the other two forms of governance have lost
their authority. It is also imp. To note that charismatic
authority is only such when it is recognised by the
collective
The normal and the legitimate: Durkheim’s sociology
also received some rearticulation in the light of
Webers power & authority distinction.

In the Rules of Sociological Method, Durkheim

argued that sociologist should study the normal type
& that they should be abe to differentiate the normal
from the pathological type.

Concern is “what is” against “what should be”

There is no reason to be judgemental or dismissive
of institutions and practices different from our own.

Instead we should examine the efficacy and

functioning in relation to the whole
 Pol Soc in India
In the Indian case, neither tradition or traditional
authority was eradicated by force yet pol sociologists
argued this did not hold up the development of
democratic institutions in the country.

In their view this was possible because tradition was

moulded and transformed in a uniquely symbiotic
way to aid the cause of Pol & soc modernisation in
India.
Sociologists like the Rudolphs found that India have
irrefutably taken the path of modernity & many of
its traditional institutions were undergoing change.