THE ‘POLITICAL’ AND THE ‘SCIENCE’
1. POLITICAL
➔ answers: what is reality?
approaches to what the political is:
1. arena approach – things happen in specific
areas; thus, things that occur outside these
areas are apolitical or private
↳ prioritizes freedom of
choice. there is no
coercion.
● art of government
- executive → bureaucracy
(lifeblood of government)
- legislative
- judiciary
● public affairs
- the state
- territory
- sovereignty
- government
- population
2. [politics of] process – does not occur all the
time and may be present in the context of
external political affairs; occurs only in the
case politics is exercised outside the public or
private (i.e. family or friends)
compromise and consensus - there is always a
winner. however, consensus is difficult because:
- people are plural (Hannah Arendt)
- resources are scarce
∴ power is exerted and identifies the winner
∴ politics begins in the fact of human plurality
// nuance: if politics is defined by process, it becomes
amorphous— which results in many interests such as
economics, psychology, etc. that pertain to gender, race, etc.
but because of this, what then is political science? //
ontological – what is reality? (our state of being)
● foundationalism – there are foundations in
the world that are static; similar to natural
sciences. ∴ prediction can only happen
because everything is empirical.
(arena approach)
● anti-foundationalism – reality is what
subjects make of it. politics is negotiated.
(process)
2. SCIENCE
➔ answers: what to make of that reality
epistemology – what can we know of our reality?
depending on your ontological position…
● foundationalist → scientific → theory (predicting
to explain)
types of theories:
1. deductive → rationalism
2. inductive → empiricism
- knowledge through senses
- always measurable
- method of behaviouralism
● anti-foundationalist → hermeneutic
- finding meaning attached to practices
attached to that reality
e.g. the meaning of two people holding
hands is given by the actors
❏ two layers of interpretation is double hermeneutic (as in,
there is the interpretation of the observer and the
interpretation of the actor)
❏ ∴ the less falsifiable something is, the less scientific it is (Karl
Popper); or the more something cannot be proven wrong,
the less scientific it is because science is empirical; but “if
theory is not best proven through verification, then it is by
falsification.”
❏ e.g. all swans are white
verification would require assessment of all
swans. but the single observation of a black swan
is sufficient to falsify this statement.
∴ falsification is refutability. how much a statement can
be wrong. if you can prove a statement wrong, then it is
falsifiable.
methodology – how can we make sense of our
reality?
depending on your ontological position...
● foundationalist → scientific → quantitative
privileged
- however, quantitative can be based on
qualitative assessment so long as it
alludes to an objective truth / reality
● anti-foundationalist → hermeneutic →
qualitative
- driven by language
❏ ∴ political science is scientific because it requires essentially
the same process of data-gathering. how we get
information in the social sciences is similar to how we
extract information in the natural sciences. there is the
need to observe phenomena, hypothesize or theorize, and
arrive at a conclusion or truth, therefore classifying it as a
field that requires human deduction.
❏ also take note that although an ontological position is ↳ cultural consent (instead
necessary in order for you to have an epistemological of fighting the system,
position, this does not mean that one’s ontology is
determinant of one’s epistemology, though it tends to. people obey it)
// summary: the political in political science is defined by one’s 3. COMMONALITIES
ontology (or reality). based on that, one decides what he knows concerning power and power relations:
through epistemological means that classify his knowledge 1. behavior
based on its methodology. //
- there must be a form of behavioral change
CRITICAL CONCEPTS 2. domination
- power therefore is a zero-sum game
1. META-THEORETICAL ISSUES (someone wins and someone loses)
● stability vs. change - if you are a winner, you are free from
● structure vs. agency coercion
↳ reflexivity - we are not just ∴ the fundamental concept is interest
controlled by our structural Lord Acton: “power corrupts and
configurations; there is freedom to power corrupts completely”
do/be something else outside or 3. simple a → b dichotomy
even within one’s structure (also - power of a is observed through capacities (i.e.
institutions vs. person) beauty, money)
● idealism vs. materialism ∴ power is a possession
❏ dualism – ontological; only one can exist - wherein the main capacity is charisma;
❏ duality – is not mutually exclusive
2. POWER - and capacities are furthered by social
position
“faces” of power CRITIQUE:
● Robert Dahl 1. agents
- a can make b do something that b - “how?” instead of being concerned with who;
wouldn’t otherwise do. - we should be concerned about apparatuses ➝
- decision-making (powerful is he/she having an apparatus means it is discipline-based
(if it is disciplined, it means one has regimen and
who makes the decision) knowledge)
∴ there is no power relation if you are not 2. power can be enabling ∴ discipline enables productive
being coerced citizens (produces truths)
● Bachrach & Baratz 3. identity ➝ e.g. guidance counselors
- when someone sets a structure prior to 4. THE MODERN (NATION) STATE
the discussion Held (1992/2003) said it is a nation if there is:
- agenda-setting (there is a setting that 1. territoriality
is unopposable) 2. control of the means of violence
● Steven Lukes 3. impersonal structure of power
- power directly meddles with what you 4. legitimacy
think ↳ charisma
- preference-shaping (you believe that ↳ traditional
you like what you are doing) ↳ national-legal
- your interest aren’t really your interests ❏ Held’s definition reflects Max Weber’s: “corporate groups
because they were imposed that exercise compulsory jurisdiction that claims monopoly
of a territory”
- hegemony (Antonio Gramsci)
↳ material coercion 5. STATE
the state is modern because of its evolution during
the modern era.
 1648 – treaty of Westphalia
- states are independent of each other
- Westphalian system was anarchic
- realism: stares are supreme but
insecure. all actions of the state can be
deduced to the need to maintain
power.
● War and Militarism - efficient and effective
extractive mechanisms:
1. tax (there is no taxation without
representation)
2. people (conscription)
➜ possible because of:
citizenship
- rights (in exchange for certain
services)
- duties (state safeguards your
rights in order for you to serve
back)
national identity (nacer; to be born)
- shaped by language
❏ the state is also historical. it has a beginning (Western-
Euro formation -1648) and possibly an end
● Capitalism
- industrial revolution
- colonization
❏ capitalism cannot exist without the state (it is a symbiotic
relationship)
❏ ∴ the more capable a state is in their means of violence,
the better they are at the EXTRACTION of taxes and
military.
❏ the relation of military expenditures to the economy is
that a good military force is indicative of proper extraction
of taxes, meaning the economy is well-developed. also,
having a good military force entails safety for the people,
allowing them to function as productive individuals,
boosting the economy.
❏ ∴ war & militarism – citizens are accorded rights in return
for service ➝ sovereignty
❏ capitalism – bio-power (the target is no longer subjects
and land, but the life of individuals)
❏ SOVEREIGNTY + BIO-POWER = SURVEILLANCE
❏ ∴ violence is the foundation of the state, but too much
force (esp if it is illegitimate) will make a state brittle.
meaning, sovereignty is always violent at first.
6. DEMOCRACY
demos (people)
kratein (rule)
➝ rule of the people
// Modern political democracy is a system of governance in
which rulers are held accountable for their actions in the
public real by citizens intervening (a) directly, through their
own actions, or (b) indirectly, through the competition and
cooperation of their elected representatives. //
- Magadia & Ramos; Schmitter & Karl
7. CONSTITUTION
- limits what a government can and can’t do
- safeguards
- what is radical is that rights are protected in a
constitutional way
- governments are sovereign but can’t go
against the constitution
- sovereignty relies on the people and is
constructed on the constitution
8. ELECTIONS
- winner of plurality vote will be challenged to
win legitimacy of people
- plurality – highest votes
- parliamentary system:
party that decides who gets seats but
now the electorate knows who will be
the takers of the seats and it shouldn’t
be like that because of personality
politics
∴ elections should be competitive
- incumbents can lose
- opposition can win
this means political dynasties are bad
because they render elections not
competitive
- winners are allowed to rule
∴ consent of the people gives the
government power
- popular sovereignty - vox populei
- Hobbes: if you are better than the current
power holder, then you have every right to
overthrow that power holder
∴ it is only in democracy where cooperation and
competition are necessary and invited
a democracy is only a democracy if it is
competitive, but all forms of competition will
mean nothing without cooperation
THEORIES OF THE STATE
❖ key themes:
 - sovereignty ❏ the reason why people continue to hold together is because
- authority you can lose today but then win tomorrow (e.g. US).
❏ However, in the case that a particular group continues to
- legitimacy win, then:
1. PLURALISM/LIBERAL-PLURAL STATE 2. ELITISM
- the state is a regulator of a plurality of societal ❖ central claims:
interests - elite rule is inevitable, (liberal) democracy is
● Thomas Hobbes: irrational
- bellum omnia contra omnes (war of all - the economy is not the ultimate determinant
against all) of social dynamics (elites come in different
- only works if there is consent forms, not just the economic elite exist. e.g.
- the only rational choice is to kill being the best in a certain thing automatically
● John Locke: makes you an elite, tied to the concept of
- people will not kill each other because capacities)
of rationality - the state can be/is “relatively autonomous”
- politics is a necessary evil from social and economic forces
- state is needed as an arbitrary (last ∴ the state could have its own interests and could
sayer) force and it is only a function for push for them.
people if people allow themselves to be ● Classical Elitism
governed 1. Pareto: circulation of elites (zero-sum game)
∴ the state is an umpire and it is not supposed to - lions (conservatives who want evolution)
have its own interests. and foxes (potentially radicals who want
revolution)
2. Mosca: economic elite is just one kind of elite;
science of the ‘political formula’
- winners cannot usurp (e.g. people who
the state is a lost the last time can win the next time)
site of conflict - who said so? the people who shape the
among various political formula. it’s one after the other
interests. once critiqued. (e.g. economics,
➜ comparative advantage)
3. Michels: “iron law of oligarchy” - if there is
organization, then there are leaders
● Democratic Elitism
1. Weber: elitisim isn’t necessarily economic
compromise and consensus: the belief of democracy privilege, but status
and capitalism Weberian State – a corporate group separate from
- cultural politics: the people will hold society
themselves together because of a ➔ differentiation
general consensus on beliefs and values ↳ one to one correspondence (DOH is
- equilibrium/stability: such that the state
different from DSWD, but though functions
does not break down are different, interest may be the same.
❏ democracy reflects market (similar to a wet market however, one cannot have all burdens, e.g.
because of: negotiation, no set prices, and number of you cannot be the president, vice president,
choices available) and secretary)
➔ centralization
 ➔ monopolization of authority through 3. MARXISM
monopolization of the means of physical ❖ core elements:
violence (not just physical harm, but also - the social world as a totality - all of the social
restriction of rights) world can be totalized by the economy
↳ state domination - materialist conception of history
- minimum voluntary compliance ❏ Interest of the state is interest of the capital
- acceptance of commands as valid ❏ Unlike elitist states, the economic base determines the
norms interests of the state (what it wants and legislates)
- belief in the legitimacy of the form primacy of class
of domination - a set of individuals with the same relationship
the state can… of the means of production (either you own the
- institute political reforms means of production or you don’t)
- develop special programs - working class → alienation
- regulate and distort markets ↳ from his own produce (one’s
➝ produce supply even if demand is not there produce is bought and is
because of: no longer theirs)
1. capacity ↳ from self (man sees himself
2. autonomy as a unit of production)
- “relative” bureaucracy does not come from ↳ from his/her species-being
the dominant landed, commercial, or (Marx: the world is an artifice
industrial classes; of man; therefore, man’s
- neither does it form personal and economic essence is labor – not just for
ties with the dominant classes the consumption but an
∴ autonomy > capacity expression of the fulfillment of
man himself; man puts an
imprint on his/her labor)
↳ most importantly, from
his/her fellow workers (in
capitalist mode of production,
there is no space for
camaraderie because of
competition and
specialization, e.g. factories)
❏ ironically, it is precisely because of alienation that Marx
allows capitalism to happen. Because only then will the
revolution happen. The problem is, it didn’t happen. Upon
observing Britain, which had all the circumstances set by
Marx, it was the perfect setting for a proletariat revolution.
❏ But it did not take place, instead, it took place in Russia
which was semi-feudal and not capitalist.
❏ the state must be brought down, “workers of the world
unite”
❏ Marxism alone is not violent. But the question is would
the change be evolutionary or revolutionary, so the
strategy was left to Lenin whose strategy was ultimately
violence and to create a vanguard (national democrats)
❏ the dictatorship of the proletariat is justified because it is
a democracy
 ❏ Mao Zedon – protracted war (to gather in the countryside
and attack the metro)
❖ Marxist literary works:
● Communist Manifesto
- the state is an executive of the dominant
class
● 18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte
- proved that the state can have
relative autonomy
↳ the state can be detached from
dominant class interests and can be
reformed after all, but how?:
Antonio Gramsci
- if classical marxism identifies the state as one that
is moved by material coercion and relations of
class, Gramsci’s point of view is:
1. importance on the superstructures – the
superstructures can define the economic base
- legitimacy (superstructures change your
ideas of capitalism and make it seem like
it is the only way of living and to make
certain ideologies unquestionable)
e.g. education: the capital is no longer
education but grades. because
students are more interested in the
token rather than the value, very
much like capitalists. competitiveness
outweighs the gain; advertisements,
such as vitamins that market
productivity and leave no room for
getting sick
2. consent – working class will not go against but
be acquiescent to the state
e.g. “sipag at tiyaga” will get you rich.
poor people have to and will want to
follow such ideas. in order to
emancipate the people from the
wants of capital, there has to be
organic intellectuals (with the people)
to serve as a counterforce.
to counter: Historic bloc
e.g. Edsa revolution: catholic church – us –
business class → civil society and free elections →
elite democracy
3. GLOBALIZATION
// ...refers to processes whereby many social relations become
relatively delinked from territorial geography, so that human
lives are increasingly played out in the world as a single place.
//
- (Jan Aart Scholler, 2001)
❖ general “uses” of the terms
● Internationalism
- a closer interdependence between
states/countries
- There are only two isolationist states
● Liberalisation
- open borders for trade (less/no tariffs; if
non-profit, it will be quota)
- removing government-imposed
restrictions to produce a world economy
● Universalisation
- spread of experiences (e.g. technology,
language)
- privatization and derogation
● Westernisation
- the agenda being Western values are
suffused; new way of colonizing
● Deterritorialization
- territorial borders become unimportant;
the movement of people is free (e.g.
people, communication, etc.)
❖ Aspects of Globalization
- communications (real-time)
- organizations (from int’l or national, orgs
become global)
- ecology
- production
- military (there is not just a national security, but
also global security)
- everyday thinking
❏ glocalization – one of the other suffusions to resist
globalization
❏ gig – venture capitalists with start-up companies
❖ some caveats
- globalization has not been experienced
everywhere to the same extent
- globalization is not the straightforward process
of cultural homogenization
- globalization has not eliminated the
significance of territoriality
- globalization cannot be understood in terms of
a single driving force
 - globalization is not a panacea
❖ Perspectives on Globalization
● as an economic process
- deepening and widening of the market
- integration of markets
- emergence of a global market discipline
- flexible accumulation through global
webs
- financial deepening (world is more
financial than monetary ∴ it’s all
valuation, the volatile future, but not the
actual value)
● as a political process
- the ‘end-of-nation’ state – the nation
state is no longer supreme because
people move more freely and
consumption is quick
- control of politics
- mix of political and technological factors ❖ Typologies of Global Governance
- emergence of ‘global governance’
❏ global governance PROCESSES
// World affairs can be conceptualized as governed through a (types of collectivities included)
bifurcated system—what can be called the two roles of world STRUCTURES
politics – one an interstate system of states and their national
governments that has long dominated the course events, and Unidirectional Multidirectional
the other a multicentric system of diverse types of collectivities
that has lately emerged as a rival source of authority with (vertical or (vertical and
actors that sometimes cooperate with, often compete with, horizontal) horizontal)
and endlessly interact with the state-centric system. //
- (Rosenau, 1990 in Rosenau, 2002) Top-down Network
governance governance
● as a cultural process Formal (governments, ( governments,
- homogeneity TNCS, IGOs) IGOs, NGOs,
- heterogeneity INGOs—e.g.
↳ glocalization and structures of business
differences alliances)
↳ Arjun Appadura: global-scapes and
disjunctures Bottom-up Side-by-side
1. ethno-scapes – flow of Informal governance governance
culture/people (Mass publics, (NGO and INGO,
2. techno-scapes – flow of technology NGOs, INGOs) governments)
3. finance-scapes – flow of financial
resources Market Mobius-web
4. media-scapes – flow of information Mixed formal governance governance
and images and informal (governments, (government,
5. ideo-scapes – flow of ideas IGOs, elites, elites, mass
❖ Power in Global Governance markets, mass publics, TNCs,
publics, TNCs) IGOs, NGOs,
INGOs)