Rational Choice Theory Politics example essay topic

What is Politics, Is it the Preserve of Government? Politics is a very emotive word and is used by different people to mean different things. There is no unifying theory of politics and hence no set boundaries of what can and cannot be said to be political. It is this ambiguity that makes it impossible to argue that politics is the preserve of government.

This is so since preserve is such a precise word and there is always going to be a perspective that can illustrate an example of politics that is outside the governmental sphere. In order that a meaningful conclusion to this question can be gained it is essential to initially define what the question is asking by laying down what definitions of the terms within are to be used. The key word in the debate that the question encompasses is "preserve"; although this could be taken to mean, does politics maintain the existence of government, in the context of the question the use of "preserve" that fits more fully is whether politics is solely found within government. Government in this case being taken to mean the specialised leading component and institutions of a society that are responsible for the decision making processes of that society as a whole. (Hague et al, 1992, p. 20) It is however the definition of politics that poses the greatest difficulty in the question because, as McLean states, the definition: "is highly, perhaps essentially contested".

(1996, p. 388) This contested nature of politics is key in respect to the question because the conceptual model of assumptions and beliefs with which a person tackles politics will influence the interpretation of politics that they attain. (Hague et al, 1992, p. 3) Therefore an individual who uses one model, and hence definition of politics, will come to a different conclusion about whether politics is the preserve of government to someone who utilizes a different model. It is then essential that the perspectives from which politics is viewed be outlined so that the debates between them can be analysed in respect to their strengths and weaknesses and a conclusion formed over whether indeed politics is the preserve of government. The important area of debate in the definition of politics is where the political world ends and the other areas of the world start; if it is made clear where each perspective views this barrier to occur then by evaluating a perspective against its competitors a conclusion can be obtained as to whether politics is solely found within government. Rational choice theorists see people as rational and essentially self-interested beings who hence are able to identify their desires in a logical fashion and pursue them in a manor that will lead to their fulfilment, even if this is to the detriment of others. (Ward, 1995, p. 79) Those who use this theory of politics perceive the role of politics to be to mediate between the individuals of a society whose interests are bound to overlap hence preventing conflict from rising out of competition.

(Cloonan, 1997) According to Rational Choice theory politics is not then purely found in government as it is the decision-making processes of individuals that bring politics to bear on society. Institutional ists have a very different view on where politics is to be found in society placing it firmly within the: "machinery of government" (Cloonan, 1997) The Institutionalism model perceives the institution of government to be the common sense epi centre of political activity, as it is the area where problems and disputes are reconciled. (Rhodes, 1995, p. 42) This approach has a very narrow and precise concept of the political in that it can be found almost exclusively within governmental spheres. Another distinct political ideology is Feminism as it defines the political as occurring within socially cemented gender relations. (Heywood, 1999, p. 60) This ideology at its simple level looks into the oppression of women in a male dominated world and seeks to promote the female role in all areas of life. (Vincent, 1992, p. 172) Feminism also criticises standard definitions of politics for being male centric and instead proposes politics to occur in inter sex interactions which permeate all levels of society, thus leading to the claim that "the personal is political".

(Cloonan, 1997) From the feminist perspective politics occurs in every sphere of life and hence cannot simply be seen as purely an issue of government. Marxism holds a very different view on the origins of the political as it perceives it to arise from the class struggle between the oppressed Proletariat and the dominant Bourgeoisie which is stimulated by material inequality. (Heywood, 1999, p. 81) Marxist theory does not then see politics as essential to society but as it is a product of class struggle, a classless society is therefore one without politics. This theory sees politics to exist throughout the class structured society and hence is not centralised on government however once the government of the Proletariat is in place and the class structure ends Marxists see politics to then purely exist within governmental bodies. (Cloonan, 1997) Politics can also be viewed as the use of power coercion and violence. This theory explains that power is the manifestation of politics and that power is the ability to force the people to accept rule; as this can only be made certain through force then this theory sees its use to be in the utmost importance when dealing with politics.

The theory of power politics does face strong criticism especially from those who perceive politics to be not about exercising force but rather the attempt to resolve it through rational discussion. Both these theories see government as the principle site where politics can be found as it is in government that decisions are taken about how to implement force and also where rational debate for the maintenance of peace occur. The application of power politics, force, is however felt throughout a society and so politics from this perspective is not entirely government centralised nevertheless the theory does principally centre around government. (Cloonan, 1997) The final political perspective that needs to be highlighted is that of Anarchism. The word anarchy comes from Greek and literally means: "the absence of government or rulers". (Vincent, 1992, p. 114) Anarchy was defined by the man who would come to be known as the "father of anarchy", Proudhon as the: "absence of a master, of a some reign". (cited in Vincent, 1992, p. 115) Anarchists hence believe in the ability of humans to co-exist without the need for a centralised all-powerful government to regulate their existence; hence anarchy stresses the importance of individualism above all other factors.

Under anarchist theory politics is not and indeed shouldn't ever be a part of government. (Vincent, 1992, p. 114,115 & 119) The list political perspectives outlined here is not by any means a complete list nor does it attempt to breakdown those perspectives into their many fragmented parts but it does give a broad outline of political theories. Now that the basic outlines of how politics can be viewed have been laid out, along with whether they perceive politics to be the preserve of government, then the strengths and weaknesses of these perspectives can be analysed. From the conclusions drawn from this comparison an answer to the question can be formed. Rational choice theory has taken criticism from many angles, particularly for its failure to reach a consensus on what it means to be wholly rational.

It is also questioned that even if this could be satisfactorily defined, whether it is entirely reasonable to expect humans to be completely rational especially when faced with limited information and a limited analytical capacity. (Ward, 1995, p. 81) This could be perceived to be a significant criticism, if entirely substantiated, of this theory as it attacks the bedrock principle upon which the perspective is built and hence if individuals can be shown to act in a non rational, even if this is through lack of information, then the theory looks much less steady. A further criticism of this theory is that individually rational actions can lead to communally irrational outcomes. An example of this would be that a rational choice could be to drive to work due to the extra freedom of movement it gives, however if everybody drives to work then congestion and efficiency will decrease and the damage done to the environment will be immense hence leading to an irrational result. (Cloonan, 1997) This can be viewed as an inbuilt flaw in the theory that degrades its standing. The other theories also suffer from probing criticism, the Institutional approach for example is criticised for its narrow definition of politics as some claim that this leads to important variables being overlooked thereby leaving the theory without sufficient tools to explain concepts of policy or power.

(Rhodes, 1995, p. 48) This formulaic approach appears to, by its limited scope, neglect issues that are as important to politics as government therefore leaving its proponents open to the charge of missing the broad and important picture. Feminism is also a target for criticism but due to the fragmented nature of the ideology this tends to emanate from different fractions of the movement that disagree as to the focus and goals for Feminism. (Vincent, 1992, p. 206) However some criticism does come from outside the movement as people question the validity of applying feminist principles to all areas of politics, for example would a feminist interpretation of the Russian revolution differ from those that have already been established? (Cloonan, 1997) The critiques of Feminism do appear to question its absolute relevance to all areas of politics, which can be seen as a serious flaw if it is to be considered a true embracing ideology that sees politics to be intrinsic to all areas of relations. Anarchists face crit ism over some of their underlying principles. It is argued that the outcome of rigidly sticking to individualism as the target for society would be a world open to manipulation from the conduct of criminals as there would be no institutions there to restrain their actions.

(Vincent, 1992, p. 139-140) Such basic criticisms of ideologies bring into question whether their definitions of politics and where it is to be found should be accepted. The major area of criticism that can be levelled at all the perspectives is that whether by focusing on a particular area, for example the way that Marxism specifies that politics only occurs in class societies, that they are ignoring the possibility of politics occurring outside their identified sphere, for example the resolution of conflict over say land in a simple tribe. It can therefore be seen that all the theories about where politics can be found take criticism whether it be specific to the underlying assumptions they make or general, that by their narrow definitions of the political they miss either factors relevant to, or areas where, politics can be convincingly argued to exist. Every political theory is hence not infallible as criticisms no matter how small can always be made. The debate surrounding what is politics is not one that is going to be resolved, there can be no unifying theory of politics for whatever it is said that politics is about there is always a counter argument or situation that does not conform to the mould. This then transcribes itself into the question of whether politics is the preserve of government because as there is no consensus on what politics is there can also be non on whether it is to be found purely within government.

However if it is taken that a counter argument or conflicting example can always be found, any theory that states politics is the preserve of government can be said to be incorrect due to the definition of preserve. If preserve, in the context, is taken to mean that government has the monopoly on politics then anyone arguing to prove this point will fail as even one example where politics can be found outside government will destroy the argument as a monopoly is all encompassing. As it has been concluded that such an example can always be found then subsequently it can also be concluded that politics is not the preserve of government as there is always another area where politics exists as perceived by another theory.

Bibliography

Books: Heywood, A. (1999), Political Theory: An Introduction (Palgrave) Vincent, A.
1992), Modern Political Ideologies (Blackwell) McLean, I.
Editor), (1996), Oxford Concise Dictionary of Politics Hague, R.
Harrop, M. Breslin, S. (1992), Comparative Government and Politics: An Introduction Edited Books: Marsh, D.
Stoker, G. (1995) Theory and Methods in Political Science - Rhodes R.
The Institutional Approach - Ward, H. Rational Choice Theory (MacMillan) Web-sites: Cloonan, M. (1997) What is Politics? web.