Theories
The three primary theories discussed in Lichbach’s work are Rational Choice Theory (RCT), Structuralism, and Culturalism. Lichbach is primarily concerned with hegemonic tendencies of the RCT paradigm in Comparative Politics.
Lichbach posits that these hegemonic tendencies are dangerous for the discipline. Particularly troublesome is the trend of synthesis, which sees fields moving toward a grand narrative of all paradigms.
As an antidote Lichbach proposes a “modest” RCT in lieu of traditional RCT which he believes is prone to misunderstanding and misapplication of scientific principles; theories are not meant to apply in all conditions or contexts. This modest RCT is a toolbox of nuts and bolts (causal mechanisms) that scientists may employ for statements that hold true in certain domains as opposed to universal claims.
1. Rational Choice Theory
RCT follows the micro-level (fundamental) assumption that human beings are rational, and that all political and social phenomena ultimately can be explained as a consequence of that rationality. They define rationality discretely and according to context.
According to Lichbach, RC theorists do not develop macro-level theories of politics, societies, and economics as the behavior of these entities is derivative of individuals’ actions, they focus on individual decisions at key points. RC theorists study how self-interested individuals’ actions may translate into collective action. They believe the results of individuals’ actions are greater than the sum of their parts, thus, the “invisible hand” of rationality often leads to unforeseen circumstances.
Lichbach posits that inadequacies in RCT have led to Rationalists trying to subsume structure and culture into their own repertoire as a way to improve descriptive capability. However, Lichbach asserts that cultural tradition cannot be boiled down to individual beliefs that drive choice, structural tradition cannot be reduced to individual beliefs that direct choice.
2. Cultural/Interpretive Theory
Culturalists tackle social theory differently than rationalists. Their fundamental assumption is that societal rules and norms guide actions. According to Lichbach, there are two different approaches in the field; Subjectivist who explore internalization and individual expression of culture, and Inter-subjectivists who explore the external which has carried on from the past.
Culturalists believe that culture involves common knowledge about past, present, and future or the way the world operates. Common beliefs allow coordination of interactions. Society structures preference so that they are not arbitrary. Norms are regulative and imply external control. Culture causes outcomes but more importantly, constitutes reality; interests, actions, and identities are socially constructed. Culture legitimates social order, constitutes consensus and conflict.
3. Structuralist Theory
Structuralism sees the world as dominated by relationships. They maintain that structures are relational; actors are highly aware of their relationships. Structures are multilayered and focus on large institutional frameworks. Structures as a whole are more than the sum of their parts. There are two varieties of Structuralists.
Thin Structuralists
Look to understanding very large patterns of historical development, study broad configurations of power-states, social classes, national patterns of policy-making, regime structures, institutions of class compromise, and the international economy. They are concerned with historically specific issues such as modernity, globalization, and imperialism. Some study formal and informal linkages between state and civil society.
Thick Structuralists
Study highly general relationships that may be applied to various points in history. For example, theories of contextual relationships, social interaction, networks, etc. Thick Structuralists also study the operation of particular institutions, political parties, interest groups, judiciary, etc.
Very nice summary here. Does anyone have a different take on Lichbach? Things to add?
Thinking about what else we have read this semester — who fits under each of these theoretical traditions – rational choice, structuralism, culturalism? Do you see the faults that Lichbach sees in these different approaches, as they are used by authors like Weber (culture, or arguably also structuralism?) What approach is Mitchell-Walthour using?
Not so much as a different take, but I think, just to add onto a great summary, that central to Lichbach’s argument is the way he views culture, institutions, and the individual, and the way that these play into the movement and relationships in RCT. For him, the only moving part of RCT is the individual because both culture and institutions are human-made structures. This view and definition of specific relationships really then play into the idea that RCT is a moderate and appropriate approach to take when digging into the questions and research projects we form because of the way that individuals then act in ways that best shape their personal preferences in terms of outputs and returns. When the institution or culture do not fit into the preferences of the individuals shaping policy or leading countries, they are then going to try to shape the institutions and culture to then get the benefits and returns they want to see.