Stadial Classification of Historical Types of Political Culture, According to the System-Communication Approach
Table of contents
Share
Metrics
Stadial Classification of Historical Types of Political Culture, According to the System-Communication Approach
Annotation
PII
S207987840006710-0-1
DOI
10.18254/S207987840006710-0
Publication type
Article
Status
Published
Authors
Alikber Alikberov 
Affiliation: Institute of Oriental Studies RAS
Address: Russian Federation, Moscow
Abstract

The article is devoted to the classification of historical types of political culture in the framework of a new system-communication approach, taking into account their staged gradation from archaic tribal forms to complex civil and cosmopolitan forms. The author contrasts the new emerging communicative approach with the functional approach, which G. Almond and S. Verba used to study this topic, and opposes the idealization of some models (in this case, Western ones) to the detriment of others and opposing different cultures to each other. Instead of the triad of Almond and Verba (parish, citizenry and activist), the author identifies 6 types of political culture in history: 1) patriarchal (“potestar”), 2) tribal (“leader”), 3) fellow-country (“parochial”), 4) subservient (“monarchical”), 5) civil and 6) cosmopolitan.

Keywords
political culture, system-communication approach, functional approach, G. Almond, S. Verba
Received
25.04.2019
Publication date
16.09.2019
Number of characters
22709
Number of purchasers
4
Views
20
Readers community rating
0.0 (0 votes)
Cite Download pdf 100 RUB / 1.0 SU

To download PDF you should sign in

Full text is available to subscribers only
Subscribe right now
Only article
100 RUB / 1.0 SU
Whole issue
800 RUB / 10.0 SU
All issues for 2019
1500 RUB / 30.0 SU

References

1. Alikberov A. K. Sistemnaya logika kak instrument sistemnogo podkhoda k istorii // Voprosy filosofii. 2018. № 2. S. 15—25.

2. Almond G., Verba S. Grazhdanskaya kul'tura i stabil'nost' demokratii // Polis. 1992. № 4.

3. Vladimirskij-Budanov M. F. Obzor istorii russkogo prava. C. 283—284.

4. Kadyrov Sh. Kh. «Natsiya» plemen: ehtnicheskie istoki, transformatsiya, perspektivy gosudarstvennosti v Turkmenistane. Lipetsk, 2003.

5. Korotaev A. V. Ot vozhdestva k plemeni? Nekotorye tendentsii ehvolyutsii politicheskikh sistem Severo-Vostochnogo Jemena za poslednie 2 tysyachi let // Ehtnograficheskoe obozrenie. 1996. № 2. C. 81—91.

6. Nadezhdin N. Ya. Mustafa Kemal' Atatyurk: «Otets natsii»: biograficheskie rasskazy. M., 2011.

7. Almond G. A., Verba S. The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in five Nations. Princeton, 1963.

8. Bebenburg von ‎Pitt. Thieme M. Deutschland ohne Ausländer: Ein Szenario. München, 2012.

9. Bowden B. Nationalism and Cosmopoitanism: Irreconcilable Differences or Possible Bedfellows? // National Identities. 2003. Vol. 5. No. 3. P. 235—249.

10. Carneiro R. L. The Chiefdom: Precursor of the State.

11. Palmer R. E. A. The Archaic Community of the Romans.

12. Schellhammer K. Familienrecht nach Anspruchsgrundlagen: samt Verfahren in Familien-, Kindschafts- und Betreuungssachen. C. F. Müller. 2006.

13. Verba S. Comparative Political Culture. Princeton, 1965.

14. Yow C. H. Ethnic Chinese in Malaysian Citizenship: Gridlocked in Historical Formation and Political Hierarchy // Asian Ethnicity. Vol. 18. 2017. Issue 3. P. 277—295.