Comparative political analysis is currently facing multiple crises, including self-definition, cognitive schemes, academic and political aims, and methodological challenges. There are concerns about what makes comparative politics uniquely susceptible to recurring crises.
The first crisis, famously known in the field’s history, occurred in 1955 when Roy Macridis criticized the parochial, descriptive, formalistic, and individualistic nature of comparative political analysis at the time. This led scholars to transform the field, making it non-parochial, analytical, and genuinely comparative. However, comparative politics has since entered a period of decline, with scholars struggling to define its boundaries, scope, and methodology.
The crisis is partly due to the de-legitimization of modernization and development theories, which were once dominant but are now in disarray. The lack of an autonomous status and its ambiguous position among other sub-disciplines of political science have hindered comparative politics from establishing a central core of concepts and definitions. Furthermore, methodological challenges have intensified the crisis, as cross-national comparative analysis often applies categories and criteria that are limited in relevance across different cultures, leading to flawed comparisons.
To address these challenges, comparative politics needs to move beyond the state-society correspondence framework. However, it remains uncertain whether political scientists, deeply rooted in the concept of the state, can accomplish this. In light of the crisis, scholars should engage in critical questioning, challenging prevailing orthodoxies and assumptions in order to reconstitute the field and its methodology. It is crucial to undertake a comprehensive review of comparative political analysis, considering where the field currently stands and how it can progress in the face of doubts about the very possibility of comparison.
Aftermath of the First Crisis
The prevailing modes of knowledge in any field are often shaped by specific political circumstances. Understanding the context of colonialism in which Macridis challenged the existing form of comparative political analysis helps explain why the sub-discipline was structured as it was. During the formal colonial period, scholarship was divided in a particular way. Social anthropology focused on the distinctiveness of colonial peoples in terms of customs and rituals, often employing essentialist categories that contributed to Orientalist discourse. On the other hand, political analysis had a different agenda. Its goal was to undermine indigenous institutions and practices, replacing them with Western institutions to legitimize colonial domination and save the colonized people from themselves.
Political analysis became a tool serving the colonial project, reinforcing the displacement of indigenous institutions and modes of thinking with Western ones. With the help of social anthropologists’ findings, the colonized people were perceived as exotic and unworthy of serious political analysis or as sources of models for political institutions. Comparative politics thus narrowed its focus to a few countries such as Britain, France, and Germany, assuming they would serve as archetypes for the rest of the world. This approach reflected the ethnocentric biases of the practitioners.
The post-World War II period witnessed a consensus in mainstream political theory, largely influenced by American political scientists, that politics should be studied as an objective, value-free science. The emergence of the United States as an intellectual center and the Cold War intensified political, economic, and intellectual competition for hegemony. The victory of capitalism and the dominance of the US legitimized its control across various fields, including intellectual endeavors. The political climate, characterized by the Cold War and McCarthyism, influenced intellectual perspectives.
McCarthyism, characterized by psychological and legal terror, targeted liberal scholars and drove an interest in social reform and critical theory underground. In response, scholars sought protection through objective and value-free research, which allowed them to avoid open political controversy. The emphasis shifted to quantitative and measurable phenomena and methodological concerns rather than the normative implications of the research. Concepts that could not fit within this framework were excluded, and one casualty was the concept of the state, which was replaced by the notion of the political system.
The conformist positions adopted during this period aimed to create universal modes of analysis applicable to all countries. This need arose as newly independent nations joined the international community and expanded the scope of comparative politics. However, these newly independent countries also offered new markets for capitalist economies. The focus on these regions was primarily economic but also driven by a desire to shape them into modern, liberal, democratic societies similar to the West. The American model became the ideal, and countries were expected to follow its path of development.
Gabriel Almond, influenced by Talcott Parsons’ structural-functional theories, sought to create an ideal type model combining the study of the “third world” and the advanced capitalist world. This model categorized societies based on Parsonian concepts such as ascriptive vs. achievement, particular vs. universal, and diffuseness vs. specificity. However, the values underlying these frameworks were inspired by Western perspectives and norms. The developing world was positioned as ascriptive, particular, and diffuse, while the West was seen as achievement-oriented, universal, and specific. Societies were ranked along an axis from traditional to modern, with the newly independent world placed at the lowest rungs. This represented a different form of colonialism, where the objective was to achieve Western levels of development without the historical baggage or intellectual struggles the West had experienced.
These models failed to take into account the history of colonialism and the deliberate distortions imposed on the cultures, economies, and political arrangements of the colonies. The dependency school emerged as a response to the flaws of the modernization paradigm, grounding the post-colonial world in the structures of dependency generated by colonialism. It aimed to highlight the historical distortions and perpetuation of underdevelopment caused by colonialism. However, the dependency perspective also had its shortcomings. It lumped all countries of Asia, Africa, and Latin America into a single category of the “underdeveloped world,” neglecting their distinct experiences of colonialism, diverse histories, and visions for the future. Moreover, it was trapped in the unproductive development vs. underdevelopment debate and failed to interrogate the concept of development itself.
The flaws of both the modernization and dependency paradigms led to a growing recognition of the importance of historical understanding in comparative politics. However, the dependency perspective sought global frames of analysis and transcultural generalizations, perpetuating its own methodological and epistemological limitations. Subsequently, a more nuanced and rigorous historical understanding of post-colonial countries emerged as scholars aimed to rectify these deficiencies.
Second Crisis of Comparative Politics and Its Aftermath
The second crisis of comparative politics has led to a renewed emphasis on local and specific histories and cultural practices, driven by both academic exhaustion with universal categories of analysis and the influence of social movements in the post-colonial world. These movements, such as the Narmada Bachao Andolan, Chipko movement, Baliraja dam struggle, and indigenous rights movements, have challenged state-sponsored modernization and development projects and criticized universal categories of analysis for their imperialistic and insensitive nature.
Academic scholars have also shifted their focus towards local voices, histories, and specific identities, rejecting transcultural generalizations. The subaltern school of historiography has played a significant role in amplifying suppressed voices, while contemporary social movements have further highlighted the importance of women, environmental, caste, and class issues in political science. As a result, there has been a profound rethinking of the nation-state, with a preference for the local, specific, and particular over the general, abstract, and totalizing.
However, this recovery of rigorous historical understanding poses challenges for comparative political analysis, which traditionally relies on grand categories of analysis to encompass all phenomena. It raises questions about the possibility of comparing societies historically, particularly in terms of concepts like nationalism. Detailed studies of nationalism reveal its plural nature, with different streams existing hierarchically and often in authoritarian relationships. Moreover, these streams draw inspiration from their own distinct sources, ideologies, and experiences. Constructing a grand narrative of nationalism that captures all these voices and allows for comparisons across different countries becomes increasingly difficult.
Furthermore, historical analysis is complicated by differing notions of time. Each culture has its own images of time, affecting its political science. History cannot be reduced to a universal conception of time, as different societies generate their own conceptual systems and significant variables. The plurality of time scales within societies adds to the complexity of comparison and challenges concepts based on linear notions of time or stages of development.
The issue of units of analysis also arises, as comparative analysis typically focuses on the nation-state. However, the nation-state is currently threatened by global flows and contested by grassroots social movements that challenge its exclusions. Considering the nation-state as a given category of analysis becomes problematic in this context.
Lastly, the problem of methodology arises when selecting a frame of understanding for comparing societies. Existing concepts are largely influenced by Western paradigms, but adopting the framework of one’s own society as a replacement would be unfair to the society being studied. The question is whether explanatory systems can be independent of the cultural context under study. It is important to recognize that explanations are influenced by historical experiences, raising concerns about subjecting one culture to the codes generated by another.
In conclusion, the second crisis of comparative politics has prompted a shift towards local and specific histories, challenging universal categories of analysis. However, this recovery of rigorous historical understanding poses significant challenges for comparative political analysis in terms of constructing grand narratives, accounting for differing notions of time, defining units of analysis, and selecting appropriate methodologies.
Issues to Consider
The loss of certainties in the general intellectual landscape presents challenges for all fields of theory, including comparative political analysis, which relies on grand theories and categories of understanding. The problem can be approached from two angles. If we adopt a highly localized approach that emphasizes distinctiveness, comparative analysis becomes difficult because we include a wide range of factors that shape each unique situation. On the other hand, if we start from general categories, we risk overlooking the irreducible specificities of each situation. It is advisable to lean towards the former approach while being aware of the complexities associated with comparing disparate phenomena. We should avoid imposing value-laden judgments, abstracting phenomena from their multilevel contexts, and subordinating events to factors they may have in common.
To illustrate this, let’s consider the comparative study of collectivization in China and Tanzania. It is possible to argue that collectives were successful, at least for a specific period, in one country but a failure in the other. This analysis would not only involve conceptualizing the policies as messy but also exploring the cultural perspectives of both countries. Did collectivization align with the cultural perspectives of Tanzanian peasants who had little history of living in villages? Taking all these factors into account significantly expands the scope of comparative analysis. The range of issues to consider becomes endless, including people’s sense of history, cultures and traditions, the history of peasant consciousness, the role of myths and traditions, and the resistance of the peasantry to state colonization.
Meaningful comparative analysis emerges when we focus on specific situations, such as histories of localized peasant resistance, regional cultures and traditions, or specific struggles related to workers, the environment, peasants, and gender. Instead of aiming for oversimplified generalizations through grand comparisons of entire countries’ state nature, revolutions, development strategies, or agrarian approaches, we should pursue concrete analyses of specific situations grounded in their unique narratives. Comparative politics should aim to identify differences rather than uniformities or gradations along an axis. Since each event is embedded in its own context, pinpointing the distinctiveness of each experience becomes the goal of comparative politics.
Regarding the placement of comparative politics, in many academic centers in India, it has become subordinate to either international relations and foreign policy or area studies, both of which face their own crises due to their anti-theory tendencies. To be self-reflective and critical, comparative politics needs to align itself with political philosophy and engage in the debates within that field. It is essential to break away from traditions of thought that have been methodologically and epistemologically inadequate and instead stay current with critical debates in political philosophy, applying those insights to the objects of study. One particular area that merits reconsideration is the continued influence of developmentalism on scholars’ thinking, despite extensive debates on its epistemology and value systems in political theory. Comparative politics should see itself as applied theory.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this article has highlighted that, comparative political analysis has encountered crises due to changes in both the political realm and the field of knowledge. The fragmentation of the discipline reflects the fragmentation and uncertainty in our societies. This crisis in knowledge systems necessitates serious consideration of the range of issues that must now be taken into account in any comparative study. It also calls for self-reflection and critical thinking about the topics we wish to study. We must accept the diversity of thinking and recognize that embracing this diversity can lead to fresh approaches in comparative political analysis.
