Published online by Cambridge University Press: 03 June 2009
As a major socio-political doctrine in the industrializing West, Marxism has had great impact on die research and theory of political sociology and behavioral political science. Particularly, a great deal of research energy has been expended on establishing the nature and degree of the relationship between social class and political partisanship in Western democracies.
1 See, for example, Berelson, Bernard R. et al. , Voting (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1954), pp. 55–56Google Scholar; Campbell, Angus et al. , The American Voter (New York, Wiley, 1960), pp. 333Google Scholar ff.; Alford, Robert R., Party and Society (Chicago, Rand McNally, 1963).Google Scholar
2 George Lichtheim argues for the applicability of Marxian categories in “Class and Hierarchy: A Critique of Marx?”, Archives Européennes de Sociologie, tome 5, numéro 1 (1964), pp. 101–112. Changes in industrial society that make Marx appear less relevant are discussed in Dahrendorf, Ralf, Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society (Stanford, Stanford University Press, 1959), pp. 36–71Google Scholar; Schumpeter, Joseph, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (New York, Harper and Row, 1962), pp. 59 ff.Google Scholar
3 See, for example, Lipset, Seymour Martin, “The Changing Class Structure and Contemporary European Politics”, Daedalus, vol. 93 (Winter, 1964), pp. 271–303Google Scholar, and Lane, Robert E., “The Politics of Consensus in an Age of Affluence”, American Political Science Review, vol. LIX, no. 4 (12 1965), pp. 875–894.Google Scholar
4 For a discussion of these issues see Janowitz, Morris and Segal, David R., “Social Cleavage and Party Affiliation”, American Journal of Sociology, vol. 72, no. 6 (05, 1967), pp. 601–618.Google Scholar
5 These issues are discussed by Dahrendorf, , op. cit., pp. 241Google Scholar ff.; Schumpeter, , op. cit., pp. 72Google Scholar ff.; Berle, A. A. and Means, Gardner, The Modern Corporation and Private Property (New York, Macmillan, 1933)Google Scholar; Talcott Parsons and Smelser, Neil J., Economy and Society (New York, Free Press, 1965), pp. 252–255Google Scholar; Bendix, Reinhard, Work and Authority in Industry (New York, Harper and Row, 1963)Google Scholar; Djilas, Milovan, The New Class (New York, Praeger, 1957).Google Scholar
6 See, for example, Lipset, Seymour Martin and Bendix, Reinhard, Social Mobility in Industrial Society (Berkeley, University of California Press, 1960), p. 178.Google Scholar
7 See, for example, Hoffman, Stanley, Le Mouvement Poujade (Paris, Colin, 1956).Google Scholar
8 The current dialogue between the Catholic Church and leading Communist theoreticians in Western Europe is indicative of the willingness of neo-Marxists to accept theology as something other than class-based ideology. See Garaudy, Roger, From Anathema to Dialogue (New York, Herder and Herder, 1966).Google Scholar
9 Weber, Max, Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft, Part III, Chapter 4, p. 635.Google Scholar
10 Hodge, Robert W., Siegel, Paul M. and Rossi, Peter H., “Occupational Prestige in the United States: 1925–1963,” in Bendix, Reinhard and Lipset, Seymour Martin, eds., Class, Status and Power, second edition (New York, Free Press, 1966), pp. 322–334.Google Scholar
11 Robert W. Hodge, Donald J. Treiman and Peter H. Rossi, “A Comparative Study of Occupational Prestige”, in Bendix, and Lipset, , op. cit., pp. 309–321.Google Scholar
12 Dahrendorf, , op. cit., p. 76.Google Scholar
13 The German data were collected by the Institut für angewandte Sozialwissenschaft (Infas) between January, 1963 and April, 1964. The American data were collected by the Survey Research Center, University of Michigan, and were made available through the Inter-University Consortium for Political Research.
14 See Morris Janowitz, Klaus Liepelt and David R. Segal, “An Approach to the Comparative Analysis of Political Partisanship”, paper given at the Sixth World Congress of Sociology, Evian, France, September, 1966.
15 For a discussion of German feudalism, see Bloch, Marc, Feudal Society, trans, by Manyon, L. A. (Chicago, University of Chicago Press, 1964), vol. 1, pp. 179 ff.Google Scholar
16 See Jackson T. Main, “The Class Structure of Revolutionary America”, in Bendix, and Lipset, , op. cit., pp. 111–121.Google Scholar
17 See Wilensky, Harold L. and Lebeaux, Charles N., Industrial Society and Social Welfare (New York, Free Press, 1965), pp. 93 ff.Google Scholar
18 For insightful if unorthodox analyses of the revolt against the Church and feudal nobility in Germany see Erikson, Erik H., Young Man Luther (New York, W. W. Norton, 1962), pp. 234–287Google Scholar, and Engels, Frederick, The Peasant War in Germany (Moscow, Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1956). Note that although the conversion of German peasants to Protestantism can be viewed as a class-struggle phenomenon, there was a significant degree of conversion among the nobility as well which resulted in part in the Schmalkaldic War against Charles V, resolved by the Religious Peace of Augsburg in 1555.Google Scholar
19 See Janowitz, Morris, “Social Stratification and Mobility in West Germany”, American Journal of Sociology, vol. 64, no. 1 (07, 1958), pp. 10–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20 See Lipset's, Seymour Martin metaphorical chronology, The First New Nation (New York, Basic Books, 1963), pp. 79–82.Google Scholar
21 Janowitz, Liepelt and Segal, op. cit.
22 See, for example, Dahl, Robert A., Who Governs (New Haven, Yale University Press, 1961), p. 39.Google Scholar
23 See McNeill, William H., The Rise of the West (New York, Mentor, 1965), pp. 806 ff.Google Scholar
24 See Lipset, , The First New Nation, pp. 170–204.Google Scholar
25 See Bell, Daniel, The End of Ideology (New York, Collier Books, 1962), Ch. 12, “The Failure of American Socialism”.Google Scholar
26 Kornhauser, Arthur, Sheppard, Harold L. and Mayer, Albert J., When Labor Votes (New York, University Books, 1956).Google Scholar
27 David R. Segal and Richard Shaffner, “Class, Party and the American Negro” (forthcoming).
28 “The benefits of large numbers and broadly based coverage proved to be greater than the benefits of timeliness”, Ithiel de Sola Pool, Abelson, Robert P. and Popkin, Samuel L., Candidates, Issues and Strategies (Cambridge, M.I.T. Press, 1964), pp. 65–67.Google Scholar
29 We are grateful to the Inter-University Consortium for Political Research for making these data available to us. The analysis of the American data was carried out at the Computing Center, University of Michigan. We are indebted to Allen J. Rubin for his efficient handling of these data.
30 Seegers, J. H. G., “De Contrastgroepen-Methode: Nadere Uitwerking en een Tweetal Toepassingen”, Sociale Wetenschappen, no. 3, 1964, pp. 194–225.Google Scholar
31 Sonquist, John A. and Morgan, James N., The Detection of Interaction Effects (Survey Research Center, University of Michigan, 1964).Google Scholar
32 See Cosman, Bernard, Five States for Goldwater (University, University of Alabama Press, 1966), p. 49.Google Scholar
33 See Lane, Robert E., Political Ideology (New York, Free Press of Glencoe, 1962), pp. 57 ff.Google Scholar
34 See, for example, McKenzie, Robert and Silver, Allan, “Conservatism, Industrialism and the Working Class Tory in England”, Transactions of the Fifth World Congress of Sociology, vol. III (1964), pp. 191–202.Google Scholar
35 See Lenski, Gerhard, The Religious Factor (New York, Anchor Books, 1963), pp. 173, 181 ff.Google Scholar
36 Kirchheimer, Otto, “Germany: The Vanishing Opposition”, in Dahl, Robert A., ed., Political Oppositions in Western Democracies (New Haven, Yale University Press, 1966), pp. 237–259.Google Scholar
37 Dahl, Robert A., “The American Oppositions: Affirmation and Denial”, in Dahl, ed., Political Oppositions …, p. 48.Google Scholar
38 See Dahrendorf, , op. cit., pp. 213 ff., for a discussion of superimposition and pluralism.Google Scholar
39 Dahl, , op. cit., p. 54.Google Scholar
40 Almond, Gabriel A. and Verba, Sidney, The Civic Culture (Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1963), p. 131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar