Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-fwgfc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-15T13:45:58.838Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Dissenting View on the Group Approach to Soviet Politics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 July 2011

William E. Odom
William E. Odom
Affiliation:
Columbia University
Get access

Extract

In the struggle to find a successor to the totalitarian model for study of Soviet politics, the interest-group approach has won significant support. Yet this concept fails to meet all three of Huntington's criteria for a “useful” model. First, the group concept emphasizes the peripheral at the expense of what is of critical importance. Second, as a comparative concept it introduces errors in logic as well as a myriad of ambiguities in definition and taxonomy. Third, it is more likely to obscure than to clarify the dynamic character of the Soviet system. The group approach does not promise, as some assert, to bring the study of Soviet politics into the mainstream of comparative political theory.

In contrast, the totalitarian model still goes far toward meeting Huntington's criteria. When supplemented by the notion of political culture and by middle-range concepts of organization theory and bureaucracy, the totalitarian model retains great heuristic value as an ideal construct from which Soviet realities diverge in various ways.

Type
Research Article
Information
World Politics , Volume 28 , Issue 4 , July 1976 , pp. 542 - 567
Copyright
Copyright © Trustees of Princeton University 1976

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Rigby, T. H., “Traditional, Market, and Organizational Societies and the USSR,” World Politics, XVI (07 1964), 539–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

2 Inkeles, Alex, “Models and Issues in Analysis of Soviet Society,” Survey, No. 60 (1966), 3-17Google Scholar.

3 See Meyer, , The Soviet Political System (New York: Random House 1965), andGoogle Scholar“USSR Incorporated,” in Treadgold, D. W., ed., The Development of the USSR (Seattle: University of Washington Press 1964), 21–28Google Scholar.

4 Skilling, H. Gordon and Griffiths, Franklyn, eds., Interest Groups in Soviet Politics (Princeton: Princeton University Press 1971), 3–18Google Scholar.

5 Linden, Carl, Khrushchev and the Soviet Leadership, 1957-1964 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press 1966)Google Scholar.

6 Lodge, Milton, “Soviet Elite Participatory Attitudes in the Post-Stalin Period,” American Political Science Review, Vol. 62 (09 1968), 839CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 Schwartz, J. J. and Keech, William R., “Group Influence and the Policy Process in the Soviet Union,” American Political Science Review, Vol. 62 (09 1968), 840CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 Skilling and Griffiths (fn. 4), 23.

9 Langsam, David and Paul, D. W., “Soviet Politics and the Group Approach: A Conceptual Note,” Slavic Review, XXXI (03 1972), 136–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar It is not clear against whom the argument is directed in this piece. Although Shilling's co-editor, Griffiths, disagrees with Skilling in some respects, there has been little published objection to the group approach to Soviet politics. Janos, Andrew C., “Group Politics in Communist Society: A Second Look at the Pluralist Model,” in Huntington, S. P. and Moore, C. H., eds., Authoritarian Politics in Modern Society (New York: Basic Books 1970), 437–50,Google Scholar is indeed exceptional for challenging the group approach.

10 Ploss, , “New Politics in Russia?” Survey, No. 19 (1973), 23–35Google Scholar.

11 Huntington, , “Paradigms of American Politics: Beyond the One, the Two, and the Many,” Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 89 (03 1974), 7CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

12 For a critique, see Odegard, Peter H., “A Group Basis of Politics: A New Name for an Ancient Myth,” Western Political Science Quarterly, XI (09 1958), 689–702CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For an effort to go beyond it, see Lowi, Theodore J., The Politics of Disorder (New York: Basic Books 1971).Google Scholar For a historical perspective, see Garson, G. David, “On the Origins of Interest Group Theory,” American Political Science Review, Vol. 68 (12 1974), 1505–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

13 Huntington (fn. 11), 12.

14 Stewart, , Political Power in the Soviet Union (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill 1968), 3–4Google Scholar.

15 In all fairness to Stewart, he is unfailing in acknowledging the theoretical weaknesses and careful in reporting his evidence so that one comes away from his study with a more concrete appreciation of Soviet regional politics even if one finds the group concept superfluous in his work.

16 Skilling and Griffiths (fn. 4).

17 “The Party Apparatchiki,” ibid., 91-92.

18 “The Security Police,” ibid., 94.

19 “The Military,” ibid., 168.

20 “The Industrial Managers,” ibid., 194.

21 Berliner, , Factory and Manager in the USSR (Cambridge: Harvard University Press 1957)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

22 Sartori, , “Concept Misformation in Comparative Politics,” American Political Science Review, Vol. 64 (12 1970), 1033–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

23 Langsam and Paul (fn. 9); also see Lodge (fn. 6), for an example of the continuum idea dubiously applied.

24 Skilling and Griffiths (fn. 4), 410.

25 Bentley, Arthur F., The Process of Government (Chicago: University of Chicago Press 1908)Google Scholar; Truman, David B., The Governmental Process (2d ed.; New York: Knopf 1971)Google Scholar.

26 Latham, , “The Group Basis of Politics: Notes for a Theory,” American Political Science Review, XLVI (06 1952), 389Google Scholar.

27 LaPalombara, , Interest Groups in Italian Politics (Princeton: Princeton University Press 1964), 19CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

28 Bendix, , Work and Authority in Industry (New York: Wiley 1956), 1–21Google Scholar.

29 Riggs, , Thailand: Modernization of a Bureaucratic Society (Honolulu: East-West Center Press 1966), 181 ffGoogle Scholar.

30 Mannheim, , Freedom, Power, and Democratic Planning (New York: Oxford University Press 1950), 42–43Google Scholar.

31 Selznick, , Leadership in Administration (New York: Harper and Row 1957)Google Scholar.

32 Ploss, , “Interest Groups,” in Kassof, Alan, ed., Prospects for Soviet Society (New York: Praeger 1968), 76–102Google Scholar.

33 Lande, , “Networks and Groups in Southeast Asia: Some Observations on the Group Theory of Politics,” American Political Science Review, Vol. 67 (03 1973), 120CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

34 Finifter, , “The Friendship Group as a Protective Environment for Political Deviants,” American Political Science Review, Vol. 68 (06 1974), 607–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

35 See Odom, , The Soviet Volunteers (Princeton: Princeton University Press 1973), chap. XVIGoogle Scholar and the Conclusions, for development of this line of reasoning.

36 Michels, , Political Parties (2d ed.; New York: Free Press 1968)Google Scholar.

37 Selznick, , TVA and the Grass Roots (Berkeley: University of California Press 1953)Google Scholar.

38 Selznick, , The Organizational Weapon (Glencoe, III.: Free Press 1960), 318Google Scholar; emphasis in original.

39 See Solzhenitsyn, Aleksandr, The Gulag Archipelago (New York: Harper & Row 1974), 147 ffGoogle Scholar

40 Castles, , “Interest Articulation: A Totalitarian Paradox,” Survey, No. 73 (1969), 116–32Google Scholar.

41 Skilling and Griffiths (fn. 4), 21.

42 Bentley (fn. 25), 211, 208.

43 Truman (fn. 25), 34.

44 See Mohr, Lawrence B., “The Concept of Organizational Goal,” American Political Science Review, Vol. 67 (06 1973), 470–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

45 Olson, , The Logic of Collective Action (New York: Schocken 1968)Google Scholar.

46 Bauer, H. A., Pool, Ithiel de Sola, and Dexter, L. A., American Business and Public Policy (New York: Atherton 1963), 398Google Scholar.

47 Lowi, , “American Business, Public Policy, Case-Studies, and Political Theory,” World Politics, XVI (07 1964), 677–715CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

48 Stewart, , “Soviet Interest Groups and the Policy Process,” World Politics, XXII (10 1969), 29–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

49 See, for example, Odegard (fn. 12).

50 Ploss (fn. 32), 78.

51 Ibid., 100-102.

52 Gallagher, Matthew P. and Spielmann, Karl F., Soviet Decision-Making for Defense (New York: Praeger 1972), 72–73Google Scholar.

53 LaPalombara (fn. 27), 16.

54 Amalrik, , “Will the USSR Survive until 1984?” Survey, No. 73 (1969), 47–79Google Scholar.

55 Roberts, , “Succession to Khrushchev Perspective,” Proceedings of the Academy of Political Science, XXVIII (04 1965), 2–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

56 See Venturi, , Roots of Revolution, trans, by Haskell, Francis (New York: Grosset and Dunlap 1952/1966), 95Google Scholar.

57 Ibid., 99.

58 Ibid., 145-86.

59 Ibid., 437.

60 Lipset, Seymour Martin, Trow, Martin, and Coleman, James, Union Democracy (New York: Anchor Books 1956), 448 ffGoogle Scholar.

61 It may seem strange to link Bakunin to the pluralist model until one remembers that pluralism has radical implications for the concept of state and the state's role vis-àvis groups. See Garson (fn. 12), 1505-19, for a review of criticism of the pluralist model in Bentley's day. Bertrand Russell, W. Y. Elliot, and others recognized “the danger of political power in the hands of undemocratic private groups.”

62 See Schapiro, Leonard, The Origins of the Communist Autocracy (Cambridge: Harvard University Press 1955),Google Scholar for the details of this period and a most appropriate book title.

63 Taking a historical perspective of the political culture of a society is of course one of the several contemporary efforts to go beyond the totalitarian model. See, for example, Tucker, Robert C., “Culture, Politics, and Communist Society,” Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 88 (06 1973), 173–90; andCrossRefGoogle ScholarJowitt, Kenneth, “An Organizational Approach to the Study of Political Culture in Marxist-Leninist Systems,” American Political Science Review, Vol. 68 (09 1974), 1171–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

64 Odom (fn. 35), 323ff.

65 See, for example, Rigby, T. H., “Crypto-Politics,” Survey, No. 50 (1964), 192; andGoogle ScholarSimon, H. A., “The Changing Theory and Changing Practice of Public Administration,” in Pool, Ithiel de Sola, ed., Contemporary Political Science (New York: McGraw-Hill 1967), 86–120Google Scholar.