New Political Science

D. (2) Comparison of Maslow and Orderliness of Choice

Political Science — Mon, 18 Dec 2023 13:39:01 +0900

(2) Comparison of Maslow and Orderliness of Choice

Earlier, I argued that there is an order to human choices, stating that the order is ㉠ physical safety, ㉡ material abundance, and ㉢ ideational value^[Ch.2.18]. However, there are many scholars who have presented different content in terms of orderliness of choice. Therefore, it is necessary to critically examine the views of such scholars. Representative examples include Maslow's hierarchy of needs and Parag Khanna's political choice order. Rousseau also demonstrates a similar way of thinking in Discourse on Inequality.

Maslow's hierarchy of needs is a motivational theory that suggests human needs form a series of stages based on their importance. According to this theory, humans choose in the following order: ① physiological needs, ② safety needs, ③ social needs, ④ esteem needs, and ⑤ self-actualization needs. Maslow argues that these five needs form a hierarchical structure in terms of their intensity and the order in which they are satisfied. That is, starting from the lower-level needs, such as physiological needs, and moving up to higher-level needs, such as self-actualization, they must be satisfied in sequence. For example, social needs and self-actualization needs will not arise if an individual's physiological needs are not met.

From this perspective, it appears that humans prioritize ② material prosperity (economic goods) over ① physical safety. However, a more precise examination and critique are necessary. The core of the argument can be summarized in two points: firstly, contrary to the phrasing, there are aspects in which the content they describe aligns with my claims in this book; and secondly, unlike my claims, their argument is based on certain implicit assumptions.

First, let me examine the point where his their argument is practically similar to mine. The fundamentally similar aspect is that Parag Khanna's position, based on Maslow, assumes a survival process theory, and the same is true in Rousseau. Rousseau said, "The first emotion humans had was about their own survival, and the first care was for self-preservation." In particular, the core content of Maslow's hierarchy of needs is that there is a priority order to satisfy various human needs, and that order prioritizes what is immediately necessary for human survival and selects things that have long-term and indirect effects later on.

Due to this common premise, Maslow's prioritized physiological needs significantly overlap with the need for physical safety that I emphasize. Maslow's physiological needs include breathing and water. When these physiological needs are deprived, survival is immediately threatened. Similarly, one could argue that the desire to avoid physical harm from knives or guns can also be included in Maslow's physiological needs.

On the other hand, if you look at the content presented by Maslow's safety needs, which may seem to correspond to my concept of 'physical safety', it includes not only physical safety but also safety of employment, safety of morality, and safety of property. In my terms, this means that aspects that could be included in 'material abundance (safety of employment)' or 'ideational value (safety of morality)' are also encompassed within the scope of safety needs.

Second, there is a reason why the specific priorities in choices differ between Maslow's basic premises and mine, despite their similarities. It is because the order of needs listed by Maslow is based on humans living in a stable society. Rousseau also thinks in the same way. In Rousseau's view, humans in a primitive state first focus on finding food and learning how to produce it, and only later mention the situations where they have to fight against ferocious animals trying to take their lives, or struggle against other people in competition and concede their means of living to the strong. In contrast, I aim to explain political and social conditions, and therefore, I presuppose the primal wild conditions that form the basis of social conditions, so the content implicitly assumed by Maslow is explicitly stated in the choices. Interest in human psychology mainly arises within a stable society, and thus the investigation of what humans prioritize in choices is conducted in situations where the threat of primal violence has already been resolved. In these conditions, the resolution of The resolution of basic living necessities becomes the top priority.

Parag Khanna was led astray by Maslow's expressions, misunderstanding the order of economic power and security. Furthermore, unlike me, Parag Khanna sought to explain political phenomena limited to specific contemporary areas. This can be seen in his statement, "Today, military power is less important than in the past. In a world where science and technology that enable each country to protect itself are widespread, the importance of military power is further diminished."

Despite various debates, the question of which comes first is always a point of contention among scholars. However, from the perspective of psychologists, it seems clear that generally, 'survival' occupies the top priority in the list. Moreover, it is even more evident that the threat to survival from physical safety is more direct than hunger or illness. This is because one can endure hunger for about an hour, but being shot can result in immediate death.

D. (1) Comparison of Alvin Toffler and the 3·1 System

Political Science — Mon, 18 Dec 2023 13:38:20 +0900

(1) Comparison of Alvin Toffler and the 3·1 System

Alvin Toffler has previously presented an idea similar to the Samjae capacities that I propose in this book. His theory that the three elements of 'force (physical power), money, and spirit (knowledge)' are the sources of power seems very similar to my concept of Samjae capacities. Therefore, comparing and analyzing the similarities and differences between the two will help provide a detailed understanding.

First and foremost, Alvin Toffler's political theory differs significantly from my 3.1 System in terms of scale and structure. My theory of political phenomena is centered around three laws, designed to be described by mathematical models. Alvin Toffler's theory, on the other hand, does not encompass a comprehensive and sophisticated conceptual framework like mine, and only shares a similarity with the concept of the Samjae capacity, which is a part of my 1st law.

Additionally, Alvin Toffler's concepts of muscle‧money‧mind are quite similar to the fundamental elements of power in my Samjae capacities. To enumerate the similarities in detail, he also recognized that each of the three elements ① operates in various forms depending on the situation, ② can be transformed into other elements depending on the situation, and ③ can act in a multi-layered manner from micro to macro phenomena. However, while my 1st law includes the spatio- temporal interaction structure and order of the Samjae capacities, he failed to grasp this aspect. Moreover, the third element of Samjae capacities, 'ideology,' differs from his concept of knowledge, and this difference reveals a significant paradigm gap. While he refers broadly to values, knowledge, information, and human spirit in his third element, my third Samaje capacity, 'ideology,' refers solely to the values held by humans. Ideology does not include knowledge or psychological states such as human spirit. In my view, if human spirit refers to people's mental states, ideology and knowledge point to an objective conceptual system shared by people. Among these concepts, ideology, which expresses purpose, refers to value concepts, whereas knowledge, which represents information and facts, refers to factual concepts. (Mathematically, I believe that ideology can be described as a vector and knowledge as a scalar.)

It is quite evident that when Alvin Toffler talks about knowledge, he primarily thinks of fact-based concepts representing truth rather than value-based concepts representing purpose. As a result, he was able to emphasize the fact that knowledge, in a sense almost identical to what C.E. Merriam called the "economy of power," directly contributes to the proliferation of wealth and physical force.

Then, which is more appropriate to assume as a source of power, ideology or knowledge? In my view, there are several reasons to think that ideology is a better concept than knowledge when considering it as a source of power.

Firstly, whether it is ideology or knowledge, if it is a source of power, it must be able to generate power 'on its own' without the help of anything else. Ideology can do this, but knowledge cannot. During the Goryeo and Joseon dynasties, there were many people who had the knowledge to make excellent products or create new weapons, but they had no political power. A representative example is Jang Yeong-sil, a scientist who not only invented the sundial, clepsydra, and water clock during the reign of King Sejong but also created the metal movable type and its printing press in 1433. In contrast, Confucian scholars who controlled Neo-Confucianism, the prevailing ideology of the time, monopolized power. This is an example of ideology, not knowledge, being the source of power. In the Western Middle Ages, the clergy, who monopolized the prevailing ideology, also monopolized knowledge, which could lead to the misconception that knowledge creates power. However, just as Renaissance intellectuals like Spinoza and Galileo could not overcome the power of religion, scientific knowledge does not create power like ideological notions, which is no different in the West. On the other hand, Communist thinkers who successfully carried out realistic revolutions and seized power mainly moved based on Marxist-Leninist thought, which is "the combination of Marx's ideas and Lenin's reconstruction into a single ideological and action system," not knowledge about facts.

Secondly, there are many examples that demonstrate how erroneous notions can sometimes become political power. The witch hunts of the Middle Ages are a prime example. Witch hunts often began with the denunciation of a village resident, accusing various people of committing various misdeeds, causing various misfortunes to the village community or specific individuals. The judges of the witch hunts interpreted personal aggressiveness as the discourse of demonic magic and were people who could force such interpretations onto the defendants through persuasion and threats; in other words, they were people who held such notions. These erroneous notions are essentially ideas that cannot be considered knowledge. Then, what characteristic of these non-knowledge notions exerts political influence? The only answer is that these notions express ideologies that influence people's values. The notions of German Nazi racial discrimination and Japanese militarism are examples of ideas that were not knowledge but exerted political influence due to their ideological nature.

D. Problems with Economic Primacy

Political Science — Mon, 18 Dec 2023 13:37:52 +0900

D. Problems with Economic Primacy

Recall the claim mentioned earlier, "armed capacity is the foundation of politics." I agree with Tarni-Hai's claim that societies tied to a military horizon will always remain in a primitive state, and with Ian Morris's argument that peace and prosperity can be achieved through 'productive wars'. At the same time, I am surprised by the fact that many economists do not believe in such persuasive propositions, as mentioned earlier. Therefore, I will briefly criticize the stance that considers factors other than armed force, specifically economic force, as the foundation of politics.

There are many positions that excessively emphasize the economy to explain politics and human life, but Marxist political science would be a representative example. This is because the threat of poverty is always close and experienced, making human life seem to be filled only with overcoming the threat of poverty.

The threat of poverty originates from humans themselves, so its cause is always close and visible. In addition, activities to overcome the threat of poverty are time-consuming, so they constantly dominate the consciousness of all people. Almost everyone is always engaged in economic activities and deliberations. In most cases, a person's life is filled with economic activities from the time they become independent until they die. Even before becoming independent, one needs to rely on the economic capacity of guardians, such as parents. In contrast, the threat of violence is so intense that people, when faced with it, may engage in hasty activities to the point of being unaware of the threat. It's either dying or running away. However, this does not mean that the threat of violence is less important than the threat of poverty. On the contrary, it is the opposite.

Attempts to explain politics and life solely based on economic factors, due to the fact that human activities often consciously focus on economic activities, are as misguided as thinking that one can build a swimming pool as long as there is enough water to swim in. Even if a person wanting to swim is floating on the water, a container is needed to hold the necessary water to create a swimming pool. Moreover, this container must be made of a material other than water, as it has to hold and preserve the water. It should be made of a material that can withstand the weight of a large amount of water without leaking. To properly understand a phenomenon, one must see beyond what is clearly visible to the eye.

The Marxist political theory, which posits that the foundation of politics as a superstructure is based on the economy as an infrastructure, implies that political advantage is determined by economic advantage. However, this does not align with the realities of politics. Septimius Severus, who became the Roman emperor after a fierce battle for the throne, famously said, "Spend money generously on the soldiers. Do not think about anything else!" This statement realistically implies that if one does not spend money on soldiers, the money will not help in gaining political power. Mao Zedong, a communist himself, once said, "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun," not "Political power grows out of money." Even the orthodox Marxist-Communist position argued that basic social and economic transformations were possible through class struggle, violence, and revolution, not by the working class possessing more money. One of the core tenets of the previously mentioned politics-as-an-extension-of-war theory is this concept.

A common counterargument to this line of reasoning is that money is needed for wars to gain power. However, as mentioned earlier, the history of war demonstrates that it is possible to wage war without economic capacity. According to William McNeill, the phenomenon of the industrialization of war is as old as civilization itself, suggesting that war and economic capacity are intertwined. However, none of the ancient civilizations that flourished in the large river basins of Mesopotamia, Egypt, India, and China fit neatly into the term "industrialization of war." The commercialization of war and the "industrialization of war, in a more significant sense, began after the year 1000 AD," and in my view, it was a particular phenomenon that generalized mainly in Europe, where mercenaries played a significant role in wars.

On the other hand, there seems to be another confusion arising from the emphasis on economic power, which stems from the failure to understand the interaction of various factors in a multi-layer structure (or a multi-layer structure of Samjae capacity). This confusion is repeated in a circular logic, exhausting our intellect.

It is impossible to achieve economic production without securing public safety and establishing a social safety net. However, some people (economic fundamentalists) argue that "if there is no food, it is impossible to build a social safety net." This argument is also empirically correct. However, combining the two positions leads to a futile wordplay that repeats like the "chicken or egg" debate. What is the problem?

Claiming that a social safety net must be established for economic production to be possible is an argument that armed capacity forms the foundation of economic capacity, while asserting that food availability is a prerequisite for building a social safety net means that economic capacity precedes armed capacity. The economic capacity mentioned in the first part and the economic capacity mentioned in the latter part refer to different things. In other words, considering that the lower the level in the multi-layer structure that explains political phenomena, the more it signifies micro-level phenomena, and the higher the level, the more it refers to macro-level phenomena[Tab.2.11], the problem of circular reasoning is resolved.

The claim that a social safety net must be established first for economic production to be possible is an argument that star C must exist for star D to be built. In contrast, the assertion that immediate food availability is necessary for building a social safety net is simply saying that star B must exist for star C to be built. Regarding this, the 1st law can point out that one must be safe enough from plundering to find food immediately, which means that star A must precede star B. This is correct because even someone on the brink of starvation due to hunger would not enter a tiger enclosure where food is placed. Therefore, the persuasive claims among those made by economic fundamentalists are pointing out a part of the structure in which the three stages of survival are built in an overlapping manner.

Many people have emphasized the importance of armed force or violence in politics. Despite this, why have many people, including Marx, whether influenced by him or not, considered money or economic factors as the most fundamental factors of human life and social phenomena? The conclusion I have come to after careful consideration is that it is mainly due to the environment faced by most researchers in political science and sociology. Just as even the hungriest person would not approach food placed in front of a tiger, avoiding threats of violence in our lives is a more fundamental and important priority than solving hunger because it is the most urgent and desperate issue. However, situations in which we can discover such threats of violence are generally so dire that there is no room to contemplate political science or sociology. Only after such urgent threats have disappeared, and we have enough leisure to pay attention to politics and society, do most of our activities focus on solving hunger.

In this regard, those who considered economic factors as the most fundamental factors of life and social phenomena have made efforts to generalize their experiences, which is commendable. However, creating a desirable scientific theory requires more than just generalizing simple experiences. Analytical skills are needed to identify and explicitly bring out the implicitly assumed premises in one's thoughts, as well as systematic thinking skills to extend to more related experiences and explain them with a simpler and more consistent conceptual framework. In my view, the approach of considering economic factors as the ultimate factor (or underlying structure) of political phenomena lacks those analytical and systematic thinking skills. For example, Marx discovered the interaction between economic capacity and ideological capacity among the Samjae capacities I mentioned, and explained in German Ideology that the ruling class dominates material production, leading to intellectual control over ideas. However, he failed to integrate it appropriately into his theory. Maslow, who similarly prioritized economic factors in the field of psychology, did not adequately set the terms he used according to existing conventions. There are numerous other examples that cannot be reviewed here.

C. Factors of Confusion in Politics

Political Science — Mon, 18 Dec 2023 13:34:40 +0900

C. Factors of Confusion in Politics

(1) Confusion between Facts and Values

There are several reasons why it has been difficult to develop a scientific conceptual framework in political science research, but as mentioned in the early part of this book, the confusion between facts and values seems to be the most important reason. The distinction between facts and values in theoretical discussions has been most delicately and sensitively discussed in the field of philosophy, particularly in ethics. For researchers who are not familiar with such subtle distinctions, the ambiguous and mixed propositions of political science involving facts and values can cause a lot of confusion.

To understand the distinction between facts and values, first look at the following:

(A) One should prevent a big truck from hitting a child.

(B) A big truck is hitting a child.

(A) is a value proposition, and (B) is a factual proposition. At this level, it might not be difficult to distinguish between values and facts. But what about the following?

(D) Many mass murderers are allowed to receive honor.

(C) appears to be a factual proposition on the surface. However, many people oppose proposition (C) because it is often read as (D) in practice. Moreover, this is not a huge misconception. This is because, in many cases, those who state (C) subtly imply (D). Thus, we tend to downplay the actual cases of mass murderers receiving honor in history because we believe that mass murderers should not be considered honorable.

In political science, when such issues accumulate, to use the initial analogy, there arises a problem of remaining silent about the fact that the truck has injured a child and speaking as if it never happened, from the perspective of needing to prevent a truck from hitting a child. These are called 'naturalistic fallacy' and 'moralistic fallacy.' Assuming that proposition (C) does not subtly contain an intention of justification, deriving (D) from (C) and condemning it as "supporting mass murderers" is a naturalistic fallacy. On the other hand, implicitly inferring that trucks do not hit children (fact) because they should not hit children (value) is a moralistic fallacy. Such errors can be easily found in political claims around us, such as denying the Pareto principle because people should be equal, or believing that all people make rational judgments because democracy is right.

Such basic understanding can often be somewhat difficult to distinguish, but in each area of social science, facts and values are even more intricately mixed, making it difficult to separate them. For example, the concept of 'Homo Economicus' assumed in economics contains both factual and value aspects. The mainstream economic concept of economic man, who pursues his material interests in a rational and selfish manner, is factual in that it implicitly explains many social behaviors of people. However, it also has a value-oriented aspect in that it can underestimate activities such as non-profit relief work when understanding humans in this way. The concept of 'natural state,' often discussed in political science and political philosophy, also contains both facts and values. On the factual side, assuming atomized individuals is an inevitable abstraction process for some factual explanation, similar to assuming an ideal gas in physical chemistry. On the value side, by assuming atomized individuals as a starting point for explanation, a value assessment of the state or political organization may follow. If humans initially existed as atomized individuals, it is assumed that individuals could have survived without a state or political organization, and to that extent, the state or political organization could be unnecessary.

Among these, even social scientists who are familiar with abstract concept distinctions are most often confused by the distinction between value phenomena and value judgments. This is the issue of distinguishing between 'facts about ideology' (value phenomena) and 'ideology as a value' (value judgment), which was mentioned earlier in this book. For example, the fact that Peter criticizes Kevin (value phenomenon) and my joining in on that criticism (value judgment) are different from each other. Although value phenomena and value judgments are in principle clearly different, when facing sensitive and complex social situations, there is a tendency to easily confuse the two. For instance, when confronted with Japan denying the forced mobilization of comfort women despite the testimonies of multiple survivors and clear evidence, it becomes difficult for us to pause our criticism of Japan while calmly thinking, "Japan is reversing the 2015 Korea-Japan comfort women agreement, in which they acknowledged the involvement of the Japanese military in the past and expressed sympathy for the government's responsibility." Instead of stopping at seeing a fact as a value phenomenon, it leads to a value judgment (criticizing Japan). However, if one is interested in the scientific laws of political phenomena, they should be able to suspend value judgments and focus solely on value phenomena. This is because all human actions occur in the process of pursuing some value. And before that, they should be able to distinguish between the two well.

Early on, A.D. Lindsay made such an observation. Lindsay said, "A political theorist should first be interested in understanding the state as it is in reality, and should be concerned with the actual operating ideologies, i.e., those that make people persistently obey a particular political form or, on the contrary, destroy the political forms they are accustomed to and construct new ones, as they sufficiently operate within people's minds." In addition, he argued that if the ideals or ideologies, which are the subject of political theory, are mere artificial concepts without effective influence on our real lives, then it would be a trivial issue; however, if they realistically operate within people's minds and become effective guidelines for realistic political actions, then such ideologies are not mere ideals or ideologies, but facts and realities that political theory should deal with. He called them "operative ideals." One of the three capacities, the ideological capacity, precisely describes these "operative ideals." And in doing so, judgments about what is right or wrong are initially excluded.

However, in many political science studies, the distinction between value phenomena and value judgments is still not sufficiently carefully differentiated. For example, there are many analyses suggesting that when an authoritarian political regime faces an economic crisis, the backlash leads to political change towards democracy. However, there is no guarantee that the civilian democratic government that replaces the authoritarian government will better address the severe economic issues. In other words, such analyses are influenced by value judgments about authoritarian and democratic political systems. When Francis Fukuyama constantly criticizes the role of family and kinship as units of political interaction and explains that they are overcome to form the state, his political stance within the explanation does not fully account for all phenomena but merely evaluates them.

(2) Self-Imposed Constraints of Theory and Social Science

Not only is it difficult to sufficiently and elaborately distinguish between value phenomena and value judgments, but political science (or social science) also provides another excuse for mixing the two. The 'self-fulfilling prophecy' mentioned earlier is exactly that, which leads to the 'existence constraint of theory.' In short, a self-fulfilling prophecy means that the prejudices we have in advance affect our behavior, inducing others to exhibit the characteristics and actions we initially expected.

A common example is when a rumor spreads that a particular bank is going to fail, causing people to rush to the bank to withdraw their deposits, which in turn actually causes the bank to fail, or when a single remark from the Federal Reserve Chairman during an economic crisis causes the global economy to fluctuate. On the other hand, the existence constraint of theory means that political science theories are inevitably constrained by the situation in which the theory is placed, as researchers inevitably involve their own prejudices and value concepts when recognizing political phenomena, leading to evaluative choices, and thus inevitably including ideological characteristics in political theories. If the theory's self-fulfilling prophecy is when the theory changes the situation, the existence constraint is when the situation influences the theory. The two are like two sides of a coin that cannot be separated, and the effect in social science is the same. It means that it is impossible to exclude value bias from theory.

There is some validity to this insight, but it does not necessarily provide enough reason to equate political science entirely with political ideology. To say that it is impossible to create a neutral political science due to self-fulfilling prophecies is like saying that one cannot create a general theory of baseball's motion due to quantum mechanics' uncertainty principle or the butterfly effect. Why is that? Firstly, it is a question of how much self-fulfilling prophecies can be generalized, and accordingly, the extent of the ideological bias that can be generalized is also important.

If self-fulfilling prophecies can be generalized to the extent that it is impossible to create a neutral political science theory, then in all societies, whenever someone spreads the word that a specific bank is failing, that bank should always be in crisis, and every single remark made by the Federal Reserve Chairman should always be realized and amplified. If they say that interest rates will rise, then interest rates should always rise significantly first, and if they mention that rates will fall, the market interest rates should always drop significantly first. However, this is not the case in reality.

If someone's statement about a particular bank going bankrupt has a negative impact on the bank's existence but only affects its stock price by less than 1% in many cases, it can be understood to have a similar significance as the uncertainty principle of quantum mechanics on the motion of a flying baseball. Although the Federal Reserve Chairman's interest rate remarks always have an impact on interest rates, if there is no general rule that can be stated about how much of an impact they have, it is similar to the butterfly effect influencing the motion of a flying baseball.

The important thing is the extent to which self-fulfilling prophecies distort or damage the neutrality of a theory. The influence of self-fulfilling prophecies in political science research is certainly greater than the influence of the uncertainty principle on classical physics. However, it does not seem that this would completely prevent the formation of a significantly neutral political science theoretical framework or make it possible only to a very limited extent.

So, how is neutral political science specifically possible? The direct answer to that question is the main content of this book.

B. The Problem of Practicality in Political Science Theory

Political Science — Mon, 18 Dec 2023 13:34:21 +0900

B. The Problem of Practicality in Political Science Theory

Does studying political science help in actual political activities or understanding political phenomena? Let me call this the 'practicality' problem of political science. Almost all political science researchers hold negative opinions about the practicality of political science. It seems that the practicality of political science does not satisfy most people interested in political science.

Of course, there is criticism about the practicality of economics, which is considered the best among social science fields. However, the practicality problem of political science is different in scale from that of economics. If it is reported in the media that the head of a country's economic department has not studied economics, many people would feel uneasy. In contrast, if it is reported in the media that a politician in a country has not studied political science, such a fact would not attract anyone's interest. It is not an issue at all. This shows how weak the practicality of political science is. There are at least three problems with the content of political science, which has weak practicality.

(1) Empirical Science by Philosophical Speculation

First, the content of existing political science can be said to have not explored actual political reality to the extent that it has been studied as an empirical science through philosophical speculation. Since the basic assumption of empirical science is that "great scientific discoveries are made by generalizing what has been observed, as if describing generally valid laws," political science should also approach empirical (i.e., actually occurring political realities) cases through generalization if it aims to be a science rather than philosophy. For example, did all political institutions emerge at once, or did some of them emerge first? Jared Diamond answers this question by saying, "We can infer the answer to this question by comparing modern societies with different levels of organization, examining records and archaeological evidence of past societies, or observing how certain social institutions change over time." A similar attitude needs to be introduced to political science research.

Despite this, there are very few examples in classical political theory literature that prove the content of the theory using actual political phenomena. This is a surprising but true fact. Even the works of prominent behavioral and positivist political scientists like Easton and Parsons are no exception. The main content of political theory is to compare and review the doctrines of each political theory, engaging in conceptual and philosophical discussions. In short, it is a political theory unrelated to reality. This is the case even for political research that aims to be positivist.

(2) Blind Conceptual Distinctions

Secondly, traditional political science has failed to properly systematize even the concepts, producing only blind conceptual distinctions. For example, Max Weber developed an authority structure theory that characterizes organizations by the internal authority relationships, distinguishing between the concepts of power and authority and classifying types of organizations according to how authority is legitimized. "He posits three pure ideal types of organizational forms: charismatic authority, traditional authority, and rational-legal authority." The intended conclusion of Max Weber's argument can be easily inferred: advocating for organizations with rational-legal authority in contrast to other authorities. In fact, Max Weber regards the type of organization with rational-legal authority and rule by law as the 'bureaucratic organizational form', describing it as "the most efficient form of organization technically possible." If physics were to explain the laws of motion in this way, it would be as follows: "Distinguish between the concepts of motion and trajectory, and classify motion systems according to how the trajectory occurs in relation to other objects. Thus, the motion system can be posited as three pure motion systems: stable, unstable, and complex. Through this, the necessity of a stable motion system can be advocated." This is closer to literature that appreciates a single experience from multiple angles, rather than a science that generalizes experience.

As another example, T. Skocpol distinguishes regime transitions into revolutionary transitions and evolutionary transitions. However, upon closer examination of the content, it seems that the only difference between the two is the scope and speed of the transition. In other words, there is no need to categorize them into two groups when it can be explained as a continuous quantity of the scope and speed of regime change.

(3) Pseudo-scholarly Discussions

Third, without a substantial conceptual framework, discussions are mainly complex and pseudo-scholarly. For example, when understanding power, it can be simply assumed that power is determined by cooperative relationships between powerful actors ^[Ch.2.8]. However, political scientists have explained this very complexly. Max Weber said, "Power means the possibility of a person or a group of people to realize their will in a social context, even in the face of resistance from others who participate in such actions." C. W. Mills believes that "a person who has seized power is in a position to make significant decisions. Whether they make any policy decisions or not is not that important; what is important is that they hold such important positions. Even if they do nothing or make no policy decisions, that in itself is a kind of action, and sometimes it has a greater impact than when they make policy decisions." Wrong saw "power as the ability of some people to create the desired and planned influence over other people." The characteristic of such political power theory is that it is not more than a written explanation of our common-sense notions about political power. It hardly advances our understanding of the changes in political power and their causes in political phenomena.

Chapter 5. A. The Flow of Political Science and This Book

Political Science — Mon, 18 Dec 2023 13:33:50 +0900

Chapter 5. Theoretical Discussions

A. The Flow of Political Science and This Book

What is politics? And what is political science? Politics is the art of acquiring and using power. (Based on the discussions so far) Power is the act of controlling cooperative relationships between people. Therefore, political science can be considered the study of the mechanisms that control human interactions.

There are other social sciences that study the relationships between people. If human relationships are examined from the perspective of individual interests, it becomes economics. To distinguish it from economics, political science is interested in how cooperative relationships between people change, regardless of (or due to) the material (economic) benefits that each individual expects or results from. Behind cooperative relationships lies regulatory relationships, which are also the power relationships that are the subject of political science's interest.

The history of political science research is long, but to briefly summarize its flow, there are generally three approaches to it: ① traditional approach, ② behavioral approach or empirical approach, and ③ post-behavioral approach.

Firstly, the traditional approach is characterized by understanding facts and values in relation to each other. In this approach, concepts related to politics were deduced from ideas about political purposes such as the nature, purpose, and function of the state. It also involved studying political science using methods similar to those in history and focused on defining the nature of laws and political systems.

Secondly, the behavioral or positivist approach aims to explain the process of people engaging in political actions, and the reasons why political processes and systems perform certain functions. In particular, this approach considers political institutions and human behavior, which are the subjects of political science, as objects separate from the observer, similar to a machine. It strives to construct a logically consistent model and deduce the content of political science. It can perhaps be considered the most similar to the natural sciences in terms of research methods in political science.

Thirdly, the post-behavioral approach emerged with the aim of overcoming the mechanistic view of humans assumed by the behavioral approach and constructing a human-centered political theory. Rather than immersing itself in the scientific research of political science (as required by the behavioral approach), this approach seeks to focus more on the pressing issues of society.

Among these, the first, the traditional approach, is a mix of political philosophy as a moral theory and political science as a science. This mixture arises from the perspective of viewing political science as political philosophy. This standpoint dates back to at least Plato and was established in Aristotle's politics. The purpose of Aristotle's political theory was to study the best form of political community for the most capable people to realize the ideal life. Aristotle understood ethics as part of state theory in his "Nicomachean Ethics," and for him, "political science was a theory of good and just life, just like ethics." Most subsequent political science research has not deviated from this path. For example, Hegel claimed that the 'state' is an objective entity, and its laws can be perceived by humans like natural laws but cannot be changed. Modern political philosophy also attempted to explain the basis of the legitimacy of political and legal order through the concept of a contract between individuals. Although the ethical focus differs from that of Aristotle and Hegel, who centered on the state, it is identical in that its purpose is solely to advocate for an ideal political system rather than focusing on factual relationships.

Attempts to break free from this moralism and scientize political science are found in the behavioral approach. In my opinion, the behavioral approach itself was essential in the development of political science. However, there was a serious problem here, which is that it failed to produce a proper conceptual system for substantial political understanding as research results suitable for this approach. For example, look at D. Easton's theory. Easton, with the same idea as me, said that empirical investigation of certain knowledge in political science "ultimately requires the establishment of a system theory at the highest level of generalization." However, the core content of his political system theory is nothing more than ⓐ the system's identity is revealed in the form of units and boundaries, ⓑ input and output, ⓒ differentiation within a system, and ⓓ integration within a system. There is not much to be called the content of the theory here, and it only raises a few general theories, so there are criticisms that it has not yet reached the level of a theory itself. Looking at the theory of another representative behavioral researcher, T. Parsons, although it goes through complex theoretical discussions such as defining five types of variables, there is no generalized specific conceptual system that can be called a specialized paradigm for political science. This is the reason why Wolin, Beardsley, and Eugene Meehan criticized that there has never been an established dominant theoretical paradigm in political science.

In this context, the post-behavioral approach emerged as an alternative to the behavioral approach, with its core being that it has not abandoned the behavioral approach because it failed, but because it did not achieve its goals.

As mentioned in Chapter 0 of this book, the 'scientific approach' is a behavioral approach, and the content of the political phenomenon theory I presented in this book follows this perspective. The 3․1 law system aims to deductively derive propositions that can explain political phenomena by combining the three laws of political phenomena, survival process theory, and principles of the naturality of human survival. It also assumes that the propositions of political science should have regularity and consistency, and that recorded data should be quantified and measurable, as the behavioral approach requires, aiming to explain "why people engage in such political behavior, and why political processes and systems ultimately function in such a way."

c. Phenomenological Evaluation

Political Science — Mon, 18 Dec 2023 13:32:59 +0900

c. Phenomenological Evaluation

Unlike military or economic capacity, ideological capacity is essentially rooted in human consciousness. Therefore, to say that a political actor's ideological capacity is greater, you must be able to evaluate its magnitude. So, how can you assess the size of ideological capacity? One good method is to assert that the better the content of the ideology, such as the ideas it promotes, the greater the size of its ideological capacity.

So, what makes an idea (the content of an ideology) better? At first glance, one might think of logical consistency, but this is not an appropriate criterion for evaluating the influence of social ideologies, including religion. The central concepts of religion and ideology, such as the existence of a deity, dialectical materialism, and natural rights, are often based on unverifiable ideas. Instead, political ideologies can be evaluated from a perspective that understands political phenomena in terms of causality, considering their attractiveness and truthfulness. In other words, the more effectively a political ideology satisfies the following two conditions, the greater its political competitiveness.

ⓐ [Attractiveness] The extent to which ideological capacity aligns with human desires and expectations

ⓑ [Truthfulness] The extent to which ideological capacity contributes to the survival of political constituents.

Attractiveness refers to how appealing the content of an ideology is to people. As can be seen from the popularity of populism in modern times, people are more receptive to belief systems that align with their desires and expectations. In other words, it must meet their desires and expectations. Even villains would be more attracted to an ideology that claims they can be saved and achieve happiness. In particular, the fundamental beliefs of an ideology must align with the primal desires and expectations of humans.

At the same time, people prefer ideologies with rich, consistent, intuitive, and familiar details in their content. For example, in the 7th century Middle East, monotheism succeeded over polytheism due to the persuasive power of its doctrine. However, these elements of attractiveness can be contradictory, making it difficult for an ideology to possess all of these characteristics simultaneously. For instance, while everyone desires a world that is free and equal, freedom and equality are difficult to achieve together. As a result, attempting to cater to various desires and expectations tends to compromise consistency.

On the other hand, truthfulness can also be referred to as 'usefulness,' which means the extent to which the likelihood of survival increases when acting according to an ideology. The Righteous Army ideology in the late Joseon period may have been appealing to the common people of Joseon, but its truthfulness was close to zero. As a result, political forces with the Righteous Army ideology ultimately failed to gain political power and did not attract the support of many political actors in the long term. The values of the Arabian tribal system and the ideas of white people before the American Civil War are also examples of poor truthfulness. The Arabian tribal values led to brutal consequences of bloody conflicts between tribes, as they held the entire tribe responsible for compensation if a member committed a crime. Moreover, the ideas of white people regarding the American Revolution, which led to the Civil War over the abolition of slavery, carried the blatant contradiction of protecting slavery alongside freedom. If the truthfulness of a political ideology is poor, political organizations cannot grow and develop, and political actors cannot gain significant power in the medium to long term.

The evaluation criteria for ideological capacity are separate from whether the ideas of that ideology help the development of a political organization (nation). Although Nazism and Japanese militarism may have helped Hitler and the Japanese far-right rise to power, they simultaneously led Germany and Japan to collapse. It can be said that the greater the attractiveness and truthfulness of the ideological capacity possessed by a political actor, the greater the political influence of that ideological capacity. However, this does not necessarily mean that the ideas of the ideological capacity contribute to the development of a political organization (nation).

While truthfulness partially explains the relationship between ideological capacity and political development, the evaluation criteria for ideological capacity, encompassing both attractiveness and truthfulness, only describe phenomenologically how much political power a political actor can acquire. As I have emphasized from the beginning, in this book, I only explain the mechanisms of changes in power structures.

b. ㉢ Three Characteristics of Ideological Action

Political Science — Mon, 18 Dec 2023 13:32:12 +0900

㉢ Three Characteristics of Ideological Action

The ideological capacity of political actors centers around ideologies with specific contents, and these contents have the following important attributes (note that these are attributes of the content of the ideology, not the attributes of the ideological capacity itself).

[Ch.4.16] The ideologies held by political actors have three attributes: ① persistence, ② diversity, and ③ extremity.

Firstly, the persistence of an ideology refers to the fact that the content of an ideology, such as religion, thought, or doctrine, is slowly generated, lasts for a long time, and fades away gradually. The Arab Empire disappeared long ago, but the Quran and theology of Islam, which were both the religion and political ideology of the Arab Empire, and the Arabic language as a religious language, have spread and survived in many parts of Asia and Africa that never experienced Arab rule. The Latin-speaking Roman Empire vanished a thousand years ago, but Latin as the religious language of Catholicism and its cultural thought still remain today.

Secondly, ideologies have diversity. This means that the content and types of ideologies are not singular but rather diverse. The source of this diversity lies in the fact that ideologies are composed of subjective notions rather than objective entities. Ideological values can vary extremely depending on history and culture, and even excluding such cases, the diversity of ideological values fundamentally leads to various differences in political positions. For example, in regard to the 1937 massacre in Nanjing, China, the Tokyo Yushukan Museum in Japan argues that it was necessary to stop the 'terrorist activities' of the Chinese people, while the Nanjing Massacre Memorial Hall in China emphasizes the injustice by pointing out the fact that 300,000 people were killed in just six weeks. As is often seen in religious heresy disputes, minor differences and diversity in ideological power can lead to serious conflicts, unlike the cases with military or economic power.

Thirdly, there is an attribute of extremity in the content of ideologies. This means that ideologies (i.e., people's values) often justify extreme actions, such as massive loss of life and brutal slaughter. As seen in the incidents of Jews persecuting and massacring Christians in southern Arabia in the early 6th century or the Nazis slaughtering Jews, religious and cultural differences frequently lead to cruel massacres throughout history. The Nanjing Massacre was influenced by Japan's militaristic ideology and samurai spirit, while the mass killings in Cambodia from 1975 to 1979 were rooted in communist ideology.

b. ㉡ Interaction Methods of Ideological Capacity

Political Science — Mon, 18 Dec 2023 13:31:55 +0900

㉡ Interaction Methods of Ideological Capacity

In relation to the structure of value systems, which are the content of ideology, the more concrete interaction methods of political actors are as follows:

[Ch.4.15] Generally, the ruling class (the powerful) tries to exert influence in the order of “fundamental beliefs → theoretical system → cultural activities," while the ruled class (the obedient) exerts influence in the reverse direction, from "cultural activities → theoretical system → fundamental beliefs."

The ruling class is a minority but possesses strong political power, primarily through military and economic capacities. Their activities typically involve supporting scholars to conduct research and provide logical justifications for specific political actions, although they are fewer in number compared to the general public. On the other hand, the ruled class expresses and strengthens their position through numerous small activities. The most important channels for this are historical records and literature. "Historical records and literature, especially contemporary poetry, reflect the social, political, and indirect economic crises of the time, as well as the dissatisfaction of individuals and social classes." This is because records and literature are enjoyed more by the ruled class than the ruling class. While records are influenced by the ruling class, as they require the support of a majority of intellectuals, literature, in particular, is enjoyed and shared by more people and thus influenced by the ruled class. The values reflected in literature spread to more people, form a temporal consensus, and ultimately determine the direction of political change.

b. ㉠ Political Utilization of Value Systems

Political Science — Mon, 18 Dec 2023 13:30:42 +0900

b. Utilization and Effects of Ideological Capacity

㉠ Political Utilization of Value Systems

When the elements of ideological capacity combine or conflict with each other, the political effects of the value system are amplified or diminished accordingly. First, let me consider the case where the elements combine with each other.

These phenomena are related to fundamental beliefs. Firstly, the production of new fundamental beliefs that align with existing fundamental beliefs exerts a strong and long-term influence. In particular, the creation of entirely new ideologies has a tremendous political impact in the long run. A prime example is the birth of Islam, as well as the establishment of Christianity during the Roman era, the emergence of Enlightenment ideas during the Renaissance, and the birth of socialist ideology. Secondly, the production of a theoretical system that aligns with fundamental beliefs exerts a strong and medium- term influence. Augustine, who was a professor of rhetoric, became the bishop of Hippo in 390 and studied Christian theory in letters and papers; his theories became the orthodox teachings of medieval schools. John Locke's political thought was adopted as the objective thought of the American Revolution, influencing American politics through the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Finally, cultural activities that align with fundamental beliefs exert a strong and short-term influence. Charlemagne successfully conquered the rebellious region of Saxony using both military suppression and the church. In this case, the church should be considered a cultural activity rather than fundamental beliefs for the people of Saxony since it was a new culture for them.

On the other hand, political phenomena related to theoretical systems are as follows. Firstly, the production of new fundamental beliefs that is compatible with the existing theoretical system exerts a moderate, long-term influence. Manichaeism, founded by Mani from Babylon in the mid-3rd century, can be considered a religion (fundamental beliefs) that is compatible with the existing theoretical system since it combined the doctrines of Zoroastrianism, Christianity, and Buddhism. Although it was widely propagated and then diminished due to persecution by the ruling class, it later reappeared in a different form. Secondly, the production of a new theoretical system that is compatible with the existing theoretical system exerts a moderate, medium-term influence. Examples include the significant influence of Toegye's theory, which is compatible with the theoretical system of Neo-Confucianism, on Joseon Dynasty politics, and the popularity of Spencer's theory, which perfectly suited the needs of wealthy American capitalists. Another example can be found in U.S. President Andrew Jackson (1767-1845), who fiercely criticized the static lifelong civil servant class of the federal government based on his democratic theory, expanded his support base, and eventually reorganized the administrative organization on a large scale, distributing public offices to his supporters. Thirdly, cultural activities that are compatible with the existing theoretical system exert a moderate and short-term influence.

Political phenomena related to cultural activities are as follows. Firstly, the production of new fundamental beliefs that are compatible with existing cultural activities has very few examples, making it difficult to find a perfect case. However, if successful, it will exert a long-term influence as the production of fundamental beliefs. Secondly, the production of a new theoretical system that is compatible with existing cultural activities is slightly challenging, but if successful, it exerts a medium-term influence. One example would be King Jeongjo referring to himself as 'Gunsa(君師)', which means both king and teacher, while promoting the 'Hwanggeuk' ideology. Thirdly, the production of new cultural activities that are compatible with existing cultural activities is somewhat easier, and if successful, exerts short-term influence. Examples include election candidates campaigning with popular songs or seeking the cooperation of popular celebrities.

Conversely, when elements of ideological power clash, the political effects of each element are diminished, and naturally, they exert influence in the order of the value system structure. There has been an instance where the influence of such a structure was revealed while trying to politically revise prejudices close to fundamental beliefs. The failed attempt to change the fundamental beliefs of white people's prejudice against black people in the United States through a cultural activity called a "publicity film" campaign in 1954 proves this point. At the time, the US Supreme Court, led by Chief Justice Earl Warren, ruled that it was unequal for black children to be separated from white children solely based on race. Consequently, social psychologists of the time were determined to change the prejudices of white people against black people by devising a campaign using publicity films, but their efforts failed. This phenomenon occurs due to the tendency to not accept information that conflicts with one's own beliefs. For example, a radio broadcast produced in the early 1940s to reduce prejudice against Polish-Americans was mostly listened to by Polish- Americans themselves, rather than others.

Conflicts in value systems are always followed by emotional conflicts. Among various emotions, the most politically significant emotion is "anger." Anger is aroused when one suffers significant harm in an immoral manner and most directly triggers choices and actions. The 2011 protests that began in response to the burning of the Quran by the US military and the subsequent intensification of terrorism can be seen in the 2012 incident where Secretary of State Clinton had to repeatedly express her apologies for the Quran burning. Additionally, in 2018, President Trump's "shithole" comment led to a government shutdown in the United States. In this way, anger often follows in the micro and immediate actions of ideological power.