Customer Reviews

Political Order in Changing Societies (The Henry L. Stimson Lectures Series)

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(2)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(0)
1 star:		(2)

 

 

I find it slightly incredible that a book of this caliber and renown remains basically unreviewed, in the sense that no previous reviewer has deigned to even touch upon Huntington's argument. They have chosen merely to register their opinions on his argument. But to someone who has not yet read the book, how could those opinions be of any guidance when the grounds for those opinions are not laid out? I write this review for those who believe that the integrity of an opinion depends upon the reasons given to support it.

I came to this book highly skeptical that I would learn anything important. In college, I read Huntington's The Third Wave, a text of canonical status in the field of democratization studies, which at the time nonetheless (or perhaps for that very reason) struck me as insipid. Here is not the place to discuss whether and how my views on that later book have changed. Suffice it to say that Political Order in Changing Societies surprised me pleasantly with its fresh insights, wide learning, and clarity of argument. Its reputation as one of most important books in political development is well-deserved.

If I were to describe this book in one sentence, I would say that it is Hobbesian in outlook and Hegelian in method. That the book is Hobbesian in outlook is indicated by the justly famous opening sentence: "The most important political distinction among countries concerns not their form of government but their degree of government." It is confirmed beyond doubt by Huntington's elaboration of that statement: "The function of government is to govern. A weak government, a government which lacks authority, fails to perform its function and is immoral in the same sense in which a corrupt judge, a cowardly soldier, or an ignorant teacher is immoral" (28). One might wish to count all the times Huntington uses "Hobbessian" as an adjective. To say that the book is Hegelian in method is to stress the movement of Huntington's argument. He is concerned primarily with political modernization or political development. That is to say, he is concerned primarily with transitions, whether from a traditional to modern polity, or from a praetorian to civic polity. The causes of those transitions are certain contradictions or tensions within the socio-political system. As Huntington will later suggest, this book highlights "developmental contradictions and crises," e.g., rapid political modernization coupled with slow political development, or the conflict b/t short-run and long-run interests (the "King's Dilemma" that he describes in ch.3 is a variation on this latter theme). One might wish to count all the times he uses the words "dialectic" or "dialectical."

For the student of contemporary political science, this book will be of interest in that it presages the currently fashionable interest in institutions. Political institutions are at the heart of this book. As Huntington tells us, "The primary thesis of this book is that [the violence and instability characteristic of the post-WWII era] was in large part the product of rapid social change and the rapid mobilization of new groups into politics coupled with the slow development of political institutions" (4). "The primary problem of politics is the lag in the development of political institutions behind social and economic change" (5).

I give this book four stars rather than five because in his later chapters, where he is elaborating upon the basic argument laid out in ch.1 and filling in details, he is not always convincing and he sometimes glides over tough problems. Also, some of his passing statements stand in considerable tension with his broader argument, e.g., his statement, "Institutionalization of power means the limitation of power" (238), and his general argument, "Authority has to exist before it can be limited" (8). Incidentally, this example should suffice to show that statements that seem plausible and even insightful when taken alone can nevertheless be highly misleading.

Still, this book was a pioneering work in its time and remains an excellent introduction to the primary issues of political development. One cannot say that it has yet been surpassed, and it therefore remains essential reading for political scientists.

While not a scorching read, Political Order in Changing Societies is a must read for those looking to learn more about the corner stones of modern governments and the effects of changing societies on those political systems. It is an excellent tool for looking at the forces that shape the modern polity.

I read this book while I was in the university, and it still has things to say ten years later. I am an Asian, so I feel qualified to say that Huntington's ideas were not racist. If anything, he saw things very clearly. He has a good grasp of how politics work in non-western societies. He also clearly understood the needs of under developed Asian societies. He understood better than writers supposedly sympathetic to Asians (i.e. Naom Chomsky and his intellectual cronies)how political stability is the most important political issue of the day.

(Just a note on the Clash of Civilisation. It was widely mocked when it first came out in the early 1990's, but after 9/11 it was proved that what he wrote was right and - as usual - perscient.)

Huntington takes issue with Lipset's argument regarding modernization, arguing instead taht the process of modernization may lead to instability rather than democracy. Huntington aruges that the process of modernization - urbanization, industrialization, increased literacy, and rising wealth - expands political conscioussness which broadens political participation, thus multiplying political demands. In a state where political institutions are weak, these increased demands can lead to political disorder and instability. In other words, where Lipset argues taht modernization will bring in lower-class, potenitally disillusioned groups into a more coesive state culture, Huntington would argue that this will occur only if institutions are in place to provide a medium of voice for those lower classes.

Additionally, Huntington calls for a strong state structure during the modernization process. Modernization destroys traditional authority structures which must be replaced by one central authoritative body. This parallels the Weberian idea that as political freedoms expand in modern society, strong bureaucratic structures for social institutions are imperative.

When discussing modernization, Huntington argues that during the process it may be necessary to constrain some human rights in order to ensure political stability. This illustrates that modernization may not lead to total democracy. Donnelly (1984) referred to these human rights versus development conundrums as needs tradeoffs, equality tradeoffs, and liberty tradeoffs. For example, Huntington argues that economic development (modernization) may require that the central authority limit "consumption-oriented" human rights during the economic development process.

Huntington also sees the potential of an equality tradeoff. This idea holds that a society in transition to a modern economy will experience high levels of income inequality, but over time, this inequality will recede to a more moderate level. Where Huntington sees the equality tradeoff as temporary, Donelly argues that the problem may be more long lasting.

Lastly, Huntington argues that when modernization weakens traditional authority structures, other associational groups may arise, which may lead to political decay, i.e. these groups may rise up in opposition to the central political authority. As such, the civil and political rights of these groups may need to be suspended during the early stages of economic development. Huntington would argue that the long-term interests of modernization must take precedence over the short-term interests of various groups.

Reading this book was like opening a window in a stuffy room to get a breath of fresh air. The stuffy room is the current public discourse surrounding "democracy" and "civil society." The fresh air is Huntington's discussion of the phenomena of political modernization around the globe in the face of revolution and terror (not a new phenomenon). Although dating from the 1960s, the insights are still fresh. Basically, Huntington argues that order is essential to modernization, that reforms can catalyze revolutions and civil war if applied in the wrong way to the wrong people (Urban Elites), and that there is nothing inevitable about people's love for democracy or progress. Leaders have to lead, that's what they are for. Ataturk comes our very well in this book, as does Lenin, somewhat surprisingly to this reader, because political organization is a the center of Huntington's prescription for modernization and change. As an analyst, Huntington is unbiased. He may get some details wrong, although he seems to have a photographic memory, but his overall analysis has withstood the test of time. Order is required for changing societies. That's something President Bush and his followers didn't seem to understand, and one reason that America has seen a (hopefully temporary) slip in its prestige. I would ask that any foreign policy political appointee in any administration be required to read this book--and pass a Mandarin-style exam to be sure they understand Huntington's main point, namely: Political order is required for changing societies.

Political Order in Changing Societies (The Henry L. Stimson Lectures Series)Political Order in Changing Societies This book exemplifies the kind to analysis and thinking that has been undermining higher education and U.S. politics since the turn of the 19th/20th century. It is the worship of centralization disguised as unbiased fact-based evaluation.

For example, a central position is that the U.S. form of government was antiquated because it was modeled on that practiced by English Tudors. While grossly misrepresenting the political realities of this era and admitting that it was one of the most prosperous and peaceful in British history, Huntington pervasively critiques the the U.S. as antiquated and ineffective. The premise is European-like (and less obviously, Soviet) centralized parliamentarian governments are more "modern" and "effective", thus to be emulated by the U.S. Since these governments represent "modernization", the must be emulated by the "antiquated" U.S. The unstated assumption is centralized decision-making - whether practiced by legislators and bureaucrats (i.e. mostly social "science" experts like Huntington)- is superior to the decentralized social, economic, moral, and political judgments of "the invisible hand of wisdom" of millions of common citizens. It is, of course, decision-making by the population upon which the design of U.S. Constitution and its principles of government and law are based, not on control of the nation by government officials and legal/intellectual elites.

Centralization of government in the national legislatures and the E.U. and in all three branches in Washington has proven to do nothing but empower an aristocracy of elites trained in social "science" derived fields taking control of the nation's political economy and citizen's private property and daily lives. The intellectual elites in professions of the applied social pseudosciences - law, education, communication, psychology, history, etc. The elites share their conjecture and ideologies and collaborate through literature like this book, textbooks, journals, and so forth. They operate and express their intellectual superiority (aka "expertise") through special interest groups, lobbies, labor unions, loyal corporations, "community" organizations, and other minority factions using the media; and by directly pressuring government officials via activism. Thus intellectuals has effectively replaced the feudal property-based aristocracies of earlier times in the West, but like those aristocrats they live in idealism and are out of touch with reality because they are unable to directly observe the consequences nor suffer severe consequences from their judgements.

The Tudor era did not function in the way this book assumes and the founders of the U.S. did not generally base their principles on that period. They instead relied primarily on what their research led them to believe were the best of the experiences of Moses, the Greeks, the Romans, and the early Anglo-Saxons. Finally, there is nothing "modern" about centralized forms of government practiced by the Europeans during the 20th century, regardless of how structured and disguised with confused academic rhetoric. Centralized governments ruled by dictators and tribal councils, as well as by the idealism and Machiavellian methods of people convinced they are superior to, smarter, or more deserving than the general population has existed since humans dwelled in caves or wandered the deserts and savannas in ancient times. It is "progressive" speculative rewriting of history and fictitious analysis based on false or distorted evidence like that presented in this book that have led to the erosion the productivity, prosperity, and security of the United States and West today.

This is dangerous book that should be read with mature skepticism and great caution, and not presented to the intellectually naive as grounded in veracious philosophy and reliable knowledge. Unfortunately books like this have lay the foundation for the erroneous idealistic group-think of "expert" specialists that now pervades and substitutes for objective study in Western social science and has taken over control of those country's governments. Thanks to books like this, the U.S. is now primarily controlled by a centralized government in which decision-making is concentrated in the hands of special interest groups, lobbyist, and specialized "experts" led by intellectuals who substitute their self-interests and judgment on social, economic, political, and cultural matters for that of the general public.

Picture was of newer edition. Said slightly used but the book was from the 1960s. Very disappointing.

this is still Huntington's best work. The bredth of his erudition is astounding, the clarity of his analysis second to none. Too bad he had to soil his reputation with all that later nonsense about clashing civilizations.

To be fair, Huntington is a great writer. However, some of his ideas border on racism. I would read Huntington to understand how people in the social sciences thought 50 years ago, but I wouldn't take his broad general truths too seriously.