User:Rbeckles/sandbox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Historical Examples[edit]

In the past, there have been many examples of social upheaval and systemic power exchanges that can be classified as legitimation crises. According to Habermas, these crises have all occurred as a natural consequence of society's productive advancement, as the social system struggles to adapt to the strains on relations of production. In other words, as a society's "technical knowledge" advances, the equilibrium is disturbed between the technical and political aspects of production, which can result in a crisis if the imbalance isn't corrected by adequate advancement of "moral-practical knowledge." [1] A prime example of this is in the process of industrialization, where the establishment of factories and massive workforces often precedes the establishment of government regulations, workers' rights and labor unions. As sociologist Robert Merton explains, a group is most successful and stable when it is satisfied by the achievement of its institutional goals (technical/forces of production) and also with the institutional norms and regulations condoned to achieve those goals (moral-practical/relations of production). Therefore, in order to maintain legitimacy, a society, constituted by both the government and the governed, must engage in an ongoing and competitive reevaluation of its goals and norms to ensure they continue to satisfy the society’s needs. The establishment of new social movements is essential to this process.

Historically, the most stable societies have been those that enjoy widespread acceptance of both the society's institutional goals and the means used to achieve them. In contrast, every crisis of legitimacy has occurred when a large and/or important portion of a society strongly disagrees with some or all aspects of the institutional norms, as established and advanced by a particular regime or government.[2] When a government loses support, in this regard, it risks losing its legitimacy, as the public begins to question and doubt the grounds upon which the government’s claim to power is built.[3] In dealing with these crises, individuals and groups of individuals in the society resort to various modes of adjustment or adaptation.[4] Historically, these have usually cropped up in the form of revolutions, coups and wars.

Additionally, it is important to note that the logic of legitimation strongly depends on the system of domination deployed. In fact, it's the logic of legitimation that informs the concrete ways citizens and subjects comply to authority and/or contend with authority. In other words, the basis for any claim to legitimacy is often the basis for resistance against that same claim to legitimacy. For example, in some societies the economic achievements under a particular regime or government form the basis for its legitimation claims; in those societies, counterclaims to legitimacy will often highlight economic failures in order to strategically undermine the regime or government's authority.[5] Max Weber, who first advanced this point, summarizes it below:

every...system [of domination] attempts to establish and to cultivate the belief in its legitimacy. But according to the kind of legitimacy which is claimed, the type of obedience, the kind of administrative staff developed to guarantee it, and the mode of exercising authority, will all differ fundamentally.[6]

Revolutionary France[edit]

The events of the French Revolution, from 1789 to 1799, and the socio-political changes that it comprised can be classified as a legitimation crisis. The revolution was characteristic of a time in Europe where the divine right of monarchical rule was being undermined and transformed as the universal rights of the common citizen were emphasized instead.[7] Consequently, the mythological world views that underpinned the governing institutions of law and that bound popular conceptions of morality were replaced with more rational ones.[8]

People's Republic of China[edit]

The legitimation crisis in China took place after decades of power struggles and cultural shifts that had been in effect since the 1960s. The legitimation crisis, itself, was the result of several economic and political reforms made by the Communist Party of China (CPC) as part of an effort to salvage their reputation after the socialist policies and populist leadership of Mao Zedong in the 60s and 70s had left the Chinese economy in poor condition.

During Mao’s rule, a time referred to as the Cultural Revolution, an informal social contract was established, in which the government would supply socialist benefits (e.g. egalitarianism, food and shelter, medical care, education, job security, stable prices, social stability, and elimination of social evils) in return for the public's acquiescence to one-party rule and the loss of some civil liberties and political rights.[9] However, in the midst of the Cultural Revolution, the social contract was put in jeopardy as political and social stability faded.[10] When Mao died in 1976, a brief crisis of legitimation followed, as the cult of personality died with him and the CPC was left without its last strong grounds for authority. Since the party's core socialist policies had also failed, in order to regain and maintain legitimacy the party was forced to shift away from its longstanding focus on Marxist ideology, economic socialism, and charismatic appeals to focusing on political and economic rationalization and legalization instead.[11] The party's economic achievements (e.g. improved standard of living, growth and development) under its newly liberalized policies became the primary evidence of its legitimacy. In essence, the reforms were a solid move away from a control-oriented economy towards a more market-oriented, capitalist one.[12]

The CPC faced a new legitimation crisis with the move toward capitalism, as it violated the terms of the previously established social contract (inflation rose, the income gap widened, job insecurity increased, social welfare programs deteriorated and social evils returned) and the CPC's claim to one-party rule was challenged, as the public began to wonder why they were necessary as a party if socialism had failed and capitalism was the answer;[13] after all, the CPC's leaders were not the most qualified to exercise market-oriented economic reforms. The shift towards capitalist policies coupled with the CPC's inability to accommodate increased pressure for political liberalization and democratization eventually culminated in the Chinese democracy movement and the Tiananmen Square protests of 1989.[14]

Postcolonial Africa[edit]

In the twentieth-century, as African states adjusted to postcolonial independence, legitimation crises and state collapse were constant threats.[15] While authority was passed from colonial to independent rule successfully in most African states throughout the continent, some attempts at transition resulted in collapse. In Congo, for example, the state collapsed as its respective institutions (e.g. army, executives, local governments, populations) refused to recognize each other’s authority and work together.[16] It took international intervention and the installation of a strongman with foreign connivance to reconstitute the state there.

In other African countries, state collapse was not a strictly postcolonial issue, as most states had some success transferring between regimes. Problems arose, however, when second-generation (and later) regimes began overthrowing original nationalist ones. Chad, Uganda, and Ghana are all instances of this happening – in each, a successfully established, but dysfunctional independent regime was replaced by a military regime that managed to concentrate power, but failed to effectively wield it. Legitimation crises and state collapse soon followed.[17]

Eastern Europe[edit]

Joseph Stalin's brand of communism successfully took hold due to a combination of terror and charisma.

In Eastern European countries where Stalinism was the system of domination, the legitimacy of the system was dependent on the instillment of fear among citizens and the charisma of the state leader.[18] [19]This was the strategy that worked for Stalin, himself, in the Soviet Union, as his brand of terror and charisma inspired a strong personality cult that placed authority and legitimacy in Stalin's hands alone.[20] For other Eastern European states, however, Soviet communism was a foreign system that had to be imported. This proved to be a major problem, as the communist leaders in other Eastern European states lacked Stalin's charisma.

Furthermore, communism was implemented in other East European states (e.g. Romania, Hungary, Poland) in a much shorter time frame and developed very differently from the way it did in the Soviet Union.[21] In Hungary, for example, the communist party initially came to power via tacit consent to a coalition government. Over time, the party began to strategically gain more power and get rid of competition. However, the democratic means the communist parties in these states initially used to gain power lost credibility, as they came to been as violent tyrannies in the service of an alien power. [22] Ultimately, populist platforms - giving farmers land, social and economic stability, and welfare benefits - gave way to brutal collectivist realities, as leaders came to be blamed for the very same reforms they were once praised for.[23]

References[edit]

  1. ^ Owen, David (2002). Between Reason and History: Habermas and the Idea of Progress. Albany: State University of New York Press. pp. 59–60.
  2. ^ Merton, Robert (1938). "Social Structure and Anomie". American Sociological Review. 3: 672–682.
  3. ^ Zhong, Yang (1996). "Legitimacy Crisis and Legitimation in China". Journal of Contemporary Asia. 26: 201–221.
  4. ^ Merton, Robert (1938). "Social Structure and Anomie". American Sociological Review. 3: 672–682.
  5. ^ Shue, Vivienne (2004). "Legitimacy crisis in China?". State and Society in 21st-Century China. New York: RoutledgeCurzon. pp. 27–28.
  6. ^ Weber, Max (1978). Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology. Berkeley: University of California Press. p. 213.
  7. ^ How, Alan (February 2001). "Habermas, History and Social Evolution: Moral Learning and the Trial of Louis XVI". Sociology. 35: 187.
  8. ^ How, Alan (February 2001). "Habermas, History and Social Evolution: Moral Learning and the Trial of Louis XVI". Sociology. 35: 186.
  9. ^ History.com Staff. [history.com/topics/cultural-revolution "Cultural Revolution"]. History.com. A+E Networks. Retrieved 10 November 2014. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help)
  10. ^ Zhong, Yang (1996). "Legitimacy Crisis and Legitimation in China". Journal of Contemporary Asia. 26: 5–6.
  11. ^ Zhong, Yang (1996). "Legitimacy Crisis and Legitimation in China". Journal of Contemporary Asia. 26: 7.
  12. ^ Dickson, Bruce J. "Dilemmas of Party adaptation: The CCP's strategies for survival". In Gries, Peter Hays; Rosen, Stanley (eds.). New York City: RoutledgeCurzon. p. 141. {{cite book}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  13. ^ Zhong, Yang (1996). "Legitimacy Crisis and Legitimation in China". Journal of Contemporary Asia. 26: 9.
  14. ^ Zhong, Yang (1996). "Legitimacy Crisis and Legitimation in China". Journal of Contemporary Asia. 26: 1.
  15. ^ Zartman, I. William (1995). Collapsed States: The Disintegration and Restoration of Legitimate Authority. Colorado: Lynne Reinner Publishers, Inc. p. 1.
  16. ^ Zartman, I. William (1995). Collapsed States: The Disintegration and Restoration of Legitimate Authority. Colorado: Lynne Reinner Publishers, Inc. p. 2.
  17. ^ Zartman, I. William (1995). Collapsed States: The Disintegration and Restoration of Legitimate Authority. Colorado: Lynne Reinner Publishers, Inc. p. 3.
  18. ^ Heller, Agnes (2009). Tismaneanu, Vladimir (ed.). Legitimation Deficit and Legitimation Crisis in East European Socieites. Budapest: Central European University Press. p. 141.
  19. ^ Lewis, Paul G. (1984). Eastern Europe: Political Crisis and Legitimation. Australia: Croom Held Australia Pty Ltd. p. 3.
  20. ^ Heller, Agnes (2009). Tismaneanu, Vladimir (ed.). Legitimation Deficit and Legitimation Crisis in East European Socieites. Budapest: Central European University Press. p. 142.
  21. ^ Heller, Agnes (2009). Tismaneanu, Vladimir (ed.). Legitimation Deficit and Legitimation Crisis in East European Socieites. Budapest: Central European University Press. p. 143.
  22. ^ Heller, Agnes (2009). Tismaneanu, Vladimir (ed.). Legitimation Deficit and Legitimation Crisis in East European Socieites. Budapest: Central European University Press. p. 154.
  23. ^ Heller, Agnes (2009). Tismaneanu, Vladimir (ed.). Legitimation Deficit and Legitimation Crisis in East European Socieites. Budapest: Central European University Press. p. 155.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Rbeckles/sandbox&oldid=785831070"