This happens due to many factors. People's behaviour towards a leader or a political system depends on factors such as caste, income, age, education, region, religion, colour, and gender etc. These are known as social factors.
For instance, today, the Prime Ministers of Japan, Sri Lanka, and Nepal are women. This wasn’t the case a few decades ago, because the idea of gender equality has gained prominence only in recent times. This happened because women have been continuously asserting themselves as equals in society. Back then, this was not the case.
Hence, when we try to understand politics through society and society through politics, we call it the political sociology approach. Earlier, only the impact of politics on society used to be studied. For example, the ban on untouchability through the Constitution reflects the impact of politics on society. On the other hand, choosing our MP or MLA because they belong to our caste shows the impact of society on politics.
Similarly, you must have heard people say that they are apolitical. But this, in itself, is a political statement. Why so? Because who would say they don’t want to eat food? Only someone who is already full. In the same way, a person benefiting from politics might say they don’t want to talk about it. It is the privilege they have that allows them to say they are apolitical — because having a political opinion might risk that privilege.
Various strands within political sociology approach see this relationship between politics and society differently. Marxists say it is the rich propertied class that shapes politics. E.g. Adani getting airports, ports and mining licences, etc. Pluralists say there are many factors that shape this relationship. Elitists like Weber say the elites shape politics. Elon Musk is just one example.
Therefore, politics is defined by society and, in turn, defines society.
Comments
Post a Comment