Learning and Legitimacy

Abstract

This paper examines the theory of political legitimacy through the framework of psychological learning theory and the theory of cognitive dissonance. The concepts of primary and secondary reinforcement in cases of learning permit a general understanding of the growth of positive affect toward a political system. Cognitive dissonance theory allows us to understand how this general positive affect built up by a regime's actions produces the sub-set of attitudes called political legitimacy. In order to build a theory of political legitimacy on these foundations, it is necessary to conceive of government policy-making as a case of producing successful learning throughout a population.The diffuse, largely irrational nature of political legitimacy has made it difficult for political scientists to handle the concept systematically. That systems are or are not “legitimate” has been asserted numerous times, though often the precise definition of legitimacy employed has been at best vague and the indices of legitimacy unclearly stated. This paper attempts to meet the problem by setting forth a theory and a set of implicit indices of political legitimacy. After the general model has been explicated, I will specify several problems in the manipulation of political legitimacy. Finally, I will look at the relationship of governmental structure to these problems.Before consideration of the model two preliminary tasks must be performed: a definition of legitimacy and justification for discussing it. We may define political legitimacy as the quality of “oughtness” that is perceived by the public to inhere in a political regime.

Street Stops and Police Legitimacy: Teachable Moments in Young Urban Men's Legal Socialization

“…Legitimacy, according to this general view, is a quality that is inherently possessed by an authority, law, or institution that leads others to feel obligated to accept its directives. It is “a quality attributed to a regime by a population” (Merelman :548). Consistent with the arguments of Weber, the suggestion is that perceptions of legitimacy are based on feelings of obligation that are disconnected from substance and material interest.…”

The Political Uses of Symbolism

“…At the systemic level, it promises to help us understand the processes of mobilization, the differential allocation of political rewards, and the basis of political legitimacy (Merelman, 1966). At the subsystemic level, it can help illuminate the dynamics of group conflict and facilitate an understanding of group cohesion (Brown and Ellithorp, 1970).…”

Re-Conceptualizing “Legitimacy” for Studying Electoral Politics in Rural China

“…The task of the social scientist is not to solve legal disputes or moral dilemmas about power, but to identify "the empirical consequences that legitimacy has for the character of power relations, for the different ways in which they are organized, and for the extent to which the powerful can actually count on the obedience or support of those subordinate to them" [7, p. 5]. For the social scientist, the study of legitimacy begins with Max Weber's conceptualization from a sociological perspective [8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15].…”

“…Drawing upon David Easton's typology of power relationships (i.e. coercion, manipulation, persuasion, and authority), 10 Thurston argues that the two concepts of power and authority are distinct and that there thus is a need to differentiate between the exercise of power and the exercise of authority. 11 The former entails action consequences, while the latter may merely elicit tacit acceptance without action consequences [19, pp.…”