Political Parties and the Sociological Imagination: Past, Present, and Future Directions

Abstract

The classical sociology of parties was born alongside parties themselves. It explored their dynamic interrelationships with states and society, as well as the tensions inherent in the fact that parties are simultaneously representatives and power seekers. Despite these rich foundations, from the 1960s the sociological approach came to be narrowly identified with a one-dimensional conception of parties, and political sociologists focused their attention elsewhere. This review contributes to efforts that began in the 1990s to reclaim the political party as a full-fledged sociological object. To this end, we track the hourglass-shaped trajectory of the sociology of parties: from broad Marxian and Weberian roots, to narrowing and near-eclipse after the 1960s, to a reemergence that reclaims the breadth of the classical traditions. We conclude by suggesting six lines of inquiry that we believe would be fruitful, emphasizing both classical concerns that deserve more attention and innovative approaches that point in novel directions.

The multidimensional politics of inequality: taking stock of identity politics in the U.S. Presidential election of 2016

“…(2) To understand political outcomes, then, we need to deal with the political articulation of identities and goals -the supply side of politics (Beramendi, H€ ausermann, Kitschelt and Kriesi 2015;de Leon, Desai and Tu gal 2015;Mudge and Chen 2014). What the party system allows, and what parties offer, significantly conditions the kinds of alliances that can be made.…”

Assembling Political Parties

“…Many understandings of the electorate hinge on Lipset and Rokkan's theory of cleavages (), the ‘[s]trongly structured and persistent lines of salient social and ideological division among political important actors’ (Whitefield 2002 as quoted by West : 502), with the Weberian tendency to align party to clusters of coded identifiers (Mudge and Chen ). Spatially, this assumes a unitary society (congruent with, but distinct from, the state) to be cleaved; it also situates a society's specific cleavages within its historical political–economic development, drawing on historical materialism to account for the emergence of divergent regional interests that persist over time: so ‘different geographical and historical experiences will produce different lines of cleavage’ (West : 502).…”

“…Agnew (: 130) has suggested that electoral geography was left behind because ‘so much of the best new thinking has come from a political‐intellectual left inclined to regard elections as exercises in a bourgeois politics they would like to put behind them’ (also true of political sociology, see Mudge and Chen ; Leon ). Yet, it is possible to believe that elections matter without reducing politics to ‘just elections’.…”

“…' We propose that electoral geography, and political geography more widely, would benefit from attention to the ways in which bodies, the material and the virtual are caught up in political parties, and consequently in elections and the state itself. Agnew (1996: 130) has suggested that electoral geography was left behind because 'so much of the best new thinking has come from a political-intellectual left inclined to regard elections as exercises in a bourgeois politics they would like to put behind them' (also true of political sociology, see Mudge and Chen 2014;Leon 2014). Yet, it is possible to believe that elections matter without reducing politics to 'just elections'.…”

The Hollow Parties

“…In seeking to fill these lacunae, political scientists would benefit from engagement with the sociological literature on parties. SeeMudge and Chen (2014).…”