The discussion above suggests that the population as a whole may not display one type of political orientation. Political sociologists generally agree that diverse political orientations exist in society in different groups towards political objects. It means political culture is not homogenous but heterogeneous. Political sub-culture refers to existence of particular type of orientations, propensities or inclinations found in particular group of people as different from the other. Almond and Verba have demonstrated the co-existence of parochial and subject sub-cultures in their analysis of a combination of political cultures. They stress the fact that ‘even the most fully developed participant cultures will contain strata of subjects and parochials.’24 For example, a Subject-Participant Culture will contain a Subject sub-culture while a Parochial-Subject Culture will have Parochials as sub-culture. Thus, political sub-culture refers to political orientation located in a particular group and that c-oexists and competes with the dominant or competing political culture that has acquired centralized and national character. Almond and Powell suggest existence of ‘special propensities and patterns found within separate parts of the population’ and these special propensities or tendencies located in particular groups is called sub-cultures. All political cultures are mixed and heterogeneous. In Subject culture, Parochial sub-culture exists; in Participant culture, Subject and at times, Parochial sub-cultures exist.
Almond and Verba differentiate between two types of political sub-cultures: (i) policy sub-culture, and (ii) structure sub-culture.25 The first refers to policy differences that persist, e. g. between the Republicans and the Democrats in America, or between the supporters of monarchy (conservatives) and it opponents (socialist and labour) in England. In this there is agreement on the fundamental political structure. The second refers to heterogeneous political culture where different sub-cultures, that represent fundamental differences on the issue of form of political structure, exist. For example, Almond and Verba cite the example of post-French Revolution, where Republican versus subject-parochial sub-cultures existed.
A political sub-culture may arise due to differences on caste, class, ethnic, tribal and linguistic lines. In fact, many developing societies have socially fragmented orientation amongst the people. Due to these differences, social and economic factors, a highly fragmented society prevails. It contains sub-cultures and poses a problem of creating a common, centralized and nationalistic authority that could rally all the sub-cultures. A common symbol of centralized authority is lacking in many developing countries. This implies lack of a stable democratic set up and absence of a nationalistic and centralized authority. Many observers maintain that developing countries are characterized by the co-existence of modern and traditional political cultures. It is assumed that traditional political culture will subsequently give way to modern political culture. In fact, the criteria of ‘political development’ such as political secularization, sub-system autonomy and structural differentiations, imply emergence of a non-traditional political culture by replacing a traditional one.
Myron Weiner has differentiated between mass and elite political cultures and suggests that India’s political culture is characterized by these two political cultures. We will discuss this separately.
Theorists of political culture have also discussed about traditional versus modern sub-cultures, at times dichotomous and at times co-existing. Division between traditional and modern subcultures are considered sharp in countries, which were under colonial rule and are experimenting with democratic regimes after independence. Post-colonial and developing countries, analysts and theorists of comparative politics point out, are characterized by a small educated elite with ‘universalistic and pragmatic orientations which typify ‘modern’ culture—while the vast majority remains tied to the rigid, diffuse, and ascriptive patterns of tradition.’26 At times, this dichotomy is generally associated with urban-rural dichotomy and at times with tradition-modernity dichotomy or co-existence. Focus on developing countries to study political culture in terms of modernization has led to the conclusion of presence and co-existence of modern and traditional subcultures. Studies on India in 1960s also focused on the tradition-modernity sub-cultural dichotomy/co-existence. Educated elite, industrial and urban economy, democratic political system, universal adult suffrage, autonomous associational and demand groups and secularization of polity were marked as elements of a modern political process. On the other hand, regional and parochial affiliations, caste and communal factors, patron-client relationship for electoral mobilization, etc., were considered as elements of tradition. These were presented as two subcultures implying thereby that as modern political sub-culture proceeds, the traditional sub-culture might recede. Myron Weiner, in an article in 1960 (‘Some Hypotheses on the Politics of Modernization in India’),27 has supported this view of political sub-cultures in India. Lloyd I. Rudolph and Susanne H. Rudolph, in their study The Modernity of Tradition: Political Development in India (1967), presented the view that traditional elements such as the caste system assisted in the development of modern, representative politics in India. They found modern elements in the traditional institutions that were appropriate for democratic politics. They also pointed out how caste groups formed horizontal associations and acted as demand and pressure groups besides acting as an organizing factor in electoral democracy. They called various caste groups and their Sabhas/Mahasabhas as ‘para-communities. Rajni Kothari’s thesis of Politicisation of Caste and Casteism in Politics (Politics in India, 1970) also indicates sub-cultural coexistence in India.
Leave a Reply