Stadial Classification of Historical Types of Political Culture, According to the System-Communication Approach

The article is devoted to the classification of historical types of political culture in the framework of a new system-communication approach, taking into account their staged gradation from archaic tribal forms to complex civil and cosmopolitan forms. The author contrasts the new emerging communicative approach with the functional approach, which G. Almond and S. Verba used to study this topic, and opposes the idealization of some models (in this case, Western ones) to the detriment of others and opposing different cultures to each other. Instead of the triad of Almond and Verba (parish, citizenry and activist), the author identifies 6 types of political culture in history: 1) patriarchal (“potestar”), 2) tribal (“leader”), 3) fellow-country (“parochial”), 4) subservient (“monarchical”), 5) civil and 6) cosmopolitan.

Keywords

political culture, system-communication approach, functional approach, G. Almond, S. Verba

Received

25.04.2019

Publication date

16.09.2019

Number of characters

25879

Cite

GOST	Alikberov A. Stadial Classification of Historical Types of Political Culture, According to the System-Communication Approach // ISTORIYA – 2019. – V. 10. – Issue 7 (81) [Electronic resource]. URL: https://history.jes.su/S207987840006710-0-1 (circulation date: 27.04.2024). DOI: 10.18254/S207987840006710-0
MLA	Alikberov, Alikber "Stadial Classification of Historical Types of Political Culture, According to the System-Communication Approach." ISTORIYA 10.7 (81) (2019) DOI: 10.18254/S207987840006710-0
APA	Alikberov A. (2019). Stadial Classification of Historical Types of Political Culture, According to the System-Communication Approach. ISTORIYA 10(7 (81)) DOI: 10.18254/S207987840006710-0

100 rub.

When subscribing to an article or issue, the user can download PDF, evaluate the publication or contact the author. Need to register.

Number of purchasers: 0, views: 703

Readers community rating: votes 0

1. Alikberov A. K. Sistemnaya logika kak instrument sistemnogo podkhoda k istorii // Voprosy filosofii. 2018. № 2. S. 15—25.

2. Almond G., Verba S. Grazhdanskaya kul'tura i stabil'nost' demokratii // Polis. 1992. № 4.

3. Vladimirskij-Budanov M. F. Obzor istorii russkogo prava. C. 283—284.

4. Kadyrov Sh. Kh. «Natsiya» plemen: ehtnicheskie istoki, transformatsiya, perspektivy gosudarstvennosti v Turkmenistane. Lipetsk, 2003.

5. Korotaev A. V. Ot vozhdestva k plemeni? Nekotorye tendentsii ehvolyutsii politicheskikh sistem Severo-Vostochnogo Jemena za poslednie 2 tysyachi let // Ehtnograficheskoe obozrenie. 1996. № 2. C. 81—91.

6. Nadezhdin N. Ya. Mustafa Kemal' Atatyurk: «Otets natsii»: biograficheskie rasskazy. M., 2011.

7. Almond G. A., Verba S. The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in five Nations. Princeton, 1963.

8. Bebenburg von ‎Pitt. Thieme M. Deutschland ohne Ausländer: Ein Szenario. München, 2012.

9. Bowden B. Nationalism and Cosmopoitanism: Irreconcilable Differences or Possible Bedfellows? // National Identities. 2003. Vol. 5. No. 3. P. 235—249.

10. Carneiro R. L. The Chiefdom: Precursor of the State.

11. Palmer R. E. A. The Archaic Community of the Romans.

12. Schellhammer K. Familienrecht nach Anspruchsgrundlagen: samt Verfahren in Familien-, Kindschafts- und Betreuungssachen. C. F. Müller. 2006.

13. Verba S. Comparative Political Culture. Princeton, 1965.

14. Yow C. H. Ethnic Chinese in Malaysian Citizenship: Gridlocked in Historical Formation and Political Hierarchy // Asian Ethnicity. Vol. 18. 2017. Issue 3. P. 277—295.