History has showed us that development in every society depends on the elite political roles; hence, their viewpoints regarding socio-political programs and individuals’ needs have played a vital role in determining the fate of a specific society. Also, the elite political culture is considered as an effective factor in political development within the realm of political sociology.

• Almond Verba Civic Culture Pdf Reader 2017
• Almond And Verba Civic Culture

To this end, the current study sets out to put forward a precise definition of the political elite culture. In this respect, political elite is not defined in a general sense1 because 79 million Iranian people out of 80 million may regard themselves as elites. Rather, this term was used in a specific sense which was the term “Ruling Class” (Aron, 1991). Also, Moska utilized “the Ruling Class” and Lasswell employed the concept of “the Political Elite” (Badi, 2006).

It is claimed that a non-participatory political culture rather than a participatory political one has been considered as one of the main serious reasons for the political underdevelopment; moreover, the elite political culture or ideology in the contemporary era has not been significantly influenced by the new tendencies and developments. Hence, such a culture has been regarded as the continuation of the old patrimonial culture. The present research employs the refined Gabriel Almondba’s model to answer the non-participatory political elite hypothesis during some specific periods of time. Received 5 April 2016; accepted 4 July 2016; published 7 July 20161. IntroductionThe study of political development with reference to the ruling elite political culture has been viewed as one of the main concerns of political thinkers. Plato, Aristotle, St. Thomas Dakn, Aquinas, Machiavelli, Montesquieu, Rousseau, Max Weber, Popper, Foucault, as well as Marcuse, each mentioned political culture in his works.

Putnam’s civic community index. Civic community involves social trust – the capacity for collective action, according to Putnam. Social trust came within the ambit of modern political science with Almond and Verba’s Civic Culture (1963, esp. 261-299.), a comparison of political attitudes and democracy in five countries. Interpersonal trust. Comparative Politics Today book. Read 4 reviews from the world's largest community for readers. To ask other readers questions about Comparative Politics Today. Gabriel Abraham Almond Almond was born in Rock Island, Illinois, U.S., the son of Russian and Ukrainian immigrants. He attended the University of Chicago, both as an.

However, thinkers such as Almondm-Verba-Pai organized a direct and an accurate investigation of political culture in their comparative studies on politics from 1950 onwards. For instance, Almondm held that every political system implied a particular pattern oriented towards political practices, or possessed an organized mental territory with respect to politics which casted meaning to society, institutional arrangements, and community reliance on individual actions. This pattern or mental territory implies two kinds of ideals: (1) allegiance political culture and (2) participatory political culture. The former presupposes that citizens and the elite usually decide on the appropriate means and the core issues of society. They also provide some solutions to society related issues. While, the latter entails that citizens and the elite strongly disagree on the legitimacy of the political system and the recommended solutions for the main problems.Through such a description of the political culture, the whole society can be divided into “elite” and “mass” groups. Here, the following question arises: Does the political culture of the mass group play a much more important role than the political culture of the mass group in the political development process?In the most general sense, the term “elite” refers to a group of individuals who hold high positions or are superior in a specific kind of field.

In other words, the elite are a limited number of people within a society who have achieved a high level of professional hierarchy in their fields. However, in the most particular sense, it means “the Ruling Elite”, Moska utilizes “the Ruling Class”, and Lasswell employs the concept of “the Political Elite” (Badi, 2006).History has taught us that the elite have an important and a decisive status in every society enjoying any kind of political system, even seemingly democratic systems. In addition, the “elite’ opinions, decision-making, and performance are considered as determining factors in fulfilling the people’s demands within a specific society. However, regarding the political culture of the political elite, few studies have been carried out in Iran. These studies can be divided into two broad categories.

The first one involves research in the elite political culture for political and social development of a community. These types of studies argue that one of the reasons for political underdevelopment is the inappropriate culture of the political elite. A plethora of these studies implies that political culture has been exploited as a means to achieve a social function. The studies such as Emami (1997), Nosrati Nezhad (2000), and Verdi Zadeh (2005) are categorized under this category.

A sufficient number of these researches have not yet utilized all the dimensions and levels of political culture in their conceptual models.The second category is related to the research that explores the transformation of the political culture of the elite in a specific period of time regarding the change of political culture. In these studies, most of the techniques used is historical-comparative; hence, a plethora of recent theories of political culture are utilized. Gheisari (2001) and Ebrahim Abadi (2005) have carried out their studies in this realm of research. However, the present research attempts to overcome some shortcomings of the previous studies. To this end, the purpose of descriptive analysis of elite political culture is its role in the developments of a country. Hence, we are not looking for the reasons for the formation of elite political culture of Iran but we are seeking to describe the culture.

In order to understand, the current research began to explain the governmental members since the government is an entity whose members are questioned by the community. Also, in terms of its performance, the government is the only entity that adopts the most prominent decisions within a community. It is claimed that a specific type of citizenship and non-participatory political culture has been displaced in exchange for participatory political culture which has been regarded as one of the most serious drawbacks of political underdevelopment.2. The Definition of Concepts2.1. Political CultureSome social researchers consider the phenomenon of culture as the result of human social experience. The structure of concentric circles regarding the relationship between elite groups and governments in Third World countries.differently. In these countries, their base is not shaped by the so-called “Shadow of God”, but it is defined in the light of the interaction among social forces which evolve from the heart of the society.

In this respect, such forces complement and compete each other. The elite position in society is determined through performance and is not identified by the degree of their dependence on the central power.Unlike the elite in the Third World countries, who mostly belong to a particular social class or classes, the elite in Western countries do not evolve from a special class as they compete with one another to get access to some high privileges. While competition is encouraged in these countries, different groups of the elite are balanced in a way that there is no historical class or background that shapes a variety of elite groups, but their performance determines their status in the society.5.2. A Way out of PartialityThe concept of “partiality” in the philosophy of history and political sociology of Ibn Khaldun was introduced as a basic element (along with nature, civil, kingdom, etc).

Ibn Khaldun used “partiality” as the main factors in explaining the rise and fall of power of tribal powers and resulted governments from tribal authorities.Geographically, Iran is among the countries was the origin of tribal life and it has been under the authority of alien tribal governance since old days. In this regard, we can use the concept of Ibn Khaldun’s partiality in explaining the rise and fall of tribal authority in Iran. The breakdown of tribal authority was not breakdown of Iran from its traditional society and culture.The breakdown that started from preparation period of Constitutional Revolution is associated with some aspects of traditional society and their more and less compatibility with conditions of the contemporary society. The “self-centered” relationship among elite groups in the first world countries.Ÿ Politically, modern partiality views society or considers it as a tribe. Therefore, it assesses the policy issue as the framework of tribal policy. In short, tribe as a separate and closed space has Khan that is the embodiment of relative soul of tribe and all must follow and obey patriarchal authority.Ÿ In terms of legal system, it should be said that in accordance with Ibn Khaldun’s theory, the maintenance of a tribe depends on partiality not law and the social contract. In fact, law or rule was a means in hand of Partiality Lord, while modern partiality that live in conditions of law establishment, legal organizations, public area of social life, has no escape either prevents from establishment of civil and social institutions, or deadlock them, if failed in the first case.

A very important means that modern partiality carries out its extra legal actions is the multiplicity of decision centers in various areas of social activity. It can be called as multi-government policy, government in government, government beside government, government over the government, government guardian of government, etc.Ÿ From cultural point of view, the most important propaganda of modern of partiality is patriarchy. Origins and sources of this patriarchy are rooted in past. In this regard, modern and old partialities are common. However, old partiality looks at past to find legitimacy, while legitimacy of modern partiality depends on past culturally, the past in which myth is sacred to be ideological shield of partiality.Ÿ Psychologically, the reliance of partiality to arbitrary domination on people is based on fear.

However, the distinction between old and new nervousness is that the former relies on a natural fear, tribal human fear of being isolated from his tribe that is his main shelter, while the function of partiality is very complex in modern partiality. It is the result of fear of helplessness compelling him to appeal modern partiality with his satisfaction.6. ConclusionThis study divided the general problems into two basic steps: 1) The discovery phase of problems or troubleshooting; 2) Solving the problem phase.Policy-making can be successful if and only if the solution is identified as appropriate. In general, policy-making processes may not come to failures due to applying wrong solutions to the problems which are identified clearly.

Almond Verba Civic Culture Pdf Reader 2017

Nevertheless, these processes will come to wrong and inappropriate solutions in case the problem is not identified beforehand. Hence, unless the problems are properly perceived, solutions alone cannot be the definite answers even though all facets and dimensions to them are considered. To sum up, finding appropriate measures and approaches for improving the political culture is the first step to identify the most important problems.The elite political culture deals with the attitudes, feelings, and behavioral patterns of those recruited in prominent political posts; hence, they exert direct influence on the outputs of the system. This culture is largely influenced by public policy-making.Thus, the elite political culture is an attitude or mental environment within which the political system worksin the intellectual environment. Therefore, in practice, this environment guides and shapes the daily political choices in people’s lives.

Since laymen pay less attention to the issues around them; they play a weaker role ultimately in the political dynamics. While the minority of the elite is capable of organizing a movement, in industrial countries, the legitimate participatory institutions (i.e., parties, syndicates, the press, universities, and executive centers) are considered as the most important centers for nurturing the elite. Unfortunately, in Iran, we have not yet witnessed these centers to act out efficiently to nurture and educate the political elite.Thus, the elite political culture has always been Patrimonialistic. However, the characteristics of the elite culture include: citizenship and authoritarianism versus the law, fear of the government, subjectivism, imitation versus wisdom and applicable rationality, discourse and behavior blocking versus patience.

The reason for these properties lies in the existence of polarity or a vertical relationship of political culture. In such a structure adaptation is prior to originality; hence, wisdom and talents are greatly undermined. In conclusion, the ideology or the culture of the contemporary political elite can be considered as the continuation of old patrimonialistic political culture.However, in order to bring about development and change, or to solve a crisis or disease in a political system, it should be noted that both hardware-and software-related dimensions be considered as essential. The political culture is considered as the software-related dimension which is the underlying layer in a political system. Firstly, it is regarded as mental or as political culture; in other words, political culture is the manifestation of the current political system in the minds of the people within a specific society.

Then, we can see its concrete realization in different organizations, political system, as well as social structure. Although political culture always interacts with the political structure and the bilateral interplay between the both is continuous, the experience throughout history as well as scientific theories has taught us that change in political culture comes first; otherwise, the emergence of social changes and revolutions are not justified.NOTES.Corresponding author.1Merely regarding knowledge-related issues or inherent, individual, and specific characteristics.2According to Almond and Verba, Chilcot summarizes the adopted assumptions in the political culture in four categories:1. Virtue and civil responsibility; 2. Participatory and pluralistic democracy; 3. A system based on rational bureaucracy; 4.

Stability through modernization. Foundations of Politics (pp. Tehran: Ney Publications.Aaron, R.

Steps of Thought in Sociology (pp. 493-494, 518-519). Tehran: Cultural-Scientific Publications.Abtahi, A.

Pathology of Iranian Political Culture. Politic Science Journal, 4, 39.Akhtarshahr, A.

The Components of Political Socialization in a Theocracy (p. Tehran: Diffusion of Culture and Ideas Publishing.Almond, & Powell, G. Adobe pdf descargar. (1978) Comparative Politics: A Developmental Approach (p. Boston: Little Brown and Co.Almond, G.

The Study of Political Culture in Lane Crothers Lockart Charles. Culture and Politics: A Reader, New York.Almond, G., & Sidney, V. Civic Culture, Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations (pp.

New York: Brown and Company.Almondm, G., Paul, J., & Monte (1997). Comparative Politics: A Theoretical Framework (p. Tehran: Manajement Publications.Azghandi, A. The Ineffectiveness of the Iranian Political Elite between Two Revolutions (1st ed., pp.175-176). Tehran: Ghomes Publishing.Bashirieh, H, (2004).

History of Political Sociology of Iran (p. Tehran: Contemporary Publications.Bottomore, T. Elites and Society (1st ed., p. Tehran: Shiraz Publications.Chalabi, M.

Almond And Verba Civic Culture

The Sociology of Order (1st ed., p. Tehran: Ney Publications.Chilcott, R.

Theories of Comparative Politics (pp. Tehran: Rasa Institute of Cultural Publications.Daheshiar, H. America’s Foreign Policy Hegemony (pp. Tehran: Khat-e-Sevom Publications.Dovorzheh, M. Political Sociology (p. Tehran: Tehran University Press Publications.Eftekhari, A.

The Changing Face of Homeland Security. Quarterly Strategic Studies Journal, 4, 35.Eslami Nodoushan, M.

Iran and Its Solitude (2nd ed., p. Tehran: Tehran Publishing Center.Ghazi-Moradi, A. Autority in Iran (pp. Tehran: Ghomes Publications.Ghobad-Zadeh, N.

Pathological Narrative of the Gap between System and People in the Second Decade of the Revolution (p. Tehran: Culture of Dialogue Publications.Gould, J., & William, K. The Culture of Social Sciences (p.

Tehran: Maziar Publications.Khajeh-Sarvi, A. Political Competition and Political Stability in Iran (p. Tehran: Revolution Documents Center Publications.Nafisi, R. Political Culture and National Identity. Journal of National Studies, 2, 177-191.Pai, L.

Crises and Sequences in Political Development (pp. Tehran: Institute for Strategic Publications.Palmer, M., Stern, L., & Garyl, C. A New Approach to Politics (pp. Tehran: Institute for Political and International Studies Publications.Plato (1995). The Republic (p. Tehran: Cultural and Scientific Publications.Sariol Ghalam, M.

Political Culture of Iran (p. Tehran: Forouzan Rooz Publications.