Henslin James M. Sociology: A Down to Earth Approach
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
War and Terrorism: Implementing Political Objectives 451
How Can “Good” People
Torture Others?
W
hen the Nuremberg Trials
revealed the crimes of the
Nazis to the world, people
wondered what kind of abnormal,
bizarre humans could have carried out
those horrific acts.The trials, however,
revealed that the officials who author-
ized the torture and murder of Jews
and the soldiers who followed those
orders were ordinary,“good” people
(Hughes 1962/2005).This revelation
came as a shock to the world.
Later, we learned that in Rwanda
Hutus hacked their Tutsi neighbors to
death. Some Hutu teachers even killed
their Tutsi students. Similar revelations of “good” people
torturing prisoners have come from all over the world—
Cambodia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Mexico.We have also
learned that when the torturers finish their “work,” they
go home to their families, where they are ordinary fa-
thers and husbands.
Let’s try to understand how “good, ordinary people” can
torture prisoners and still feel good about themselves. Con-
sider the four main characteristics of dehumanization
(Bernard et al. 1971):
1. Increased emotional distance from others. People stop iden-
tifying with others, no longer seeing them as having qual-
ities similar to themselves.They perceive them as “the
enemy,” or as objects of some sort. Sometimes they
think of their opponents as less than human, or even not
as people at all.
2. Emphasis on following orders. The individual clothes acts of
brutality in patriotic language: To follow orders is “a sol-
dier’s duty.” Torture is viewed as a tool that helps sol-
diers do their duty. People are likely to say “I don’t like
doing this, but I have to follow orders—and someone
has to do the ‘dirty work.’”
3. Inability to resist pressures. Ideas of morality take a back
seat to fears of losing your job, losing the respect of
peers, or having your integrity and loyalty questioned.
4. A diminished sense of personal responsibility. People come
to see themselves as only small cogs in a large machine.
The higher-ups who give the orders are thought to have
more complete or even secret information that justifies
the torture.The thinking becomes,“Those who make
the decisions are responsible, for they are in a position
to judge what is right and wrong. In my low place in the
system, who am I to question these acts?”
Down-to-Earth Sociology
Sociologist Martha Huggins (2004) interviewed Brazilian
police who used torture to extract confessions. She identi-
fied a fifth method that torturers sometimes use:They
blame the victim. “He was just stupid. If he
had confessed in the first place, he
wouldn’t have been tortured.” This tech-
nique removes the blame from the tor-
turer—who is just doing a job—and
places it on the victim.
A sixth technique of neutralization was
used by U.S. government officials who au-
thorized the torture of terrorists.Their
technique of neutralization was to say that
what they authorized was not torture.
Rather, in their words, they authorized
“enhanced techniques” of interrogation
(Shane 2008).A fair summary of their
many statements on this topic would be
“What we authorized is a harsh, but nec-
essary, method of questioning prisoners,
selectively used on designated individu-
als, to extract information to protect
Americans.” In one of these approved interrogation tech-
niques, called waterboarding, the interrogators would force
a prisoner’s head backward and pour water over his or her
face. The gag reflex would force the prisoner to inhale
water, producing an intense sensation of drowning. When
the interrogators stopped pouring the water, they would
ask their questions again. If they didn’t get a satisfacto-
ryanswer, they continued the procedure. With an outcry
from humanitarian groups and some members of Con-
gress, waterboarding was banned (Shenon 2008).
In several contexts in this book, I have emphasized how
important labels are in social life. Notice how powerful they
are in this situation. Calling waterboarding “not torture”
means that it becomes “not torture”—for those who au-
thorize and practice it. This protects the conscience, allow-
ing the individuals who authorize or practice torture to
retain the sense of a “good” self.
One of my students, a Vietnam veteran, who read this
section, told me,“You missed the major one we used.We
killed kids. Our dehumanizing technique was this saying,
‘The little ones are the soldiers of tomorrow.’”
Such sentiments may be more common than we
suppose—and the killers’ and torturers’ uniforms don’t
have to display swastikas.
For Your Consideration
Do you think you could torture people? Instead of just
saying,“Of course not!” think about this: If “good, ordi-
nary” people can become torturers, why not you? Aren’t
you a “good, ordinary” person? To answer this question
properly, then, let’s rephrase it: Based on what you read
here, what conditions could get you to cooperate in the
torture of prisoners?
Prisoner at Abu Ghraib Prison, Iraq
Terrorism
Mustafa Jabbar, in Najaf, Iraq, is proud of his first born, a baby boy, but he said, “I will put
mines in the baby and blow him up.” (Sengupta 2004)
How can feelings run so deep that a father would sacrifice his only son? Some groups
nourish hatred, endlessly chronicling the injustices and atrocities of their archenemy.
Stirred in a cauldron of bitterness, antagonism can span generations, its embers some-
times burning for centuries. The combination of perceived injustice and righteous hatred
produces a desire to strike out and hurt an enemy. If a group is weaker than its enemy,
however, what options does it have? Unable to meet its more powerful opponent on the
battlefield, one option is terrorism, violence intended to create fear in order to bring
about political objectives. And, yes, that can mean blowing up your only child. Stronger
groups sometimes use terrorism, too, but this is “just because they can.” They revel in
their power and delight in seeing their opponents suffer.
Suicide terrorism, a weapon sometimes chosen by the weaker group, captures headlines
around the world. Among the groups that have used suicide terrorism are the Palestinians
against the Israelis and the Iraqis against U.S. troops. The suicide terrorism that has had
the most profound effects on our lives is the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pen-
tagon under the direction of Osama bin Laden. What kind of sick people become suicide
terrorists? This is the topic of the Down-to-Earth Sociology box on the next page.
The suicide attacks on New York and Washington are tiny in comparison with the
threat of weapons of mass destruction. If terrorists unleash biological, nuclear, or chem-
ical weapons, the death toll could run in the millions. We’ve had a couple of scares. Crim-
inal opportunists, who don’t care who their customers are, have tried to smuggle enriched
uranium out of Europe. Their shipment was intercepted just before it landed in terrorist
hands (Sheets and Broad 2007a, b). This chilling possibility was brought home to Amer-
icans in 2001 when anthrax powder was mailed to a few select victims.
It is sometimes difficult to tell the difference between war and terrorism. This is espe-
cially so in civil wars when the opposing sides don’t wear uniforms and attack civilians.
Africa is embroiled in such wars. In the Down-to-Earth Sociology box on page 454, we
look at one aspect of these wars, that of child soldiers.
Sowing the Seeds of Future Wars and Terrorism
Selling War Technology. Selling advanced weapons to the Least Industrialized Nations
sows the seeds of future wars and terrorism. When a Least Industrialized Nation buys
high-tech weapons, its neighbors get nervous, which sparks an arms race among them
(Broad and Sanger 2007). Table 15.4 shows that the United States is, by far, the chief
merchant of death. Russia and Great Britain place a distant second and third.
This table also shows the major customers in the business of death. Two matters are
of interest. First, India, where the average annual income is only $600 and Egypt,
where it is only $1,500, are some of the
world’s biggest spenders. Second, the huge
purchase of arms by Saudi Arabia indicates
that U.S. dollars spent on oil tend to return
to the United States. There is, in reality, an ex-
change of arms for oil, with dollars the
medium of exchange. As mentioned in Chap-
ter 9 (page 256), Saudi Arabia cooperates with
the United States by trying to keep oil prices
down and, in return, the United States props
up its dictators.
The seeds of future wars and terrorism are also
sown by nuclear proliferation. Some Least Indus-
trialized Nations, such as India, China, and
North Korea, possess nuclear weapons. So does
Pakistan, whose head of nuclear development
452 Chapter 15 POLITICS
terrorism the use of vio-
lence or the threat of violence
to produce fear in order to at-
tain political objectives
The Top Arms Sellers The Top Arms Buyers
1. $28 billion, United States 1. $19 billion, Saudi Arabia
2. $16 billion, Russia 2. $9 billion, China
3. $12 billion, Great Britain 3. $7 billion, United Arab Emirates
4. $9 billion, France 4. $6 billion, Egypt
5. $3 billion, China 5. $6 billion, India
6. $2 billion, Israel 6. $4 billion, Israel
7. $1 billion, Germany 7. $4 billion,Taiwan
8. $1 billion, Ukraine 8. $3 billion, South Korea
Note: For years 2001–2004.
TABLE 15.4 The Business of Death
Source: By the author. Based on Grimmett 2005:Tables 2F, 2I.
War and Terrorism: Implementing Political Objectives 453
Who Are the Suicide Terrorists?
Testing Your Stereotypes
W
e carry a lot of untested ideas around in our
heads, and we use those ideas to make sense
out of our experiences.When something hap-
pens, we place the event into a mental file of “similar
events,” which gives us a way of interpreting it.This is a
normal process, and all of us do it all the time.Without
stereotypes—ideas of what people, things, and events are
like—we could not get through everyday life.
As we traverse society, our files of “similar people” and
“similar events” usually provide adequate interpretations.
That is, the explanations we get from our interpreting
process usually satisfy our “need to understand.” Some-
times, however, our files for classifying people and events
leave us perplexed, not knowing what to make of things. For
most of us, terrorism is like this. We don’t know any terror-
ists or suicide bombers, so it is hard to imagine someone
becoming one.
Let’s see if we can flesh out those mental files a bit.
Sociologist Marc Sageman (2008a, 2008b) wondered
about terrorists, too. Finding that his mental files were
inadequate to understand them, he decided that research
might provide the answer. Sageman had an unusual
advantage for gaining access to data—he had been in the
CIA.Through his contacts, he studied 400 al-Qaeda terror-
ists who had targeted the United States. He was able to
examine thousands of pages of their trial records.
So let’s use Sageman’s research to test some common
ideas. I think you’ll find that the data blow away stereo-
types of terrorists.
• Here’s a common stereotype. Terrorists come from
backgrounds of poverty. Cunning leaders take advan-
tage of their frustration and direct it toward striking
out at an enemy. Not true. Three-quarters of the ter-
rorists came from the middle and upper classes.
• How about this image, then—the deranged loner? We
carry around images like this concerning serial and
mass murderers. It is a sort of catch-all stereotype that
we have.These people can’t get along with anyone; they
stew in their loneliness and misery; and all this bubbles
up in misapplied violence. You know, the workplace
killer sort of image, loners “going postal.” Not this one,
either. Sageman found that 90 percent of the terrorists
came from caring, intact families. On top of this, 73 per-
cent were married, and most of them had children.
• Let’s try another one. Terrorists are ignorant people, so
those cunning leaders can manipulate them easily. We
have to drop this one, too. Sageman found that 63
percent of the terrorists had gone to college.Three-
quarters worked in professional and semi-professional
occupations. Many were scientists, engineers, and
architects.
What? Most terrorists are intelligent, educated, family-
oriented, professional people? How can this be? Sageman
found that these people had gone through a process of
radicalization. Here was the trajectory:
1. Moral outrage. They became incensed about something
that they felt was terribly wrong.
2. Ideology. They interpreted their moral outrage within a
radical, militant interpretation of Islamic teachings.
3. Shared outrage and ideology. They found like-minded
people, often on the Internet, especially in chat rooms.
4. Group decision: They decided that an act of terrorism
was called for.
To understand terrorists, then, it is not the individual
that we need to look at.We need to focus on group
dynamics, how the group influences the individual and
how the individual influences the group (as we studied in
Chapter 6). In one sense, however, the image of the loner
does come close. Seventy percent of these terrorists
committed themselves to extreme acts while they were
living away from the country where they grew up.They
became homesick, sought out people like themselves,
and ended up at radical mosques where they learned a
militant script.
Constantly, then, sociologists seek to understand the
relationship between the individual and the group.This fas-
cinating endeavor sometimes blows away stereotypes.
For Your Consideration
1. How do you think we can reduce the process of radi-
calization that turns people into terrorists?
2. Sageman concludes that this process of radicalization
has produced networks of homegrown, leaderless ter-
rorists, ones that don’t need al-Qaeda to direct them.
He also concludes that this process will eventually
wear itself out. Do you agree? Why or why not?
Down-to-Earth Sociology
What does a suicide
bomber look like? Iraqi
police arrested this girl,
who was wearing an
explosives vest.
454 Chapter 15 POLITICS
Child Soldiers
W
hen rebels entered 12-year-old Ishmael
Beah’s village in Sierra Leone, they lined up
the boys (Beah 2007). One of the rebels
said,“We are going to initiate you by killing these peo-
ple.We will show you blood and make you strong.”
Before the rebels could do the killing, shots rang out
and the rebels took cover. In the confusion, Ishmael es-
caped into the jungle. When he returned, he found his
family dead and his village burned.
With no place to go and rebels attacking the villages,
killing, looting, and raping, Ishmael continued to hide in
the jungle.As he peered out at a village one day, he saw
a rebel carrying the head of a man, which he held by the
hair. With blood dripping from where the neck had
been, Ishmael said that the head looked as though it
were still feeling its hair being pulled.
Months later, government soldiers found Ishmael. The
“rescue” meant that he had to become a soldier—on
their side, of course.
Ishmael’s indoctrination was short but to the point.
Hatred is a strong motivator.
“You can revenge the death of your family, and make sure
that more children do not lose their parents,” the lieu-
tenant said. “The rebels cut people’s heads off. They cut
open pregnant women’s stomachs and take the babies out
and kill them. They force sons to have sex with their
mothers. Such people do not deserve to live. This is why
we must kill every single one of them.Think of it as de-
stroying a great evil. It is the highest service you can per-
form for your country.”
Along with thirty other boys, most of whom were
ages 13 to 16, with two just 7 and 11, Ishmael was
trained to shoot and clean an AK-47.
Banana trees served for bayonet practice.With
thoughts of disemboweling evil rebels, the boys would
slash at the leaves.
The things that Ishmael had seen, he did.
Killing was difficult at first, but after a while, as
Ishmael says,“killing became as easy as drinking water.”
The corporal thought that the boys were sloppy with
their bayonets.To improve their performance, he held a
contest. He chose five boys and placed them opposite
five prisoners with their hands tied. He told the boys to
slice the men’s throats on his command.The boy whose
prisoner died the quickest would win the contest.
A boy soldier in Liberia.
Down-to-Earth Sociology
“I stared at my prisoner,” said Ishmael.“He was just an-
other rebel who was responsible for the death of my
family.The corporal gave the signal with a pistol shot, and
I grabbed the man’s head and sliced his throat in one fluid
motion. His eyes rolled up, and he looked me straight in
the eyes before they suddenly stopped in a frightful
glance. I dropped him on the ground and wiped my bayo-
net on him. I reported to the corporal who was holding a
timer. I was proclaimed the winner.The other boys
clapped at my achievement.”
“No longer was I running away from the war,” adds
Ishmael.“I was in it. I would scout for villages that had
food, drugs, ammunition, and the gasoline we needed. I
would report my findings to the corporal, and the entire
squad would attack the village.We would kill everyone.”
Ishmael was one of the lucky ones. Of the approxi-
mately 300,000 child soldiers worldwide, Ishmael is one
of the few who has been rescued and given counseling
at a UNICEF rehabilitation center. Ishmael has also had
the remarkable turn of fate of graduating from college
in the United States and becoming a permanent U.S.
resident.
For Your Consideration
1. Why are there child soldiers?
2. What can be done to prevent the recruitment of
child soldiers? Why don’t we just pass a law that re-
quires a minimum age to serve in the military?
3. How can child soldiers be helped? What agencies can
take what action?
Based on Beah 2007; quotations are summaries.
sold blueprints for atomic bombs to North Korea, Libya, and Iran (Perry et al. 2007). As
I write this, Iran and North Korea are furiously following those blueprints, trying to de-
velop their own nuclear weapons. In the hands of terrorists or a dictator who wants to set-
tle grudges—whether nationalistic or personal—these weapons can mean nuclear
blackmail or nuclear destruction, or both.
Making Alignments and Protecting Interests. The current alignments of the powerful
nations also sow the seeds of future conflicts. The seven richest, most powerful, and most
technologically advanced nations (Canada, France, Germany, Great Britain, Italy, Japan,
and the United States) formed a loose alliance which they called G7 (the Group of 7). The
goal was to coordinate their activities so they could perpetuate their global dominance, di-
vide up the world’s markets, and regulate global economic activity. Although Russia did
not qualify for membership on the basis of wealth, power, or technology, the other nations
feared Russia’s nuclear arsenal and invited Russia as an observer at its annual summits. Rus-
sia became a full member in 2002, and the organization is now called G8. Because China
has increased both its economic clout and its nuclear arsenal, it has been invited to be an
observer—a form of trial membership.
G8, soon to be G9, may be a force for peace—if these nations can agree on how to di-
vide up the world’s markets and force weaker nations to cooperate. Dissension became ap-
parent in 2003, however, when the United States attacked Iraq, with the support of only
Great Britain and Italy from this group. On several occasions, U.S. officials have vowed
that the United States will not allow Iran to become a nuclear power. If the United Na-
tions does not act and if a course similar to that which preceded the Iraq War is followed,
the United States, with the support of Great Britain, will bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities. An
alternative course of action is for the United States to quietly give the go-ahead to Israel
to do the bombing. One way or the other, the United States will protect its interests in
this oil-rich region of the world.
It does not take much imagination to foresee the implications of these current align-
ments: the propping up of cooperative puppet governments that support the interests of
G8, the threat of violence to those that do not cooperate, and the inevitable resistance—
including the use of terrorism—of various ethnic groups to the domination of these more
powerful countries. With these conditions in place, the perpetuation of war and terror-
ism is guaranteed.
A New World Order?
War and terrorism, accompanied as they so often are by torture and dehumanization, are
tools that some nations use to dominate other nations. So far, their use to dominate the
globe has failed. A New World Order, however, might be ushered in, not by war, but by
nations cooperating for economic reasons. Perhaps the key political event in our era is
the globalization of capitalism. Why the term political? Because politics and economics are
twins, with each setting the stage for the other.
Trends Toward Unity
As discussed in the previous chapter, the world’s nations are almost frantically embracing
capitalism. In this pursuit, they are forming cooperative, economic–political units. The
United States, Canada, and Mexico have formed a North American Free-Trade Associa-
tion (NAFTA). Eventually, all of North and South America may belong to such an organ-
ization. Ten Asian countries with a combined population of a half billion people have
formed a regional trading partnership called ASEAN (Association of South East Asian
Nations). Struggling for dominance is an even more encompassing group called the World
Trade Organization. These coalitions of trading partners, along with the Internet, are
making national borders increasingly insignificant.
The European Union (EU) may indicate a unified future. Transcending their national
boundaries, twenty-seven European countries (with a combined population of 450 million)
formed this economic and political unit. These nations have adopted a single, cross-national
A New World Order? 455
currency, the Euro, which has replaced their marks, francs, liras, lats, and pesetas. The EU
has also established a military staff in Brussels, Belgium (Mardell 2007).
Could this process continue until there is just one state or empire that envelops the
earth? It is possible. The United Nations is striving to become the legislative body of the
world, wanting its decisions to supersede those of any individual nation. The UN oper-
ates a World Court (formally titled the International Court of Justice). It also has a rudi-
mentary army and has sent “peacekeeping” troops to several nations.
Strains in the Global System
Although the globalization of capitalism and its encompassing trade organizations could lead
to a single world government, the strains in the developing global system are so great that they
threaten to rip the system apart. As noted in Chapter 9, it certainly isn’t easy to maintain
global stratification. Unresolved items constantly rear up, demanding realignments of the
current arrangements of power. Although these pressures are resolved on a short-term basis,
over time their accumulative weight leads to a gradual shift in global stratification.
If we take a broad historical view, we see that groups and cultures can dominate only so
long. They always come to an end, to be replaced by another group or culture. The process
of decline is usually slow and can last hundreds of years (Toynbee 1946), but in our
speeded-up existence, the future looms into the present at a furious rate. If the events of
the past century indicate the future, the decline of U.S. dominance—like that of Great
Britain—will come fairly quickly, although certainly not without resistance and blood-
shed. What the new political arrangements of world power will look like is anyone’s guess,
although there are indications that point to the ascendancy of China. Certainly the polit-
ical arrangements of the present will give way, creating a new world for future generations.
Building upon what we know about political power, we can be certain that whatever
the particular shape of future stratification, a political elite will be directing it, using its
resources to bolster its position, making alliances across international boundaries designed
to continue its dominance. Perhaps this process as it is currently unfolding will lead to a
one-world government. Only time will tell. In the meantime, a major blockage to global
unity is national patriotism and ethnic loyalties, a topic explored in the following
Thinking Critically section, which closes this chapter.
456 Chapter 15 POLITICS
All governments—all the
time—use propaganda to
influence public opinion.
During times of war, the
propaganda becomes
more obvious. Note how
ugly Hitler and Tojo are
depicted on the World
War II poster from the
United States—and this is
just an ad to prevent
forest fires! In the other
poster, the Italian
government exposes
what Americans are
“really” like—in case any
Italians are going soft.
ThinkingCRITICALLY
Nationalism and Ethnic Loyalties: Roadblocks to the New
World Order
N
ation or state? What’s the difference? The world has about 5,000 nations, people
who share a language, culture, territory, and political organization. A state is another
name for “country.” Claiming a monopoly on violence over a territory, a state may
contain many nations. The Cataluns are one of the nations within the state called Spain.
The Chippewa and Sioux are two nations within the state called the United States. The
world’s 5,000 nations have existed for hundreds, some even for thousands, of years. In
contrast, most of the world’s states have been around only since World War II.
The nations that exist within states usually ended up there through conquest, leaving a bit-
ter harvest of resentment. Nation identity, much more personal and intense, usually trumps
state identity.The Palestinians who live within Israel’s borders, for example, do not identify
themselves as Israelis.The Oromos in Ethiopia, who have more members than do three-quar-
ters of the states in the United Nations, do not think of themselves as Ethiopians.The 22 mil-
lion Kurds don’t consider themselves first and foremost to be Iranians, Iraqis, Syrians, or Turks.
That nations are squeezed into states with which they don’t identify is the nub of the
problem. Nigeria has about 450 nations, India 350, Brazil 180, the former USSR 130, and
Ethiopia 90. Most states are controlled by a power elite that operates by a simple principle:
Winner takes all.To keep itself in power, this elite controls foreign investment and aid, levies
taxes—and buys weapons. A state obtains great wealth by confiscating the resources of the
nations under its control. The specifics are endless—Native American land in North and
South America, oil from the Kurds in Iraq, gold from the aborigines of Australia.When na-
tions resist, the result is armed conflict—and sometimes genocide.
G8’s attempt to establish a New World Order can be viewed as a drive to divide the world’s
resources on a global scale. The unexpected roadblock is the resurgence of nationalism—
identity with and loyalty to a nation. Nationalism strikes chords of emotions so deep that people
will kill—or give up their own lives. When nationalism erupts in a shooting war, the issues and
animosities are understood only faintly by those who are not a party to them; but nurtured in a
nation’s folklore and collective memory, they remain vividly alive to the participants.
The outcome of our present arrangements is seemingly contradictory: local shooting
wars alongside global coalitions. The local conflicts
come as nations struggle to assert their identity and
control, the coalitions as G8 tries to divide the
globe into regional trading blocs.With G8’s power,
David is not likely to defeat Goliath this time. Yet
there is a spoiler.Where David had five small stones
and needed only one, some nations have discovered
that terrorism is a powerful weapon. This, too, has
become part of the balance of global political
power.
For Your Consideration
Do you think we will have a one-world govern-
ment? Why or why not? If so, when? If a nation pos-
sesses self-identity and a common history and
culture, should it have the right to secede from a
state?
Sources: Clay 1990; Ohmae 1995; Marcus 1996; Hechter 2000; Ka-
plan 2003; Zakaria 2008.
A New World Order? 457
The depths of the roadblock to the New World Order were made apparent in
the 2008 conflict between Georgia and South Ossetia, especially when Russia
intervened militarily. Shown here is a Georgian woman crying over soldiers
buried in the rubble.
nationalism a strong identifi-
cation with a nation, accompa-
nied by the desire for that
nation to be dominant
458 Chapter 15 POLITICS
By the Numbers: Then and Now
SUMMARY and REVIEW
Micropolitics and Macropolitics
What is the difference between micropolitics
and macropolitics?
The essential nature of politics is power, and every group
is political. The term micropolitics refers to the exercise
of power in everyday life. Macropolitics refers to large-
scale power, such as governing a country. P. 432.
Power, Authority, and Violence
How are authority and coercion related to power?
Authority is power that people view as legitimately ex-
ercised over them, while coercion is power they consider
unjust. The state is a political entity that claims a mo-
nopoly on violence over some territory. If enough peo-
ple consider a state’s power illegitimate, revolution is
possible. Pp. 432–433.
What kinds of authority are there?
Max Weber identified three types of authority. In traditional
authority, power is derived from custom—patterns set
down in the past serve as rules for the present. In
rational–legal authority (also called bureaucratic authority),
power is based on law and written procedures. In
charismatic authority, power is derived from loyalty to an
individual to whom people are attracted. Charismatic au-
thority, which undermines traditional and rational–legal au-
thority, has built-in problems in transferring authority to a
new leader. Pp. 433–435.
Types of Government
How are the types of government related to power?
In a monarchy, power is based on hereditary rule; in a
democracy, power is given to the ruler by citizens; in a
dictatorship, power is seized by an individual; and in an
oligarchy, power is seized by a small group. Pp. 436–439.
1988 2008
African Americans
who voted for a
Democratic president
%%
2008
College graduates who voted
in the presidential election
%
1988
%
Whites who voted for a
Democratic president
1988 2008
%%
Women who voted in the
presidential election
1988 2008
%%
African Americans
High school drop-outs
who voted in the
presidential election
1988 2008
%%
Men who voted in the
presidential election
198 8
56
2008
62
%%
Summary and Review 459
THINKING CRITICALLY ABOUT Chapter 15
1. What are the three sources of authority, and how do they
differ from one another?
2. What does biological terrorism have to do with politics?
What does the globalization of capitalism have to do with
politics?
3. Apply the findings on “Why Nations Go to War” (page
449) to a recent war that the United States has been a
part of.
The U.S. Political System
What are the main characteristics of the U.S.
political system?
The United States has a “winner take all” system, in which
a simple majority determines the outcome of elections.
Most European democracies, in contrast, have
proportional representation; legislative seats are allotted
according to the percentage of votes each political party
receives. Pp. 439–441.
Voter turnout is higher among people who are more
socially integrated—those who sense a greater stake in the
outcome of elections, such as the more educated and well-
to-do. Lobbyists and special-interest groups, such as
political action committees (PACs), play a significant
role in U.S. politics. Pp. 441–446.
Who Rules the United States?
Is the United States controlled by a ruling class?
In a view known as pluralism, functionalists say that no
one group holds power, that the country’s many compet-
ing interest groups balance one another. Conflict theo-
rists, who focus on the top level of power, say that the
United States is governed by a power elite, a ruling class
made up of the top corporate, political, and military lead-
ers. At this point, the matter is not settled. Pp. 446–448.
War and Terrorism: Implementing
Political Objectives
How are war and terrorism related to politics—and
what are their costs?
War and terrorism are both means of attempting to accom-
plish political objectives. Timasheff identified three essential
conditions of war and seven fuels that ignite antagonistic sit-
uations into war. His analysis can be applied to terrorism.
Because of technological advances in killing, the costs of war
in terms of money spent and human lives lost have esca-
lated. Another cost is dehumanization, whereby people no
longer see others as worthy of human treatment. This paves
the way for torture and killing. Pp. 448–455.
A New World Order?
Is humanity headed toward a world
political system?
The globalization of capitalism and the trend toward re-
gional economic and political unions may indicate that a
world political system is developing. Oppositional forces
are global economic crises, ethnic loyalties, and
nationalism. Pp. 455–458.
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
What can you find in MySocLab? www.mysoclab.com
• Complete Ebook
• Practice Tests and Video and Audio activities
• Mapping and Data Analysis exercises
• Sociology in the News
• Classic Readings in Sociology
• Research and Writing advice
Where Can I Read More on This Topic?
Suggested readings for this chapter are listed at the back of this book.
Marriage and Family
16
Chapter