Lasswell Harold D. The Political Writings of Harold D. Lasswell
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
APPENDIX
281
34. Have you
severed your connection or
become
inactive? Why?
35. If you are
still
active,
what are
your
plans
and hopes?
36. How did
this particular
organization
touch the administra-
tive, legislative, and
judicial
branches of the
government?
The
political parties? How?
What
methods were used to
bring pressure to bear? What was
your part
in them?
37. As you
look back on your life in
the organization do
you
think of practices which you
indulged in or
tolerated which
you regard as
perhaps
questionable? Instances? Did you
so
regard them at
the time? What
would have happened if
you
had not
indulged in
them?
Should
an organization
be
run on
a
different basis now?
38. What
effect
did life in the organization have upon your
activity in
the politics of the
community
at large?
Did
you
have
impulses to
express yourself publicly
or
privately upon
matters which you
felt it expedient to follow?
Or were
you
driven to such expression and activity?
39. If you were to judge
entirely
in terms of your
experience
as a member of
this organization,
what would be your
judg-
ment of the
honesty
and
efficiency
of the public service and
the party
machine?
40. What political prejudices
or
philosophies
were
current
among various elements inside the organization?
41. Think
of
various
members of this organization who were
rather typical. How did you act toward them when
you
met
them? What topics
of
conversation,
of anecdote, etc., did
you indulge in? What activities in common
were there?
42. Did
you think that you
were
imposed
upon by any mem-
bers
as you look back upon it now? Did
you
estimate
some
of them
too
highly? Who?
Why?
43. Did
you underestimate some? Who?
Why?
44.
Were you
estimated
too high
or too
low? By whom?
Why?
45.
What things
apart
from common
dishonesty
would have
caused you
to lose
standing in
the organization?
What opin-
ions
and
activities would
have compromised
you?
46. Did
you risk loss
of standing
at any time
by word
or deed?
Were you tempted to? Why did
you refrain?
47. When
you
tried to
add
others
to the
organization,
whom
did you
seek? What
type of people,
in general,
were you
interested in?
282 PSYCHOPATHOLOGY
AND POLITICS
48. Did the organization live up
to
your ideal? ^Tiy?
49. Who were the most powerful ones in
the organization
at
dif-
ferent periods?
What
were
your relations with them? What
did you do
consciously
to win
them?
Success? What did
you do to
antagonize them? How did they
take
it? What,
in short, was the
attitude
of
the
leaders toward you?
50.
Did you ever
have
a
sense of
frustration arising from
your
failure to
participate
in
discussions of policy, either
because
you
hesitated to
express yourself
or because you
expressed
yourself
badly?
51. What
is your matured judgment of the utility of this organi-
zation
in society?
52. How
did
your
organization connections help
or hurt you so-
cially
or
any other
way?
53. How
did
your
outside connections help
or hurt
you
in the
organization?
54.
What, generally
speaking,
were your advantages and
disad-
vantages with
reference
to
securing
and holding
a prominent
position in the
organization?
55. In
general, what place did this organization
play in
your
life?
56.
With
respect to each one of your
so-called free-lance
or
very
personal activities, answer
such questions
as these:
How
did you
happen
to
take it up?
Upon what factors
would
your success
and failure depend?
What did
you
do to man-
age
the
persons upon whom success
or failure
depended?
With
what result?
What reaction
did
your
experience
have
upon your
outlook upon
political
life
generally?
POIITICS: Who Gets What,
When, How
POLITICS
Who Gets
What^ When,
How
BY
HAROLD D.
LASSWELL
THE
FREE
PRESS
•
GLENCOE
•
ILLINOIS
PREFACE
The
interpretation
of
politics
found in this book under-
lies the working attitude of practicing politicians. One
skill of
the politician is calculating probable changes in
influence and the influential.
This version
of politics is not
novel to
all
students of
social
development. Yet it
is
constantly
in danger of at-
tenuation. Even
now there
is no brief book in English
which states this standpoint for student, teacher, scholar,
citizen, and
politician, and which sees it in relation
to
passing time.
Certain
practical
and
theoretical
consequences follow
from the lack of opportune
reminders
of this fundamental
standpoint. That
practicing
politicians, caught in the
im-
mediate,
lose
sight of the remote, is to be expected.
That
systematic students, exempted from instant and
overwhelm-
ing
necessity, often grow precise about the trivial,
need
occasion
no
surprise.
Concepts for the study of influence must
be
changed
or
invented when influence is sought by novel means
or under
changed conditions. In epochs of
rapid
development,
there
is
need to reassess the relevance of
intellectual
effort.
Of
the
need for
orientation
in our day nearly everyone
is
con-
vinced. A society newly devoted
to
planning
may
(as
Karl
Mannheim
contends) require new
styles
of thought.
POLITICS:
Who Gets What, When, How
The
spirit
of
critical discontent is rife in the world
out-
side the Soviet
Union.
Well-built highroads
of intellectual
achievement are traveled
with reluctance, not in
protest
against the
engineering, but in skepticism
of
starting
point
and
destination. Much of the
literature
of comparative
gov-
ernment,
law, and
administration
is devoted to the taxon-
omy of
institutional
practice, with little
reference to
the
living forms which
are
thereby helped
or
hurt.
The rude
glare
of political analysis
is dimmed in
the literature
of
political quietism.
British, Austrian, and
American economics
are not im-
pervious to the intellectual
weather. Classical
economics,
if
we
are to believe Ricardo, was concerned with the
dis-
tribution of wealth,
one
of the
principal
means of influence.
The conditions of wealth
distribution
under conditions
of
free competition have been
carefully
phrased. Distribu-
tion under other
conditions
was understressed
in
classical
analysis. Modem events have
sharply
reminded
us that
distribution depends on
myth
and violence (on faith
and
brigandage)
as well as
bargaining.
Little more has been
done
in
this
book
than
to state
and
illustrate
the standpoint.
The connection
between what
is
written here and
what
has
been written elsewhere
is to
some
extent
shown
in the bibliographic notes
to the sepa-
rate chapters which are printed at
the
end of the
book.
Specialists will be at no loss to
distinguish
between
the
original and the
large
body of
derivative material.
Those
who accept the
frame of reference here proposed will
share
common
standards to guide
future intellectual effort.