citizens assume that ‘democracy’ means a society in which everyone
can vote at periodic elections where the rich can buy unlimited media
exposure for their views.
A number of writers (Milliband, 1969; Gramsci, 1969) have
approached the analysis of modern politics through a variety of
Marxist models with, in some cases, enlightening results. Conven-
tional assumptions have been questioned, and further economic and
political dimensions to problems exposed. In the Western world, for
instance, the cultural and media influence of capitalism has been
emphasised, whilst in the ‘third’ world the Marxist emphasis on the
international economic environmental influences (Williams, 1976)
seems much more realistic than analysis of political parties that are
liable to disappear overnight in a military coup (Sklar, 1963; Weiner,
1962).
As with conventional political scientists, the work of Marxist
writers is of variable quality and interest to the ordinary reader. Here
too a tendency to mistake assumptions for conclusions, or to jump to
conclusions favourable to the initial model adopted can be discerned.
In addition, perhaps, there may be a greater tendency to engage in
‘theological’ disputes within the school about the proper use of
concepts and to take explicit policy positions. It is not always clear
how academic (in accord with the canons of conventional scholarship)
some books are intended to be. Conversely, of course, some Marxist
works – particularly the Communist Manifestoitself – have been
subjected to an orgy of academic criticism despite their explicitly
polemical role.
More recently a number of radical feminist writers have emerged,
who have questioned the assumptions implicit in conventional
political analysis. They too have seen society primarily in terms of an
exploitative relationship (‘patriarchy’) between collectivities (adult
heterosexual males versus the rest). (It should be emphasised that
this is a discussion of radical feminist writers – many feminists adopt
a more liberal, moderate, stance.) Like later Marxists they have
stressed cultural and media aspects of political relationships, but also
stressed the political aspects of personal relationships. Whereas
conventional analysis has looked at explicit political conflicts reflected
in conventional party divisions, these writers have seen potential
(seismic) splits repressed by conventional politics. Some writers
on animal liberation and ecology could also be seen in the same
POLITICS 21