From the sociology of politics to political sociology by giovanni sartori

CRITIIQUE: From the Sociology of Politics to Political Sociology by Giovanni Sartori

Introduction
The article under review is Giovanni Sartori’s 1969 publication titled From the Sociology of Politics to Political Sociology. In his paper, Sartori’s goal is to develop a clear distinction between the disciplines of sociology and political science in regards to research conducted on politicalmatters. The main point of his argument is that the category of political sociology cannot be a sub-field of the discipline of sociology due to very specific political science characteristics in practice and methodology. In the review of his paper, Sartori places emphasis on the distinction in three basic categories: a misnomer of discipline, terminology, and methodology. Following the summary ofSartori's arguments, the strength of this piece will be questioned via three main critiques: Sartori's lack of a clear argument, his further complication of terminological ambiguity and his position on predictive qualities.

Text Summary

Sartori Argument: Misnomer of Discipline
Sartori insists his contemporary concept of political sociology is a misnomer of categorization. Although he doesbelieve that such a field exists, his research and findings have yet to satisfy his requirements for the practices done under "political sociology" to be categorized in the political science discipline. At the same time, Sartori also feels that works done in the name of political sociology do not belong within the sociological discipline. His first summary point in the conclusion of this piece regardspolitical sociology as "… a ‘sociological reduction’ of politics". He further insists that publications done in the practice of this "reduction" should be re-categorized as the "sociology of politics". The support for this position is exemplified via two other categories of distinction: terminology and methodology.

Sartori Argument: Misuse/Misinterpretation of Terminology
In Sartori’sterminology distinction, he builds his argument on analyzing Robert R. Alford Party and Society, which studies trends in class and voting preferences in England. Aldorf made general rationalizations that "Great Britain…has relatively ‘pure’ class polities". Sartori’s position is "according to what standard are we to assess a situation of a relatively pure class politics"; in other words, Sartori believedthe sociologists Aldorf naively oversimplified his assumption on the notion of "class" and displays ignorance of the parameters of what "class" truly means in his research. Herein lies Sartori’s main argument on terminology: sociologists do not take the same precautions as political scientists in regards to terminology when it comes to making generalizations on a given subject. After dissectingthe term and notion of "class" by providing a four-quadrant model, Sartori concludes, "England displays relatively little class politics" and feels that class is an ideology therefore Aldorf’s argument cannot hold true that class is a cleavage of party preference. To further exemplify his point of various interpretations of "class", Sartori quotes Karl Marx’s definition of class-consciousness as a"sense of ‘belonging’ to a socioeconomic class". Sartori then provides his interpretation of the Marx quote on "class" as a notion of class-consciousness, which points to class-minded individuals and class devotees who actually live a class ideology as if it were a self-fulfilled prophecy.

Sartori Argument: Methodological Practices
Sartori also displays dissatisfaction in the methodology usedby sociologists who publish and commit work in the name of political sociology. His main misgivings about their practices are the sociologist’s lack of further exploration into concepts. Sartori feels that many sociologists accept findings at face value and rarely dig deeper into concepts. As a criticism, Sartori states, "when the outcome is given, nothing is easier than to adjust the alleged...