Political Culture and Democratic Stability
This work took a very conservative reputation by reinforcing the then-dominant elitist theories of democracy. Their results were interpreted in the same line as the conclusions of the studies at the University of Michigan. However, the approach of Almond and Verba was conditioned by the obsession with the political events that led to World War II. Their main concern was to study the stability of democracy.
Another criticism of this group of authors emphasizes that political culture may be the result of interaction between citizens and the institutions themselves. Converse would say, time favors the learning of democratic attitudes. But not all authors agree with the interpretation of the direction and causal determinism of Almond and Verba. These authors assert that there are two variables, political culture and political stability, and also conclude that the model is structured around three variables: structures and social processes, political culture, and the effectiveness and stability of democracy.
Criticisms of the Almond and Verba Approach
A second set of criticisms comes from a different approach to the study of culture, which dates back to the work of anthropologists and sociologists such as Laswell, Arnold, and Edelman, combined with the use of Dilthey’s hermeneutical method. Their argument focuses on the definition of culture and the use of surveys in cultural studies.
In recent years, work in political science has proliferated. These studies help to overcome the functionalist view of the necessary congruence between political systems and determined cultures and, on the other hand, to expand the concept of culture beyond the behaviorist definition implicit in the school, helping to regain the original functionalized speech in which the existence of a less restrictive concept of culture was already contemplated.
Rational Choice Theory and Political Behavior
A third criticism comes from rational choice, which maintains that political behavior responds only to the rational calculation of individuals based on their interests. Culture does not play a direct role in explaining political behavior. Several works on political participation, such as the famous work of Downs, noted that the cost of voting is always superior to the benefit to be obtained. Olson concludes that the only benefit that exceeds the cost of participating in collective organizations and associations is a set of selective incentives that the military can get.
In fact, according to Barry, the price to pay for participation presents the problem of the fair price, which is predetermined for each of the citizens. The problem is how people have come to the conclusion on the fair price to pay. More recent reformulations have incorporated major elements of the socio-cultural approach, which initially rejected psychologism. According to Riker, the benefits of voting are in attitudes and psycho-cultural values and satisfaction with the performance of voting. Kinder also argues that individuals make simple affective evaluations of the political reality that can become the basis for later cognitive re-evaluations. Rationality operates once the preferences are given. In these formulations, individuals continue to give preference, which constitutes one of the goals of rational actors. This means obviating the study of the origin, development, and change of preferences.