Comparative Review: Theoretical Articles

The goal is to first summarize two articles and then proceed to a comparative examination. A full comparative review of the similarities of the articles will be provided. A critical aspect of this comparative review is the development of a clear understanding of the theoretical approach utilized by both authors in the discussion of their respective topics. Additionally, it is important to note that both articles under analysis present similar examinations regarding the role of rational choice theory and the interpretive approach in the conceptualization of culture. The second goal is to draw out the differences in the two articles using the same approach mentioned above. This report seeks to highlight the key similarities and differences in the arguments presented in both articles.

Summary 1

The first article, “Conceptualizing Culture: Possibilities for Political Science,” was authored by Lisa Wedeen. The chief focus on this article is the examination of culture as semiotic practices. Semiotic practices are defined by the author as the overlap between “agents’ practices” and systems of signification (Wedeen 713). The analysis of semiotic practices allows for the developing of an understanding of meaning-making; a factor that is described by the author as undervalued and underexamined by most political science approaches (Wedeen 714). The author provides a strong critique of multiple systems of cultural analysis within the field of political science. The shortcomings of various approaches are fully analyzed so as to provide a foundation from which a stronger conceptualization of culture in political science can be established.

Summary 2

“The Politics of Interpretation: Rationality, Culture, and Transition” by Robert H. Bates, Rui J. P. de Figueiredo Jr., and Barry R. Weingast, presents an analysis of the utilization of rational choice theory in the study of politics or political science. The authors note that multiple alternative approaches have been offered which seek to address the limitations of rational choice theory (Bates, de Figueiredo Jr., and Weingast 221). It is noted that rational choice theory has been successfully applied in multiple areas of political science, however, the rise of cultural politics has presented a unique challenge to rational choice theory which has revealed some of the limitations of the system (Bates, de Figueiredo Jr., and Weingast 222). Specifically, the cost/gain matrix of rational choice theory seems to be inapplicable in the examination of cultural politics (Bates, de Figueiredo Jr., and Weingast 222). The authors’ note that the interpretivist approach has been put forth as a major alternative to the application of rational choice theory in the analysis of political culture.

Comparisons

Both the articles provide an excellent discussion of the process of culture conceptualization in the field of political science and the importance of theory in the development of effective analysis. The case presented by Wedeen is extremely detailed. Multiple angles of the application of rational choice theory and the interpretivist approach are provided. The multiple angle approach allows for a clear understanding of the role of theory plays in understanding cultural politics. From this foundation, Wedeen is able to identify relevant gaps in the traditional approach and subsequently develop an alternative system which addresses those gaps. Bates, de Figueiredo Jr., and Weingast take a similar approach in their analysis. They begin with a discussion of the applicability of rational choice theory and the interpretivist approach. From this point, they build a case study examination of how both theories are applied in practice. However, the articles contrast more than they compare.

Contrasts

The major difference in Bates, de Figueiredo Jr., and Weingast’s approach as compared to Wedeen’s approach is the emphasis on the complimentary nature of rational choice theory and the interpretivist approach. Wedeen’s detailed examination of various approaches to the application of rational choice theory and interpretivism draws from multiple sources to maximize the of the analysis. In order to more effectively construct her argument, Wedeen takes the time to explore multiple variations in the conceptualization of culture. As this exploration continues, the gaps, in theory, become increasingly evident. It appears Wedeen’s approach focuses on dividing rational choice theory and the interpretive approach, while Bates, de Figueiredo Jr., and Weingast use the two theories in tandem. The critique presented by Wedeen focuses on two major approaches to the conceptualization of culture. The two approaches are interpretivist approach and rational choice theory. These two approaches represent key gaps in the mainstream understanding of culture conceptualization in the field of political science. Interpretivists argue that the focus on individualism in conceptualizing culture has limited the scope of analysis (Wedeen 717). Conversely, rational choice theorists are devoted to the idea that individual actors comprise the development of culture and organizational environments (Wedeen 717). Therefore, a major methodological gap has prevented the effective conceptualization of culture by both groups. Wedeen offers the semiotic practices approach as an alternative means of conceptualization for those who wish to move beyond the restraints of the traditional approaches in political science.

Wedeen’s approach may be contrasted with Bates, de Figueiredo Jr., and Weingast’s approach, which seeks to highlight multiple examples as to how rational choice theory and the interpretivist approach can be utilized in conjunction to address the shortcomings in cultural analysis. Their approach allows for a bridging of gaps without the development of a radical alternative. Throughout the article, the authors’ attempt to bridge the gaps between rational choice theory and the interpretivist approach to develop a complementary system which benefits from the strengths of both. Rational choice theory acts as an effective tool of analysis to a certain point. The limitations of rational choice theory can be overcome throughout the application of an interpretivist approach. This approach allows for an explanation of the cultural environment which explains the reasoning behind certain individuals’ actions (Bates, de Figueiredo Jr., and Weingast 244). Therefore, the interpretivist approach adds another layer of clarity to the analytical power of rational choice theory, which Wedeen does not utilize.

It can be stated then that the goals of the examined articles differ in that one article seeks to illustrate division to construct an alternative while the other seeks to foster methodological harmony. It is interesting then that both articles provide convincing and logically sound arguments for their respective positions and prove their theses.

Conclusion

In conclusion, both articles recognize the limitations of the theoretical approaches the authors’ champion to realize cultural conceptualization. Both articles also present comprehensive case studies which outline multiple approaches to understanding the applicability of rational choice theory and the interpretivist approach. One article takes a divisive approach to illustrate the need for an alternative system, while the other article presents an argument for a complementary approach that bridges the theoretical gaps. In both cases, the researchers examine the applicability of the analyzed theories through the lens of culture politics and establish a solid foundation for their respective conclusions.

Works Cited

Bates, Robert H., Rui JP de Figueiredo Jr., and Barry R. Weingast. “The Politics of Interpretation: Rationality, Culture, and Transition.” Politics & Society, 26, 4 (1998): 603-642.

Wedeen, Lisa. “Conceptualizing Culture: Possibilities for Political Science.” American Political Science Review, 90, 04 (2002): 713-728.