Political networks play a fundamental role in shaping the American politics. Arguably, networks model how citizens accept and construe political information. As such, social network’s ties may prompt a nation’s citizen to vote. Moreover, they impinge on legislative cooperation of party cooperation; bill supports across contending faction and social factions’ cooperation across coalition boundaries.
Political networks play a fundamental role in shaping the American politics. Arguably, networks model how citizens accept and construe political information. As such, social network’s ties may prompt a nation’s citizen to vote. Moreover, they impinge on legislative cooperation of party cooperation; bill supports across contending faction and social factions’ cooperation across coalition boundaries. If the political networks are not well-studied in determining the political behavior of the citizens, it would affect the flow of information: coordination, cooperation in informal organization, and coordination in multiple levels of trust; therefore, applicable community survey should be put in place to better understand peer-to-peer relationships and establish the ties present in the American society.
Additionally, disagreement in the networks results to people to deliberate, but not participate in the voting process. Subsequently, the problem of reciprocal causation occurs in the case where disagreement may influence political behavior, but pointer exists from those behaviors back to disagreement. Moreover, power will not be relational and it will not exist when the interaction between and among the people and groups will not be put into consideration. As such, this paper seeks to establish the importance of political network in the contemporary U.S. politics, as well as explore practical approaches to observing the effect in political networks.
Lasswell (1936) defines politics as “who gets what, when, and how- conflict is inevitable” any political processes with retrospect to political network. Nonetheless, the conflict seems to be a part of politics most disliked by the average American citizens. As such, in the realm of political behavior, a topical revitalization of interest in disagreement stems from normative theories of political reflection that presents a diverse view of how envoy democracy functions efficiently. According to Lasswell, “though, liberal democratic theories emphasize the need for individuals to be educated and civically engaged in order to be politically active, deliberative theories center on combined processes as well as the exchange of viewpoints” (Lasswell, 1936).
Causal Effect
Network exerts a causal effect on political behavior in the case that an exogenous modification of the network results in an alteration and in political behavior. For instance, if an individual has a network of friends who talk about politics and then one more politically-interested person joins the network without any other changes in the ego situation. Therefore, if ego shifts from having a moderate level of interest in politics to having a slightly higher level of interest in it, then ego discussion network can be termed to have a causal effect on its interest in politics.
With retrospect to Henry Brady, who disputes that causal arguments are stronger to the extent that they present four elements. These elements are constant conjunction of causes as well as effects; no effect when the cause is absent in the numerous familiar world to where the cause is present and an effect after cause manipulation. Additionally, it includes identification of activities and processes linking causes and effects (Brady, 2008).
There has been a renaissance of the aspects in the investigation of the effect of peer networks on vote choice, social communication, expertise, racial attitudes and disagreement (Huckefeldt, 1995). As such, the applicability of the community-related survey claims that Americans are increasingly “bowling alone” and replacing neighborhood social interaction with the online social community (Putnam, 2000). Specifically, in the case that the respondent more likely wants to have discussion partners that are geographically-distant, the knowhow of the respondent’s geography is not enough to control the information they would acquire from peers. Homophily documents are the phenomenon within social relationship, where a propensity for people to form social ties with others who are similar to them. As such, homophily is most probable to happen with retrospect to race and ethnicity, age, religion, occupation, and gender (McPherson, 2001). Consequently, people are likely to form ties with others that have a similar number of friends (Huckfeldt, 2009).
Providently, homophily fails to characterize all of an individual’s social relationship, as many social ties formed on the availability, and not solely on personal choice (Volker & Flap, 2007). It is thus probable that an individual will opt some of his/her peers based on shared politics. Classification of peers affects is only possible when there is some fraction of discussants. The individuals related upon availability-relationship selection devoid of shared political predilections. Causal political network would be observed in the case when the personal characteristics correlate with politics. The shared characteristic observed permits the control of selected relationship.
As formulated by Dahl, power is when person A get person B to do something that he or she would not otherwise do in his or her own; it is clear that power is relational and it exists when consideration of the interaction between and among the people and groups is seen (Dahl, 1969). Crozier (1980) conceptualizes power: “power can be developed only through exchange among the actors in a given relation.”
Consequently, Barazt asks “the researcher overlook the chance that some person or association could limit decision-making to relatively noncontroversial matters, by influencing community values and political procedures and rituals, not withstanding that there are in the community serious but latent power conflicts?” (Bachrach and Baratz, 1962). The overlooking of presented issues in public discourse as the situation of an actor or group in a larger web of interactions is formidable. The traditional operationalizations of power are at odds with this conceptualization, since the focus on the possession of resources.
Power is inherently relational; although, the outcome seems to be driven by relationships and networks discount the importance of self-determination and agency. Indeed to the extent that we comprehend the power in politics, plays a pivotal part of the discipline in attempting to comprehend the relationship that is influential.
Consequently, Djupe and Sohkey echo the argument relating that network regards power, but they center on how the exchange of information between voters affects their behavior. The idea of power in the network is consistent with the notion of choice in the contemporary American politics. Given the lack of interest that the average Americans present in politics, social influences still play a fundamental role in shaping the formation of opinions as well as the propensity toward the action. As a result, they raise the significant questions that regard whether the average citizens are more sturdily affected by their network as a result of their own disinterest.
Accordingly, there exists an acute difference in how many disagreements happen between the citizens. Tentatively, what has become a hallmark in political advancement is the basic question of how much disagreement exists in the networking platform. Arguably, Mutz (2006) suggests that not only are levels of disagreement between exceptionally low in the national probability samples, but the communication levels in the dyads are low as well.
Additionally, the line in debate with retrospect to the effect of network on politics is the disagreeable social interaction. For instance, Mutz’s seminal contribution regarding cross-cutting discussion present, while disagreement results to a better understanding of and tolerance for divergent viewpoints that result to lower levels of political participation. Other scholars report dispute that the incongruity statistically or positively insignificantly linked to participation such as Nir (2005). Gilbert (2006) suggests that the influence of disagreement is variable subject to other rudiments in a person’s network, or the broader context in which it happens.
The initial trouble calls the problem of selection bias, where the discussion, as well as disagreement in networks, receives motivation by the people’s political preferences and behavior.
Secondly, there occurs the problem of reciprocal causation, where disagreement may influence political behavior, but pointer exists from those behaviors back to disagreement. Lastly, there is a spurious causation, where the factors that lead to political behaviors such as partisan intensity and educational level leads to the structure of a network as well as definite discussion level.
Undoubtedly, the individuals, exposed to the general political disagreement, tend to have weak political preferences in comparison to other individuals. Contrastingly, the individuals with experience partisanship-based interpersonal political disagreement tend to have robust political predilections. In presenting the differences, network with disagreement are salient enough to registers as general disagreement as it seems to cut at the foundations of numerous prominent behaviors.
Different types of disagreement not only replicate divergent social processes, but also appear to have divergent effects with retrospect to individuals’ political predilections, the political engagement pattern, as well as the probability of political participation. Consequently, disagreement do not have simply and easily characterized the effect and people may not be a consequential for democratic practice; in turn, suggesting that the focus should not be on keeping the good parts of disagreement, whereas changing or ameliorating the detrimental.
Rhetoric Analysis
SNA presents measures of the constraints of the actors’ dependent not only on their own relation, but also the way in which the actors relate. Thus, embedding actors within the interaction follow for insight on the distribution of power as well as the efficient effect on political and social action. Arguably, all political interaction can be viewed with reference to network terms. This attributes to the fact that network account for the relations between the actors. Investigation of American politics has increasingly turned to political network analysis in order to understand the public opinion, the diffusion of policy ideas, the party factions, the interest group coalitions, and the voting behavior. Whereas the association between political networks is dominant, clear causal inferences are often difficult to make.
The robust association between politics and political behaviors empirically instituted; but finding the exact nature of the causal relationship between politics and network is a more challenging endeavor. Arguably, institutional network as well as coalitions models over time by political actors with self-centered political purposes in mind. Thus, individuals may choose their associates and friends in part, due to the agreement on political issues as well as involvement in politics.
This publication would be imperative in editorials addressing political aspirants who would want to campaign in the contemporary American society. As such, the aspirants should be content with understanding people/voters who would elect them in their proffered candidature. As such, the lack of interest that the average Americans present in politics, social influences still play a fundamental role in shaping the formation of opinions as well as the propensity toward the action. Therefore, the establishment of political networks would be proficient in understanding the society. In the case that an individual would wish to campaign, the network models will enable the individual to interact with the society. As such, the persuasive argument is evidenced adequately as various researchers have presented the importance of political network. The argument provided significant quotations from the various researchers, for the sake of convincing the audience. For instance, Huckefeldt argues that “there has been a renaissance of the aspects in the investigation of the effect of peer networks on vote choice, social communication, expertise, racial attitudes and disagreement (Huckefeldt, 1995). On the other hand, there would be need to understand the relationship presented in diverse geographical aspects. As such, different people from diverse geographical places would have varied influences among themselves.
In conclusion, political networks affect the modeling of any politics, particularly the American politics. Tentatively, network exerts a causal effect on political behavior in the case that an exogenous modification of the network results in an alteration and in political behavior. Power is relational and it exists while considering the interaction between and among the people and groups. Providently, homophily fails to characterize all of an individual’s social relationship, as many social ties formed on the availability and not solely on personal choice.
Work Cited
Bachrach, P, and Baratz S. “Two Faces of Power.”American Political Science Review 56, 1962. 947–52. Print.
Crozier, M, and Erhard F. Actors and Systems: The Politics of Collective Action. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980. Print.
Djupe, A, and Gilbert P. “Presented but Not Accounted For? Gender Differences in Civic Resource Acquisition.” American Journal of Political Science. 51, 2007. 906-920. Print.
Heaney, M, and McClurg S. “Social networks and American politics: Introduction to the special issue.” American Politics Research, 37. 2009 727-741. Print.
Huckfeldt, R, and John S. The Survival of Diverse Opinions Within Communication Networks. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Print.
Huckfeldt, R, and John S. Citizens, Politics, and Social Communication: Information and Influence in an Election Campaign. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Print.
Klofstad, C, and McClurg S. "Measurement of political discussion networks: A comparison of two “name generator” procedures." Public Opinion Quarterly 73. .2009. 462-83. Print.
Lasswell, H. Politics: Who gets What, When, How. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1936. Print.
Mollenhorst, G, and Volker B. Social contexts and personal relationships. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2007. Print.
Mutz, D, and Paul M. “Facilitating Communication across Lines of Political Difference: The Role of Mass Media.” The American Political Science Review 95. 2001. 97-114. Print
Nir, L. “Ambivalent Social Networks and their Consequences for Participation.” International Journal for Public Opinion Research.17. 2005. 422-442. Print.
Putnam, D. Bowling alone. New York: Simon and Schuster, 2000. Print.
