Thomas Burton Bottomore was a British Marxist sociologist.

He was a president of the

Political sociology delves into the intricate dynamics of power within its social milieu. In this context,
'power' signifies the capacity of an individual or a social collective to chart a course of action,
encompassing decision-making, agenda-setting, and the implementation of choices. Beyond
scrutinising the core notion of 'power,' this exploration will extend to related concepts like 'authority,'
'influence,' and the dichotomy of 'force' or ‘violence’. Power plays a significant role in many social
relationships like family, religion, schools, and unions. Political sociology focuses on understanding
power in inclusive societies, whether it's a tribe, nation, or empire, along with relations between them
and the groups influencing power. Distinguishing between political sociology and political science is
tricky, mostly due to traditional focuses or practical divisions. Political scientists often focus on the
'machinery of government' separately from social context. On the other hand, modern political
science, essentially like political sociology, emerged from separating the 'political' and 'social' since
the eighteenth century. This idea of distinguishing between "Civil society" and the "state" started with
thinkers like the Encyclopedists, Saint-Simon, Scottish philosophers like Adam Ferguson,and Hegel.
Marx later summed up this essential concept in his social theory. Bottomore’s studies revealed that
legal relations and state forms aren't isolated or solely a result of human progress. They are rooted in
life's material conditions, termed "civil society" by Hegel. New ideas about politics emerged with
modern capitalism, where production became powerful. This connected 'civil society' to 'bourgeois
society,' emphasising the importance of political economy. Hegel simplified this, saying civil society
comes from the modern world, shaped by a free-market model. This brings challenges for the state,
dealing with issues like the wealth gap and social conflicts due to economic differences.

To understand Marx's theory, it's important to know he disagrees with Hegel on the state solving
society's issues. Marx believes the state relies on conflict in capitalism—rich versus poor. He sees the
state as part of the broader social process shaped by production methods. Tocqueville, unlike Marx,
focuses on the democratic revolution, predicting positive effects on well-being but cautioning extreme
equality could threaten individual liberty. Weber, similar to Tocqueville, emphasizes the nation state
and political movements' influence, expressing concerns about the future of individual liberty in
rationalized societies. Mosca notes a universal pattern of ruling and ruled groups in all political
systems, with elites typically in power due to psychological differences, though changes can occur
influenced by 'social forces.' Bottomore talked about two ways of thinking, but some critics say they
can be taken to extremes. Karl Popper suggests in "The Open Society and its Enemies" that according
to Marxist theory, politics is essentially powerless. On the other hand, elite theories suggest that
political systems are quite alike in all societies, due to an imbalance between organized minorities and
unorganised majorities or a general similarity in human nature. There's still debate on the connection
between 'political' and 'social.' Some focus on how current political systems work, seeing them as part
of a stable social setup, while others look at the forces causing instability and the potential for change.

One idea, tied to functionalist theory, views society as a puzzle with parts fitting together, maintained
by shared values. This shaped the concept of 'stable democracies' and discussions on 'development'
and 'modernization.' Samuel P. Huntington's book, Political Order in Changing Societies, supports
this, highlighting differences in countries based on governance levels, with some having stable
politics and others marked by conflict and violence. Therefore, stability is seen as the most important
political value, especially in the politics of democratic industrial societies. These ideas became less
convincing as conflicts increased in the 1960s in industrial societies, leading to ongoing crises. This
brought back interest in a different model, more inspired by Marxism. This model says there are
always conflicts in societies, and stability is just a temporary fix. Unlike before, it highlights the use
of force in shaping a society and suggests that values are more influenced by 'symbolic violence' than
by agreement. But it doesn't mean domination is only about force; it involves economic control,
influence over cultural values, and organised minorities. In short, this model suggests that political
control comes from a broader concept of 'social power.'

In political sociology, two main ideas involve politics being independent or dependent, and societies
being stable with shared values or changing with conflicts and force. This creates four models for
theories in this book. Yet, there's more diversity and disagreements in how social scientists study
things, impacting what problems are studied and how research is done. Examining these issues is
crucial due to oversimplified explanations. There's a long-standing disagreement: some say studying
society is like studying nature, focusing on causes, while others argue it's about understanding
intentional actions. This debate spans various forms, from critiques of 'positivism' to recent criticisms
from a phenomenological perspective, and ongoing disputes among Marxist thinkers on whether
Marxism is a natural science or a philosophical interpretation of history.

People debate whether natural and social sciences are similar or different in explaining social events.
Some argue for understanding human society through intentional, rule-based actions. This ongoing
debate involves critiques of 'positivism,' German sociological debates, and disputes among Marxist
thinkers on approaching it as a natural science or a philosophical interpretation of history. In political
theory, there's a debate on studying politics, focusing on actual behaviour or intentional action. Some
challenge the idea that scientific knowledge relies solely on observed facts, suggesting concepts
beyond immediate perception contribute to scientific development. For instance, Marx and
Lévi-Strauss see social structures as an underlying logic, not directly visible. Accepted ideas in the
philosophy of science have limitations for checking theories, prompting exploration of advanced
testing methods discussed in works like "Criticism and the Growth of Knowledge" edited by Lakatos
and Musgrave. Structuralism not only challenges fundamental empiricism but also contests
historicism, giving rise to debates on historical methodologies within the social sciences. It delves into
the essence of a generalised social science, questioning whether its aim is to formulate universal
statements about social structures or historical laws. This discourse is particularly intriguing within
Marxist thought, where structuralists refuse to depict Marxism solely as a philosophy of history.
Instead, they conceptualise it as a societal theory, investigating internal levels and specific causal
connections. However, they grapple with the inquiry of whether a scientific approach to history exists,
addressing the transformation of one societal structure into another through law-governed processes.

People wonder if there's a special way Marxists study things. The answer isn't straightforward due
to the diverse manifestations of Marxism. Each type, inspired by Marx, has a bit of common
ground with non-Marxist ideas and follows trends in science philosophy. There are three main styles:
Hegelian, like interpretation and phenomenology; positivist-empiricist, influenced by Kantian ideas,
natural science, and materialism; and structuralist, rooted in linguistics, anthropology, and French
thinking. Although Marxism has unique core ideas, the various versions have differences in how they
think and study. It's like they're different ways, and sometimes it's not easy to tell Marxists apart from
non-Marxists, as Marxism can be influenced by other ideas too. Comparing Marxism to other ways of
thinking, two key aspects emerge. Firstly, Marxists tie their theories to real-life actions, seeking
change, particularly through revolution. Secondly, Marxism isn't solely about ideas; it encompasses
beliefs in shaping a better society. This influences both intellectual decisions and political actions.
Contrasting with ideologies such as democracy or liberalism, each has distinct values guiding theory
and practice.

In final analysis, the diverse perspectives in today's social sciences prevent a straightforward outline
of the 'elements' or 'principles' of political sociology. To grasp the subject, we need to compare these
varied approaches in the historical context, considering changes in the economic, political, and
cultural landscape.