Advertisement

Journal of Adult Development

, Volume 14, Issue 3–4, pp 80–90 | Cite as

The Case for Developmental Methodologies in Democratization

  • Sara N. Ross
Article

Abstract

Interdisciplinary integration of adult and political development knowledge into the study and process of countries’ democratic transitions is necessary, so democratization does not become an incendiary process further destabilizing the planet. The incoherence in research and practice can be resolved by employing insights into the political reasoning, culture, and institutional structures at key stages of development. Drawing on Chilton’s (1988, Defining political development, Boulder: Lynne Rienner; 1991, Grounding political development, Boulder: Lynne Rienner) theory of political development, this coherent micro/macro connection is required for study of the central co-reinforcing elements for stable democracy: civil society, political society, rule of law, usable state bureaucracy, institutionalized economic society, and cultural conditions for psychologically healthy power relations. Developmental analyses of these factors provide the compelling theoretical framework the political science of democratization requires.

Keywords

Adult development Civil society Cognitive development Consolidated democracy Cultural development Democratization Micro/macro connection Political development Political reasoning Political science 

References

  1. Anderson, L. (1999). Introduction. In L. Anderson (Ed.), Transitions to democracy (pp. 1–13). New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Bangura, Y. (1991). Authoritarian rule and democracy in Africa: A theoretical discourse (Discussion Paper No. 18). New York: United Nations Research Institute for Social Development. Retrieved 31 Dec 2001, from http://www.unrisd.org/engindex/publ/list/dp/dp18/toc.htm#TopofPage
  3. Briggs, J., & Peat, F. D. (1989). Turbulent mirror. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  4. Chilton, S. (1988). Defining political development. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.Google Scholar
  5. Chilton, S. (1991). Grounding political development. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.Google Scholar
  6. Commons, M. L., Danaher-Gilpin, D., Miller, P. M., & Goodheart, E. A. (2002). Hierarchical complexity scoring system: How to score anything. Retrieved 13 Sept 2002, from http://www.tiac.net/∼commons/Scoring%20Manual.html
  7. Coppedge, M. (2001). Political Darwinism in Latin America’s lost decade. In L. Diamond & R. Gunther (Eds.), Political parties and democracy (pp. 173–205). Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Diamond, L., & Gunther, R. (2001). Types and functions of parties. In L. Diamond & R. Gunther (Eds.), Political parties and democracy (pp. 3–39). Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Fisher, J. (1998). Non-governments: NGOs and the political development of the Third World. West Hartford: Kumarian Press.Google Scholar
  10. Fisher, D., Rooke, D., & Torbert, B. (2000). Personal and organisational transformations: Through action inquiry. Boston: Edge\Work Press.Google Scholar
  11. Gustavsson, B. (1994). Organisational learning based on transforming collective consciousness. Retrieved 9 Jan 2002, from http://www.fek.su.se/home/gus/PAPERS/learnpap.htm
  12. Habermas, J. (1979). Communication and the evolution of society (T. McCarthy, Trans.). Boston: Beacon Press. (Original work published 1976).Google Scholar
  13. Haggard, S., & Kaufman, R. R. (1995). The political economy of democratic transitions. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Johnson, A. W., & Earle, T. (2000). The evolution of human societies (2nd ed.). Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Kegan, R. (1982). The evolving self. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Levy, R. (1992). Structural blindness. In F. Geyer & W. R. Heinz (Eds.), Alienation of society and the individual (pp. 61–74). New Brunswick: Transaction.Google Scholar
  17. Linz, J. J., & Stepan, A. (1996). Problems of democratic transition and consolidation: Southern Europe, South America, and post-Communist Europe. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Maslow, A. H. (1987). Motivation and personality (3rd ed.). New York: Addison Wesley Longman.Google Scholar
  19. Ozbudun, E. (2001). The institutional decline of parties in Turkey. In L. Diamond & R. Gunther (Eds.), Political parties and democracy (pp. 238–265). Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Progoff, I. (1985). Jung’s psychology and its social meaning (3rd ed.). New York: Dialogue House Library.Google Scholar
  21. Pula, B. (2002) Kosova: From elections to democracy? Kosova & Balkan Observer, 3, 16–23.Google Scholar
  22. Pye, L. W. (1997). Introduction: The elusive concept of culture and the vivid reality of personality [Electronic version]. Political Psychology, 18, 241–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Rosenberg, S. W. (1988). Reason, ideology and politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Rosenberg, S. W. (2002). The not so common sense: Differences in how people judge social and political life. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Rosenberg, S. W., Ward, D., & Chilton, S. (1988). Political reasoning and cognition. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Rustow, D. A. (1999). Transitions to democracy: Toward a dynamic model. In L. Anderson (Ed.), Transitions to democracy (pp. 14–41). New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Ruutsoo, R. (n.d.). Estonian post-communist transition, civil society and social sciences in the context of EU enlargement. Retrieved 3 Jan 2003, from http://www.riigikogu.ee/osakonnad/msi/ruutsoo.html
  28. Saunders, H. H. (1999). A public peace process: Sustained dialogue to transform racial and ethnic conflicts. New York: St. Martin’s Press.Google Scholar
  29. Schwable, M. (1992). Aesthetic experience. In F. Geyer & W. R. Heinz (Eds.), Alienation of society and the individual (pp. 90–103). New Brunswick: Transaction.Google Scholar
  30. Tan, K. P. A. Sze-Sian. (2001). Theories in civil society: A framework for thinking about civil society. Retrieved 25 Dec 2002, from http://www.scholars.nus.edu.sg/resources/civilsoc/theory/theoryov.html
  31. Turmanidze, K. (2001). Models of governance in divided societies: The case of Georgian decentralization. Retrieved 3 Jan 2003, from http://www.policy.hu/turmanidze/propos/html
  32. Waterbury, J. (1999). Fortuitous byproducts. In L. Anderson (Eds.), Transitions to democracy (pp. 261–283). New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  33. Watters, P. A., Ball, P. J., & Carr, S. C. (1996). Social processes as dynamical processes: Qualitative dynamical systems theory in social psychology. Current Research In Social Psychology, 1. Retrieved 3 Jan 2003, from http://www.uiowa.edu/∼grpproc
  34. Zuern, E. K. (1999). Bibliographical essay. In L. Anderson (Eds.), Transitions to democracy (pp. 284–289). New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ARINA, Inc.BethelUSA

Personalised recommendations