Political Culture
in Three Spheres
c. 711 – c. 1453
Defining topic, themes and rationale |
‘Political culture’
encompasses both the ideology and the practice of ‘hegemonial’ groups. It involves
the self-definition (expressed verbally, visually or symbolically), and the
actual practices, customs, and working assumptions of groups of individuals
aspiring to large-scale, long-term hegemony, be it internally (within a given
community) or externally (against its neighbours or rivals).
‘Political culture’ results from individual
actors trying to define and achieve their goals within an agreed set of values,
expectations and rules of behaviour. Those rising to or inheriting prominence
in this arena make up the political elite of any given society, as do
non-players of high birth, substantial means or other forms of leverage who
retain the capacity to intervene or obstruct. These elites, furthermore, often
sought to transcend and regulate local communities, affiliations and regions;
they invoked universal values in vindication of their use of force, role as
arbitrator, and exaction of resources. Empires, overseeing a wide variety of
regions, local elites and interests, are prime candidates for a study of this
kind of political culture. But so are smaller polities governing heterogeneous
regions, including kingdoms, principalities, bishoprics, city-states,
despotates, governorships, emirates, sultanates,….
The political cultures of such entities were
often informed partly by their historical genesis and by the earlier stages of
their ascendancy; by their application of force and by their adaptation to
changing circumstances over time. Their internal workings – justice,
administration, tax-collecting, etc – are obviously relevant, as are the
identity, weighting and interplay of political ‘players’, but these ought to be
viewed alongside the question of how a ruling elite explained and justified its
ascendancy, and of how their subjects, peers and rivals responded to these
claims. In addition, attention ought to be given to the ‘branding’ of a polity
by its rulers and by others (including outsiders): political cultures often
define themselves in apposition to other political cultures, deemed either superior
and advanced, or heterodox and deviant. The dynamics of the interplay between
all these elements, the penumbra thrown up by a specific polity’s,
institution’s or movement’s kudos, is the essence of what, in the present
context, is meant by political culture. Concrete features include, for example,
endemic tensions and essential religious co-ordinates; ideology and propaganda;
dynamics of political power and the interaction between public authority and
loci of real power; etc.
Our aim is to commence filling a gap in the
historiography and to identify long-term trends, mechanisms and processes in
the interplay between the political cultures of
Catherine Holmes Jonathan Shepard
Jo van Steenbergen Björn Weiler