Harold D. Lasswell: Politics, Personality, and Decision-Making

1. Introduction: The “Leonardo” of Behavioral Science

Harold D. Lasswell (1902–1978) stands as one of the most creative and influential figures in the history of American political science. Often described as the “Leonardo da Vinci of the Behavioral Sciences,” Lasswell was a polymath who seamlessly blended political science with psychology, sociology, law, and communication studies.

He was a leading figure of the Chicago School of Political Science (along with Charles Merriam), which revolutionized the discipline in the 1920s and 30s. Before Lasswell, political science was dominated by the “Legal-Institutional” approach, studying the static rules of constitutions and parliaments. Lasswell rejected this focus on structures and instead turned the spotlight onto people—their motivations, their neuroses, and their pursuit of power.

The Core Shift

Lasswell shifted the central question of political theory from “What is the legal power of the State?” to a far more pragmatic and behavioral question: “Who gets what, when, and how?”

This shift had profound implications:

• From Institutions to Processes: Politics was no longer just about “government”; it was about the process of decision-making in society.
• From Norms to Behavior: He was less interested in whether a leader should be moral, and more interested in why a leader seeks power in the first place (often finding the answer in psychology).
• From Philosophy to Science: He pioneered the “Policy Sciences,” aiming to use scientific data to improve human dignity and democratic decision-making.

---

2. Politics as the Societal Decision-Making Process

Lasswell redefined the boundaries of political science. For him, politics was not limited to the Cabinet or the Legislature; it was a phenomenon found in every corner of society—from trade unions and business corporations to families and street gangs.

A. Politics as Influence

Lasswell defined politics as the study of influence and the influential.

• Influence: The capacity to make others act in ways they otherwise would not. It is the ability to manipulate the environment to achieve desired outcomes.
• The Influential: Those who have the most influence are the ones who succeed in acquiring the most distinct rewards society has to offer.

In this view, the “State” is just one mechanism among many for exercising influence. A wealthy industrialist or a charismatic religious leader might hold more actual influence over societal decisions than a weak prime minister.

B. The Distributive Nature of Politics (“Who Gets What”)

Lasswell’s most famous definition—“Politics is who gets what, when, and how”—frames politics as a distributive process.

Every society produces a finite amount of “values” (desirable things like safety, money, or honor). Because these values are scarce, there is conflict over them. Politics is the mechanism that resolves this conflict.

• The “Who”: The actors in the political drama (Elites vs. Masses).
• The “What”: The values being fought over (Power, Wealth, Respect, etc.).
• The “When & How”: The timing and methods used to secure these values (e.g., through violence, persuasion, elections, or bribery).

Thus, Lasswell viewed the political process as the “shaping and sharing of values.”

• Shaping: How values are produced (e.g., creating wealth through industry, creating power through armies).
• Sharing: How values are distributed (e.g., taxing the rich to feed the poor, or hoarding power in a dictatorship).

C. Decision-Making as the Central Act

If politics is a process, the fundamental unit of that process is the Decision.

A political act is, at its core, a decision-making act that affects the distribution of values.

• Lasswell argued that to understand a society, one must map out its “Decision Process.” Who participates in making the decisions? How are they enforced? Are they based on reason or impulse?
• This perspective laid the groundwork for modern Policy Analysis, which treats government actions not as “laws” but as “outputs” of a complex decision-making system involving information, lobbying, and execution.

---

3. The Psychological Basis: The “Political Man”

One of Lasswell’s most unique contributions was his integration of Freudian Psychoanalysis into political theory. He believed you could not understand the “Decision-Making Process” without understanding the “Decision-Maker.”

Why do people seek power? Why do they become politicians? Traditional theory said they wanted to “serve the public.” Lasswell offered a darker, more psychological explanation in his seminal work, Psychopathology and Politics (1930).

A. The Developmental Formula

Lasswell proposed a famous formula to explain the development of the “Political Man” (Homo Politicus):

$$p \} d \} r = P$$

1. $p$ (Private Motives):Every individual starts with private, often unconscious, psychological needs. These usually stem from childhood—feelings of inferiority, a need for attention, hatred of a strict father, or guilt. These are “ego-deficits.”
2. $d$ (Displacement):The individual displaces these private emotions onto public objects.
   • Example: A man who subconsciously hated his domineering father might grow up to hate the “Government” or the “King.” The private anger is shifted to a public target.
   • Example: A person who felt weak and bullied as a child might seek “Power” in adulthood to compensate for that feeling of inferiority.
3. $r$ (Rationalization):The individual rationalizes this displacement in terms of public interest.
   • The man doesn’t say, “I hate the King because he reminds me of my dad.” He says, “I hate the King because Monarchy is unjust and violates human rights.”
   • The power-seeker doesn’t say, “I want to be President to feel important.” He says, “I want to be President to make America great.”
4. $P$ (Political Man):The result is the Political Man—a person who projects private needs onto public policies.

B. Implications for Decision-Making

This theory was revolutionary because it suggested that political decisions are not always rational.

• A President might declare war not because of national security, but to satisfy a subconscious need for aggression.
• A revolutionary might burn down institutions not for justice, but to vent unresolved childhood rage.
• Lasswell’s Warning: To have a healthy democracy, we must have healthy decision-makers. He advocated for “Preventive Politics”—using psychology to identify and cure pathological leaders before they could damage society (a controversial idea known as the “politics of prevention”).

4. The “What” of Politics: Classification of Societal Values

If politics is defined as “Who gets What,” then a scientific theory of politics must rigorously define the “What.”

Lasswell argued that human behavior is goal-oriented. Individuals and groups strive to maximize their share of specific gratification or “values.” Unlike economists who focus solely on “Wealth” or “Utility,” Lasswell recognized that humans are complex and seek a variety of psychological and material rewards.

He classified all societal demands into eight distinctive base values. These are the currency of political conflict. He further divided them into two broad categories: Welfare Values and Deference Values.

A. Welfare Values (The Maintenance of Physical Activity)

These values are necessary for the physical survival, comfort, and development of the individual. They are “hard” values.

1. Well-being (Health and Safety):
   • Definition: The health and safety of the organism. It includes physical vitality and freedom from violence or disease.
   • Political Relevance: This is the most primal value. In a war or a famine, “Well-being” becomes the dominant political value. Laws regarding healthcare, assault, or environmental protection are decisions about the distribution of Well-being.
   • Elite: The “Strong” or “Healthy” (e.g., Warriors, Athletes).
2. Wealth (Economic Resources):
   • Definition: Control over economic resources, goods, and services. It is the command over consumption.
   • Political Relevance: This is the focus of classic struggles (Capitalism vs. Socialism). Taxation, subsidies, and property rights are mechanisms to shape and share Wealth.
   • Elite: The “Rich” (e.g., Industrialists, Bankers).
3. Skill (Proficiency):
   • Definition: Proficiency in the execution of tasks (physical or mental). It is the opportunity to acquire and exercise professional or artistic talents.
   • Political Relevance: A society distributes “Skill” through its education system. Denying a specific caste or race access to vocational training is a political act of denying them “Skill.”
   • Elite: The “Specialists” (e.g., Technocrats, Bureaucrats, Artisans).
4. Enlightenment (Knowledge):
   • Definition: Knowledge, information, and insight into the world. It is the opposite of ignorance.
   • Political Relevance: Control over information is a key political battleground. Censorship restricts Enlightenment; freedom of the press distributes it.
   • Elite: The “Intellectuals” (e.g., Scientists, Journalists, Researchers).

B. Deference Values (The Psychological/Status Needs)

These values are related to the “self” and how one is viewed by others. They are “soft” or symbolic values, but often drive the fiercest political conflicts.

5. Power (Decision-Making):
   • Definition: Participation in the making of significant decisions. It is the ability to determine the behavior of others.
   • Political Relevance: This is the “master value” in political science. Revolutions are often fought because a group feels excluded from Power (disenfranchised).
   • Elite: The “Officials” (e.g., Politicians, Kings, Party Leaders).
6. Respect (Status/Prestige):
   • Definition: The value of status, honor, and recognition. It involves not being discriminated against.
   • Political Relevance: Civil rights movements are often struggles for Respect rather than just Wealth. Issues of dignity, caste, and race fall here.
   • Elite: The “Nobility” or “Celebrities.”
7. Rectitude (Moral Standing):
   • Definition: Moral standing, ethical standards, and the sense of virtue.
   • Political Relevance: Religious conflicts or debates over “family values” are struggles over Rectitude. A theocracy is a system where the “Righteous” rule.
   • Elite: The “Righteous” (e.g., Priests, Moral Leaders).
8. Affection (Loyalty/Love):
   • Definition: Love, friendship, and loyalty in interpersonal relations.
   • Political Relevance: While often private, Affection becomes political in the form of Patriotism (love for country) or Nationalism. Leaders use Affection to mobilize followers.
   • Elite: The “Beloved” (e.g., Charismatic Leaders, National Heroes).

---

5. The “Who” of Politics: The Theory of Elites

Lasswell’s decision-making theory is inherently elitist—not in the sense of supporting elites, but in observing that inequality is inevitable.

A. Defining the Elite

Lasswell started with a simple observation: Values are scarce. Not everyone can have equal Wealth, Power, or Respect. Therefore, in every society, a hierarchy emerges.

• The Elite: “The influential are those who get the most of what there is to get.”
• The Mass: The rest of the population who get the least.
• The Mid-Elite: Those with a moderate amount of values (the middle class).

B. Types of Elites (Agglutination)

Lasswell rejected the Marxist view that the “Economic Class” (Bourgeoisie) is the only ruling elite. He argued that elites can form around any of the eight values.

• A society ruled by the Wealth Elite is a Plutocracy.
• A society ruled by the Skill Elite is a Technocracy.
• A society ruled by the Rectitude Elite is a Theocracy.
• A society ruled by the Power Elite is a Bureaucracy/Tyranny.

Agglutination of Values: Lasswell observed a phenomenon called Agglutination. If a group secures one value (e.g., Wealth), they tend to use it to acquire others (e.g., buying Power or Respect). Thus, elites tend to become cohesive because they eventually monopolize multiple values.

C. The Circulation of Elites

Societies are not static. The “Decision-Making Process” is a constant struggle between the Established Elite (who want to keep their values) and the Counter-Elite (who want to take them).

• Social Change: Change happens when the Counter-Elite successfully challenges the Established Elite.
• Revolution: A revolution is simply a rapid, violent change in the composition of the elite class (e.g., the Bourgeoisie replacing the Feudal Lords).
• The Fallacy of Democracy: Lasswell cynically noted, “Government is always government by the few, whether in the name of the few, the one, or the many.” Even in a democracy, the “Masses” do not rule; they simply choose which “Elite” will rule them.

6. The Functional Analysis: The Seven Stages of Decision-Making

While Lasswell’s theory of Elites and Values explains the structure of politics (who and what), his theory of the Decision Process explains the function (how).

Lasswell argued that every society—whether it is a tribe, a democracy, or a dictatorship—must perform seven specific functions to make and enforce decisions. If any of these functions fail, the political system collapses. This framework became the standard model for Public Policy Analysis.

1. Intelligence (Information Gathering)

• Definition: The gathering, processing, and dissemination of information relevant to decision-making. It involves scanning the environment for problems and opportunities.
• Function: Before a decision can be made, elites need data. This function answers: What is the problem? What are the facts?
• Actors: Intelligence agencies, research institutes, mass media, statistical bureaus, and spies.
• Example: A government report on rising unemployment rates or a climate change study warning of future disasters.

2. Recommendation (Promotion)

• Definition: The promotion of specific policy alternatives. Once the intelligence is gathered, different groups propose different solutions.
• Function: This is the stage of advocacy and lobbying. It answers: What should we do about the problem?
• Actors: Political parties, pressure groups, lobbyists, and activists.
• Example: The Opposition party demanding a tax cut to solve unemployment, while unions demand higher wages.

3. Prescription (Law-Making)

• Definition: The enactment of general rules. This is the stage where a specific policy option is selected and made binding.
• Function: This creates the “law” or the “norm.” It establishes the authority behind the decision.
• Actors: Legislatures (Parliaments), Dictators, or City Councils.
• Example: Parliament passing the “Employment Guarantee Act.”

4. Invocation (Provisional Application)

• Definition: The provisional characterization of behavior as conforming or deviating from the rule.
• Function: This is the “trigger” stage. It is when the law is cited against a specific person or situation.
• Actors: Police officers, inspectors, and prosecutors.
• Example: A labor inspector issuing a notice to a factory for violating the Employment Act.

5. Application (Enforcement)

• Definition: The final characterization of conduct and the use of sanctions (rewards or punishments).
• Function: This is the actual administration or adjudication of the law. It turns the “words” of the law into “reality.”
• Actors: Courts (Judges) and the Bureaucracy (Civil Servants).
• Example: A court fining the factory owner, or the government releasing funds to pay unemployed workers.

6. Termination (Ending)

• Definition: The ending of a prescription. No policy lasts forever; eventually, rules become obsolete and must be canceled.
• Function: To clear the way for new policies.
• Actors: Legislatures (repealing acts) or Courts (striking down unconstitutional laws).
• Example: The government ending a “State of Emergency” or repealing an old tax law.

7. Appraisal (Evaluation)

• Definition: The assessment of the success or failure of the policy.
• Function: To answer: Did the policy work? Did we achieve our values? This feedback loop leads back to “Intelligence” for the next cycle.
• Actors: Parliamentary committees, auditors, election voters, and independent commissions.
• Example: An audit report showing that the Employment Act failed to reduce poverty, leading to a demand for new policies.

---

7. The Vision of “Policy Sciences”

Lasswell was not content with just describing politics; he wanted to improve it. This led him to propose a new discipline called the Policy Sciences.

A. Knowledge OF and Knowledge IN

Lasswell distinguished between two types of knowledge necessary for democracy:

1. Knowledge OF the Decision Process: Understanding how government works (Political Science).
2. Knowledge IN the Decision Process: Using technical data (economics, psychology, science) to make better decisions.

B. The Goal: Human Dignity

Lasswell argued that the ultimate goal of the Policy Sciences should be the realization of human dignity.

• In a democracy, the decision-making process should be designed to maximize the widest possible sharing of values.
• Science should not be used to manipulate people (as in Nazism) but to help them make rational choices that improve their well-being.

---

8. Critical Evaluation

A. Strengths (The Legacy)

1. Interdisciplinary Approach: Lasswell broke the walls of political science. By bringing in Freud (Psychology) and Sociology, he created a far more realistic picture of human behavior than the legal scholars before him.
2. Realism: He stripped away the myths of “democracy” and “public service” to reveal the raw reality of Elites and Self-Interest. His questions (“Who gets what?”) remain the starting point for any realistic political analysis.
3. Framework for Analysis: His 7-Stage Decision Model is still used today in Public Administration to track how laws are made and implemented.

B. Weaknesses (The Critique)

1. Elitism: Critics argue Lasswell was too cynical. By assuming that “government is always by the few,” he downplayed the power of mass movements and democratic participation. He viewed the masses as passive subjects of elite manipulation.
2. Psychological Reductionism: By focusing so heavily on the subconscious and “neuroses” of leaders, he sometimes ignored the structural and economic causes of politics. Not every war is caused by a leader’s “Daddy issues”; some are caused by genuine economic conflicts.
3. Technocracy: His vision of “Policy Sciences”—where experts use data to guide society—risks creating a Technocracy, where unelected scientists rule over the people, bypassing democratic will.

---

9. Conclusion: The Master of Modern Theory

Harold D. Lasswell modernized the study of politics by asking the uncomfortable questions.

• He moved us from studying Constitutions to studying Psychology.
• He moved us from studying Institutions to studying Influence.
• He gave us the vocabulary of modern politics: Elites, Values, and Decision-Making.

His theory teaches us that politics is not just a set of laws; it is a dynamic, psychological, and often ruthless struggle over the scarce values of life. To understand politics, one must follow the values—Who gets them, When do they get them, and How.