Elites (from latin word “ eligere”- means ideal, the best ) defined as persons who are able to affect political outcomes regularly and substantially. Elites derive from a fundamental and universal fact of social life. The term Elite refers to those who excel The satisfactions some of their members seek are only partly compatible with the satisfactions sought by other members. Members constantly claim statuses and other valued goods for themselves, their kin, friends, and allies that other members do not accept as fully legitimate. In large collectivities common interest is enough minimal and must always be elaborated by authoritative decisions that dissenters and opponents dare not or find it inexpedient to resist.
The Elite theory was develop by two Italian sociologists- Vilfredo Pareto and Gaetano Mosca[1]. Elite theory refused the Marxian[2] idea that a classless society having an egalitarian structure could be realized after class struggle in every society. It regards Marxism as an ideology rather than an objective analysis of social systems. According to Elite theory man can never be liberated from the subjugation of an elite structure.
The classical elite theorists identify the governing elite in terms of higher personal qualities of those who perform power. Later versions of elite theory places less emphasis on the personal qualities of the powerful and more on the institutional framework of the society. The classical elite theorists Vilfredo Pareto and Gaetano Mosca argued that whereas liberal and socialist analyses of societies were ideological and therefore based upon faith and belief rather than the scientific collection and analysis of empirical data, they themselves had discovered the fundamental scientific law that all societies, even those which appear to be democratic are ruled by small political elites which therefore rule over the "masses" in societies. Pareto distinguished between a small political elite which ruled over society as a result of its superior personal qualities and/or superior organizational skills and the mass of society which was made up of large numbers of unintelligent , irrational, apathetic and poorly organized individuals who could be easily manipulated by political propaganda carefully used by the political elite.
The Power Elite
The capitalist class is not supplanted by a "managerial revolution," the elite's structure is still most profoundly affected by the corporate revolution. The plutocracy ceased to be a social "class" in the sense described by Marx: an autonomous social formation or amorphous mass of wealthy families, perpetuated largely through family lines of transmission and informal social ties, with its organizational links of firm ownership clearly secondary to its existence in the "social" realm. The plutocracy were no longer just a few hundred rich families who happened to invest their old money in one firm or another. Rather, Mills[3] described it as "the managerial reorganization of the propertied classes into the more or less unified stratum of the corporate rich."Rather than an amorphous collection of wealthy families, in which legal claims to an income from property were the defining characteristic, the ruling class came to be defined by the organizational structure through which it gained its wealth. It was because of this new importance of the institutional forms of the power structure that Mills preferred the term "power elite" to "ruling class": "'Class' is an economic term; 'rule' a political one. The phrase, 'ruling class,' thus contains the theory that an economic class rules politically.
In his analysis of American society in the 1950's, Mills identified three major institutions (or "power blocs") within the State that he considered to be of primary significance in terms of the potential for wielding power in society:
a. Major Corporations.
b. The Military.
c. Federal Government.
Each of these institutions formed a power bloc in its own right (since each has a set of specific interests) and each was dominated by an internal elite (the leaders of the most-powerful corporations, the upper echelons of the armed forces, the leaders of the political party in government). Although such elites were powerful in their own right, in any society there exists a necessary degree of overlap and co-operation between these power blocs:
1. The Military requires political co-operation (identification of legitimate enemies, for example) and economic co-operation.
2. Major Corporations require co-operation from government, defence contracts etc.
3. Federal government requires the support of the Military, a strong corporate sphere and so forth.
Mills argued that the degree of necessary co-operation between elites within these power blocs effectively meant that they formed a "power elite" within society. Their overlapping general interests meant that, whilst they may have differing specific interests, these are subjugated to the wider interest of maintaining elite status, power and rule. The social cohesiveness of the power elite was seen to be strengthened by such things as:
a. The centralization and concentration of economic power amongst a minority of powerful groups / individuals.
b. The centralization and concentration of political power amongst a minority of powerful groups / individuals.
c. The shared social backgrounds (and hence values) of the members of each elite. Power and Politics
The members of different elites frequently inter-changed, such that certain powerful individuals could be members of more than one elite at any given time (for example, military leaders could take-up political appointments, become directors of major corporations. Major business leaders could take-up political appointments in government and politicians could sit on the boards of major corporations).
In this respect, political power becomes increasing concentrated and enormous political decisions (about investment, whether or not to go to war, civil rights and so forth) were effectively taken by a small elite minority. In this respect, politics declined into a manipulation of debate - Mills characterized it as a necessary exercise where political choice is limited because political parties who wanted power could only achieve it on the basis of co-operation from economic and military elites.
Domhoff[4], who retained more of the traditional Marxist idea of class than did Mill, described the situation in this way: The upper class as a whole does not do the ruling. Instead, class rule is manifested through the activities of a wide variety of organizations and institutions. These organizations and institutions are financed and directed by those members of the upper class who have the interest and ability to involve themselves in protecting and enhancing the privileged social position of their class. Leaders within the upper class join with high-level employees in the organizations they control to make up what will be called the power elite. This power elite is the leadership group of the upper class as a whole, but it is not the same thing as the upper class, for not all members of the upper class are members of the power elite and not all members of the power elite are part of the upper class. It is members of the power elite who take part in the processes that maintain the class structure.
The power elite theory of Mills and Domhoff had been anticipated, in many ways, by Bukharin. He wrote, in language that prefigured Mills, of intersecting corporate and state elites:With the growth of the importance of state power, its inner structure also changes. The state becomes more than ever before an "executive committee of the ruling classes." It is true that state power always reflected the interests of the "upper strata," but inasmuch as the top layer itself was a more or less amorphous mass, the organized state apparatus faced an unorganized class (or classes) whose interests it embodied. Matters are totally different now. The state apparatus not only embodies the interests of the ruling classes in general, but also their collectively expressed will. It faces no more atomized members of the ruling classes, but their organizations. Thus the government is de facto transformed into a "committee" elected by the representatives of entrepreneurs' organizations, and it becomes the highest guiding force of the state capitalist trust.
Community Power and Pluralism
Floyd Hunter's [5] theory- “Community Power’[6]’. In the last generation, most studies of community power have drawn inspiration from one of four main traditions. Power is shared by a small and fairly cohesive group of elites -- most of whom bridged the worlds of business and city government. Consistently the same people were proposed by each respondent, indicating that reputation alone might be a good indicator of power. If you think someone has power, they must! Of course, the survey was blasted as “worthless” by quantitatively-savvy scholars and a crop of young behaviorists entering the field. But Hunter as well as Meyer and Rowan share something in common with Isaac. One, that reputation and ritual alone can explain aspects of a concept. Observing power and perceiving power might be two different things, but both can have similar and lasting effects. Two, getting bogged down in defining something may not be as important as understanding the structure in which the concept exists. Meyer and Rowan offered no procedural definition for what a legitimate organization was, other than to indicate that legitimate organizations endured and illegitimate organizations failed. Hunter was not interested in defining power as much as he was interested in the hierarchical structure the respondents created. Hunter’s model was based on the method of reputational analysis, which involved an iterative series of panels and polls, in which people were asked to identify the most influential people in the city. Hunter then conducted interviews with many of these influential leaders, and studied their social, professional, and corporate ties.
Pluralism is the theory that a multitude of groups, not the people as a whole, govern the States. These organizations, which include among others unions, trade and professional associations, environmentalists, civil rights activists, business and financial lobbies, and formal and informal coalitions of like-minded citizens, influence the making and administration of laws and policy. Since the participants in this process constitute only a tiny fraction of the populace, the public acts mainly as bystanders.
Indeed, some pluralists believe that direct democracy is not only unworkable; it is not even necessarily desirable. Besides the logistical problems of having every citizen meet at one time to decide policies, political issues require continuous and expert attention, which the average citizen does not have. Robert Dahl, a noted pluralist, suggested in one of his early writings that in societies like ours "politics is a sideshow in the great circus of life." Most people, he explained, concentrate their time and energies on activities involving work, family, health, friendship, recreation, and the like. Other pluralists go further. They worry that the common person lacks the virtues--reason, intelligence, patience--for self-government and that direct democracy leads to anarchy and the loss of freedom.
Pluralists led by Robert Dahl[7] have challenged the main elitist contention that a society is marked by the existence of a single centre of political power. They argued that in a society there are multiple centers of political power none of which are completely sovereign. The decision making maybe done by few but then this decision making cannot be understood except within the context of a continuous bargaining process among the elites and also of a general consensus established only through the mass approval which is hard to secure.
Dahl's pluralist model has been subjected to severe criticisms. Firstly the model wrongly locates power in concrete decisions or in activities having direct bearing on decision making. He ignores the fact that power is also exercised in creating and reinforcing social and political values and institutional practices that limit the scope of the political process to public consideration of only those issues that are comparatively harmless to the interest of the powerful. Thus the powerful groups may never let these issues which affect their vital interests come to the stage of public decision making. Thus Dahl's model fails to differentiate the unimportant issues arising in the political arena.
Conclusion
Elite theories: general principles
1. All societies throughout history contain a small political elite which rules and the large remaining mass of the population which is ruled.
2. Elite theorists claim that all liberal and socialist analyses of societies were ideological and based upon faith or belief rather than scientific and based upon the collection and analysis of relevant evidence. Liberals and socialists might like to believe in the advantages of liberal representative government or egalitarian socialism but they had done absolutely nothing to prove scientifically that such advantages actually existed or might exist in the future.
3. Instead the elite theorists claimed that they alone had developed theories which were based not on ideology but upon the social scientific analysis of past and present societies which enabled them to state with certainty the social scientific law that all societies, even those which appear to be democratic are actually ruled by a small political elite.
4. Political elite might establish its dominance through wealth but also through military force, religious leadership, bureaucratic position or superior personal qualities. The importance of personal qualities tended to be emphasized more by Pareto than by Mosca.
5. One in power the political elite could retain its power by means of superior organizational skills available to small groups which would enable it easily to prevent the masses from gaining political power.
6. However human history could be seen as an ongoing process involving the so-called circulation of elites whereby one elite gradually replaced another.
7. Both Pareto and Mosca criticized strongly Marxist theories for their general non- scientificity and for their misguided understanding of the working class. According to Pareto and Mosca the working class lacked the interest, initiative and organization to promote socialist revolution and any alleged future socialist revolution would necessarily be organized by a new socialist elite which, if successful would rule in its own interests rather than in the interests of the working class which it disingenuously claimed to represent. Real socialism was impossible: elite rule was inevitable.
Bibliography
· Albertoni, Ettore A. Mosca and the Theory of Elitism (Oxford, 1987)
· Andrew Gavin Marshall, Global War and Dying Democracy: The Revolution of the Elites
Global Power and Global Government: Global Research, August 19, 2009
· Bobbio, Norberto. On Mosca and Pareto (Geneva, 1972)
· Dahl, Robert. “The Dilemma of Pluralist Democracy”, in Etzioni-Halevy
· Dahl, Robert A. Who Governs? Democracy and Power in an American City, New Haven, CT.: Yale University Press, 1961
· Dahl, Robert A. Democracy and its Critics, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1989
· Floyd Hunter, Community Power Structure: A Study of Decision Makers, May 1, 1969
· H. T. Reynolds, Ph. D. 1996 Pluralism
· Mills C. W., Gerth H. The Character and Social Structure. N. Y.: Harcourt, Brace & World Inc., 1953
· Mills, C. W. The Power Elite, Oxford Press, 1956
· John Higley .Elite Theory in Political Sociology, , University of Texas at Austin
· Mosca, Gaetano. “The ruling class in representative democracy”, in Etzioni-Halevy,
· Pareto, Vilfredo. “The governing elite in present-day democracy”, in Etzioni-Halevy, (1997), Classes and Elites in Democracy and Democratization, Garland Publishing Inc., New York and London,
· Pareto and Mosca, ed. James H. Meisel ((New York: Prentice-Hall, 1965)
· The Rise and Fall of the Elites: An Application of Theoretical Sociology, by Vilfredo Pareto
[1] The Classical Elite Theorists: Pareto, The Rise and Fall of the Elites, (New Jersey, 1968). Mosca. The Ruling Class, (New York, 1939).
[2] Marxism is an economic and social system based upon the political and economic theories of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. While it would take veritably volumes to explain the full implications and ramifications of the Marxist social and economic ideology, Marxism is summed up in the Encarta Reference Library as “a theory in which class struggle is a central element in the analysis of social change in Western societies.”
[3] Charles Wright Mills was an American sociologist, and a professor of sociology at Columbia University
[4] George William Domhoff is a research professor in psychology and sociology at the University of California, Santa Cruz.
[5] Floyd Hunter (1953). Community Power Structure: A Study of Decision Makers. Chapel Hill: University of
North Carolina Press. In his closing chapter, after assessing the “structural hierarchy of command and decision,” (p. 246) by a small and powerful elite, Hunter reflected on the implications for broader community participation.
“Regardless of ideology, power is a necessity in modern community relations. No utopia will disband all power
relations. Some men will rule, others will be ruled. The crucial question perhaps is, “How can policy be determined so that it takes into account the interests of the largest number of people?” (p. 248). In venturing answers to this question, Hunter offers a penetrating analysis of the tensions between existing political channels and proposed, neighborhood populist alliances that, it was hoped, could offer a coherent alternative. See Hunter’s discussion of Saul Alinsky’s arguments on this point, pp. 253-255.
[6] The book should be of particular value to sociologists, political scientists, city-planning executives, Community Council members, social workers, teachers, and research workers in related fields. As a vigorous and readable presentation of facts, it should appeal to the reader who would like to know how his/her own community is run."Community Power Structure" is not an expos . It is a description and discussion of a social phenomenon as it occurred. It is based on sound field research, including personal observation and interviews by the author.
[7] Robert A(lan) Dahl, (born Dec. 17, 1915, Inwood, Iowa, U.S.), U.S. political scientist and educator. He obtained a Ph.D. from Yale University, where he taught for 40 years (1946–86). He has written more than 20 books, including Who Governs? (1961), Dilemmas of Pluralist Democracy(1982), and How Democratic Is the American Constitution? (2001). A leading theorist of pluralism, he stressed the role in politics played by associations, groups, and organizations.
Ketevan Krialashvili
CEO
EPEC
No comments:
Post a Comment