![]() ![]() In the long run, then, the relative autonomy of the state helps maintain ruling class control by making the masses feel the state is impartial when in fact it is not (Thompson, 1975).Īs a way of understanding power in the United States and other democracies, pluralist and elite theories have much to offer, but neither type of theory presents a complete picture. Such relative autonomy, these theories say, helps ensure the legitimacy of the state, because if it always took the side of the rich it would look too biased and lose the support of the populace. Sometimes the government takes the side of the ruling class and corporate interests, but sometimes it opposes them. Other elite theories say the government is more autonomous-not as controlled by the ruling class-than Mills thought. Their control of corporations and other economic and political bodies helps maintain their inordinate influence over American life and politics. William Domhoff (2010) says that the ruling class is composed of the richest 0.5% to 1% of the population, who control more than half the nation’s wealth, sit on the boards of directors just mentioned, and are members of the same social clubs and other voluntary organizations. Several theories see the ruling class as composed mostly of the large corporations and wealthiest individuals and see government and the military serving the needs of the ruling class rather than being part of it, as Mills implied. They differ from Mills’s model in several ways, including their view of the composition of the ruling class. Mills’s power-elite model remains popular, but other elite theories exist. This circulation of the elites helps ensure their dominance over American life. Conversely, corporate executives often become cabinet members and other key political appointees. When cabinet members, senators, and top generals and other military officials retire, they often become corporate executives. ![]() Members of the power elite, Mills said, see each other socially and serve together on the boards of directors of corporations, charitable organizations, and other bodies. According to Mills, the power elite is composed of government, big business, and the military, which together constitute a ruling class that controls society and works for its own interests, not for the interests of the citizenry. Wright Mills (1956), who elaborated on some of Marx’s concepts. Perhaps the most famous elite theory is the power-elite theory of C. As should be clear, elite theories fall squarely within the conflict perspective as outlined in Chapter 1 “Sociology and the Sociological Perspective”. Far from being a neutral referee over competition among veto groups, the government is said to be controlled by economic elites or at least to cater to their needs and interests. According to these theories, power in democratic societies is concentrated in the hands of a few wealthy individuals and organizations-or economic elites-that exert inordinate influence on the government and can shape its decisions to benefit their own interests. Several elite theories dispute the pluralist model. Marx believed that conflict between groups struggling to either attain wealth and power or keep the wealth and power they had was inevitable in a capitalist society, and conflict was the only way for the underprivileged to eventually gain some measure of equality. Philosopher and social scientist Karl Marx was a seminal force in developing the conflict theory perspective he viewed social structure, rather than individual personality characteristics, as the cause of many social problems, such as poverty and crime. Third, the government’s supervision helps ensure that the outcome of the group competition benefits society as a whole.Ĭonflict theory focuses on the social inequalities and power difference within a group, analyzing society through this lens. Second, the competition among the veto groups means that all of these groups achieve their goals to at least some degree. ![]() First, it ensures that conflict among the groups is channeled within the political process instead of turning into outright hostility. The process of veto-group competition and its supervision by the government is functional for society, according to pluralist theory, for three reasons. Just as parents act as impartial arbiters when their children argue with each other, so does the government act as a neutral referee to ensure that the competition among veto groups is done fairly, that no group acquires undue influence, and that the needs and interests of the citizenry are kept in mind. Peoplesworld – Chicago Teachers Strike 014 – CC BY-NC 2.0.Īs this process unfolds, says pluralist theory, the government might be an active participant, but it is an impartial participant. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |