A Ruling Elite or Plural Elite?

Date: 2015-10-07; view: 907.

Our discussion of elitism and democracy raises several vital questions: Is power in America concentrated in the hands of a small elite, with the masses permanently barred from exercising power'' Or is power in America diffused, with many separate elite groups exercising power from time to time? Can individuals move in and out of the ranks of decision makers, depending upon their activity and interest in public affairs? Or are the ranks of decision makers closed to all but the top corporate financial, military, and governmental leaders? Is there convergence at the "top" of the power structure in America, with a single group dominating decision making in industry, finance, foreign policy, military affairs, and domestic programs? Or are there separate elites in each area of decision making? Do elite members in America compete with each other over major questions of public policy, or do they share a consensus about the direction of public policy and disagree only on minor details? Can the masses, through elections and party competition, hold elites accountable for their policy decisions, or are elites free from mass influence?

Social scientists have differed over the answers to these questions; at least two separate varieties or models of elitism can be identified in social science literature concerned with the American political system. The ruling elite model views power as concentrated in the hands of relatively few people, usually drawn from the corporate, financial, military, and governmental circles, who make the key decisions in all significant areas of American life and who are subject to very little influence from the masses. In contrast, the plural elite model views power as more widely shared among leadership groups representingdifferent segments of society; these separate elites are competitive and are held responsible by the masses through elections, party competition, and interest groups.

Much of the rest of this volume is an examination of the relevance of these models for describing American politics; therefore, special note should be taken of the following outline, of the major ideas expressed in these ruling elite and plural elite models of power. The ruling elite model includes the following ideas:

1. Power stems from roles or positions within the socioeconomic system. People acquire power by virtue of occupying important positons in industrial, financial, military, or governmental institutions.

2. Power is "structured": that is, power relationships tend to persist over time. Issues and elections may come and go, but the same leadership groups continue to exercise power in society.

3. There is a reasonably clear distinction between elites and masses. Members of the masses can join the elite only by acquiring high positions in the institutional structures of society. Members of the masses do not move freely in and out of the ranks of elites.

4. The distinction between elite and mass is based primarily on control over the economic resources of society. Industrial and financial leaders compose a major part of the elite.

5. There is considerable convenience at the top of the political system, with a small group exercising influence in many sectors of American lite – industry, finance, military affairs, foreign policy, domestic affairs, and so on. A diagram of power in America takes the form of a single pyramid.

6. Persons in the elite disagree from time to time, but they share a larger consensus about preserving the system essentially as it is. Their views are conservative, and they act with great cohesion when the system is threatened.

7. The elite is subject to little or no influence, whether through elections or any other form of political activity.

In contrast, the plural elite model involves the following notions:

1. Power is an attribute of individuals in their relationships with other individuals in the process of decision making. Regardless of social or economic position, an individual has power to the extent that he can induce another individual to do something he would not otherwise do.

2. Power relationships do not necessarily persist over time. A set of power relationships that are formed for a particular decision may be replaced by a different set of power relations when the next decision is made.

3. The distinction between elites and masses may be quite blurred. Individuals move in and out of the ranks of decision makers with relative
ease, depending on the nature of the decision.

4. The distinction between elites and masses is based primarily on the level of interest people have in a particular decision. Leadership is fluid and mobile. Access to decision making can be achieved through the skills of leadership -organization, information about issues, knowledge about democratic processes, and skill in public relations. Wealth or economic power is an asset in politics, but it is only one of many kinds of assets.

5. There are multiple elites within society. Persons who exercise power in some kinds of decisions do not necessarily exercise power in other kinds of decisions. No single group dominates decision making in all issue areas.

6. There is considerable competition among elites. While elites generally share a basic commitment to the "rules of the game" in democratic society, they seek many divergent policies. Public policy represents bargains or compromises reached between competing groups.

7. The masses can exercise considerable influence over elites through elections and membership in organizations. Also, competition between elites enables the masses to hold elites accountable for their decisions.

These statements describe ideal or abstract models of power. It may be that power in America really falls somewhere between these ruling elite and plural elite models of power; that is, somewhere between a monolithic, pyramidal structure of power and a diffused, multi-centered, pluralist structure of power. Yet these ideal models can help us understand the different ways that power can be structured in a society. More importantly, they focus attention on vital aspects of politics – how people acquire power, the degree of access to elites, the relationship between political and economic power, the degree of convergence among power holders, the extent of competition among elites and the role of masses in shaping elite behavior.