The Argument Of Elitism Vs. Pluralism

Pluralist theory views politics and decision making as a competitive phenomenon where different groups and individuals have different views and that there is no single elite group that exercises influence (Davis & Go, 2009). The theory holds that power is relatively broadly distributed among different interest groups. These groups hold different views of the same aspect and compete with each other for

If the decision-maker were to upset the masses or disrupt their lives, then the masses could retalitiate and to the elites that could mean the lose of votes and resources, “Whoever departs from these acceptable strategies incurs a high risk of defeat, for the resources that will be mounted against the political deviant are almost certain to be vastly greater than the resources the political deviant can himself muster,” (226). Even though New Haven was slowly moving into pluralism, the daily decisions still had to be made by a select few. So, while the masses governed over the type of decisions that were made, who carried out these decisions on the day-to-day

one other way must be looked at for society, for him it’s the conflict theory. His theory emphasises that change is continuous in society. He believes social conflict makes change, as where there’s social life there is conflict. He also states that some groups in society coerce whereas others are coerced. Dahrendorf states that change, conflict, and constraint are the main concepts in the conflict model.

Originally distributed in 1956, The Power Elite is considered a present day classic of social science and social criticism. Mill’s book broke new ground in light of the fact that there were only a handful of studies with a class-struggling point of view in America, which caused it to be criticized by Marxists as well as, liberals. C.W. Peter Dreier adds, “…The Power Elite…challenged the predominant view that America was a classless society…” In contrast, Mills described the power structure as three interwoven prongs of power: the military, corporate, and political elite. Mills contended that the crucial choices representing individual’s lives in our general public are made and controlled by a power elite. He depicts this elite as made out

Elitism is the belief or philosophy that a particular group of persons with exceptional abilities, specialized training or experience, wealth, or other unique characteristics, are the people whose interpretations on different matters are to be taken most seriously. More simply, some believe these people are best fit to administer or whose understandings or actions are mostly likely to be beneficial and profitable. Otherwise, the term elitism could be used to pronounce a condition in which power is in fact focused in the hands of an elite, whether rightly or wrong.

“The Power Elite” by C. Wright Mills is a prime example of sociological work in that Mills analyzes the societal precedents which determine prestige and wealth within the United States. “The Power Elite” is a timeless work in that it was published in 1956, but in 2016, it is a reliable source in analyzing the “Power Elite” circle of the United States, which has our entire country in the palm of their wealthy hands. Mills had to complete proper research in order to analyze the “Power Elite” and that shows that a sociologists cannot simply write what they think of society or how they think it works. One must have substantial and sufficient evidence by

Jackson and Rosberg state that “the image of the ‘big man’ (a powerful leader) is deeply embedded in the political culture and politics is often a vertical network of personal, patron-client relations (422).” This is quite different in comparison to our political network. In most Western societies, the government is made up of a horizontal network wherein branches of government have some type of check and balance system to keep the other branches from growing too powerful. In the vertical network, the ‘big man’ can gain the loyalty of lower officials – whether in the military or local rulers – and they can, in turn, gain the loyalty of people below them. The ‘big man’ can do this until over and over until he has enough power to maintain

Rich families are able to send their children to private schools that will provide them with the available resources to become successful and continue their ancestral past of elitism. The majority of society is unable to afford a private education. Therefore, attending a school that will develop future leaders becomes an exclusive privilege of the upper-class. The direct correlation between the wealth and political influence proves the presence of elitism to be inevitable. Plato’s “The Republic” has made a significant impact on the responsibilities and principle behind governing through an elite group. His contributions to the advancement of elitism proved a combination of both nature and nurture are necessary to the selection of an individual in charge of the well-being of both past and modern

For centuries, the human population has progressed through the establishment of civilizations; some of the most advanced and notable ancient civilizations thrived on the foundation of a political or social hierarchy, in which a particular group held more power than the other. In Mesopotamia, for example, the king, who was at the top of the ladder, declared laws while slaves worked for the wealthier class. Even today, this hierarchical trend persists; in the United States, members of the judicial, executive, or legislative branch have more influence in politics than ordinary citizens. Within every republic, democracy, monarchy, etc. there will always be a person or group that contains more power than the majority of its citizens. Power can be

Nonetheless, citizens influence legislators actions to the extent that legislators decisions reflect in some way citizens preference or potential preferences. Also, Arnold argues that congressmen have to choose between the opinion of experts, generalist, and ordinary citizens, he writes “ ordinary citizens acquire their view of cause and effect more haphazardly, and with little attempt at specialization..more frequently citizens’ views reflect their own life experiences…” (Arnold, 21 & 22) In other words, experts specialize in small aspects of political world, ordinary citizens tend to attain their knowledge through media and talk amongst friends and family as well as life experiences and generalist are in between the experts and ordinary citizens. Legislator then have to choose who they want their policy to benefit, what tends to happen is that experts specialize in something and have the best knowledge but congressmen tend to benefit the ordinary citizen, even if their notions are incorrect, because they put them in office and they are who keep them

Luke’s one-dimensional view of power is centred on this concept and in order to develop understanding as to how power is achieved and maintained within society, an analyses of decision-making in the public arena must be made. It also contests that the group that holds and maintains power can be determined by looking at who succeeds when there is political conflict. (Lukes, 1974:12) It emphasises the importance of the observed behaviour of those in power and analyses the effects on the wider community when making decisions (Lukes 1974:25) Lukes spends a lot of time discussing Dahl’s theory of power through his own theory. The power held by a specific group may be either, ‘overt’ or ‘covert’ but the triumph of power is at the point is during the decision-making process and when these decision have been made, especially, those of the controversial nature of ones centred around the most conflict (Lukes, 1974:13) The one dimensional view of power proposed by Lukes is the most straightforward of the three dimensions. In a way, it is also the easiest to observe, as the power structure through decision-making is more translucent and has a lot of clear definable features.

Among the three theories of pluralism, elitism, and hyper-virtualism, In my opinion, the theory of elitism and super-pluralism are both fit the reality in the U.S., but the description of these two theories is not completely cover all the situations. Elite theory is consistent with reality, and the interest groups usually represent the interests of a few elites. Through political donations and lobbying, they influence government policies and allow interest groups to gain more. However, in the Internet age, the elite group can affect the government, but can not control more of the operation of society. Many people and vulnerable groups can use the power of the network affect the government's decision-making such as a number of environmental

Only a few selected students could have occupied the front seats. In a concert or seminar, the front seats belong to the VIPs who have the capital to pay a higher price for a better position. These privileges represent the markers for what constitutes an elite. According to Dr. Tan Ern Ser, author of the book “Does Class Matter (2004)” and “Class and Social Orientations (2015)”, “Elites are few in numbers, and located at the apex of society”. The distinction between elites and elitism lies in one’s attitude. Dr. Tan explained: “Elitism suggests being snobbish and out of touch with the masses. By definition, there will always be one or more elite groups in society. As for elitism, this can be an attitude characteristic of a large group of people,

One can define polity as the structure that includes actors and institutions that are organized within a hierarchical order. This hierarchical order is organized vertically and horizontally, and this organization shapes the interaction between these actors and institutions on the one hand, and with other structures within the larger society on the other hand. These actors and institutions work together within a clearly established system, towards maintaining the status quo, and the interest of the elite (economic, political, and cultural elite). The different units of polity (actors, bureaucracies, and institutions) work together within an established culture that is enforced by the authority and power of the state,

First, I will begin by further analysing both the integrative approach and the isolationist approach to pluralism. I would refute Mitchell’s integrative pluralism by arguing that integration is not always a necessary condition of “satisfactory explanations [being] generated” (Mitchell 2006: 78). By integrating the various explanations of social phenomena - like holism, individualism, structuralism, as well as many