Power Essay Research Paper POWERThere are three

Power Essay, Research Paper

POWER

There are three primary frameworks pertaining to the subject of power: Consensus/Pluralism, Elitism, and Class. Through the course of this class, we have seen evidence that one or more of these frameworks have been at work for a very long time in both America and Latin America. These frameworks attempt to explain how and why power is distributed in society. They examine the ways in which we distribute power regarding to status measures including, but not limited to, money, job, material possession, family name, social association, and political association. These frameworks examine power in order to explain societal interaction at every level, focusing on highly visible interaction, but applicable nonetheless on all levels.

The level at which I will attempt to examine the distribution of power is my household. This setting is small, but an excellent chance to apply the aforementioned frameworks to personal experience, bringing home their ideas, and testing their value on the small levels not always considered in the class setting.

In order to examine the applicability of these frameworks, we must first have an understanding of what these frameworks assert. Following will be a concise look at each framework, highlighting the main points of each. Not completely exhaustive, this look will be an attempt to set up the case study of power to follow.

Consensus/Pluralism:

This framework is based in the belief that power is dispersed among many competing interest groups. The dispersion of power leads to compromise for the good of all. This is not a framework of communism, but rather that of shared values; an agreement on what is good. This is not a framework of complete compromise, looking out for everyone, ensuring that each is as privileged as another, but more of a realization that not one person or group can have complete control. Therefore we see a form of consensus, where each group s role is understood at some level of importance, but not at a level far above or below that of another. Pluralists do not recognize the existence of an integrated power elite. They believe in the competition between many powerful groups, none of which strong enough to monopolize power. Social pluralism refers to a society compromising diverse ethnic, religious, racial and other social groups.

Some Pluralists include Aristotle, S. M. Lipset, David Truman, and Robert Dahl. According to Lipset, Pluralism is manifested in American society by the stress, and consequential tension between equality and achievement. Truman asserts that everyone is part of groups, said groups having two types of power: 1) over it s members, leading to conformity, and 2) over other groups. The attempt to access limited resources by these groups creates competition, a tenet of Pluralism. In Politics, Aristotle eluded to a pluralist political community in which autonomy, decentralization, hierarchy, tradition, and locality are key characteristics. He also asserted that there are three ways to be ruled: 1) Monarchy Rule by one, 2) Aristocracy Rule by a few, and 3) Democracy Rule by many. Democracy, Aristotle argued, is effective and ideal because of the dispersing effect it has on power. When rule is allotted to competing groups, no group will be able to monopolize power in such a way that equality will not be possible.

Elitism:

This framework is based on the belief that power is concentrated in the hands of a few people or groups that make crucial decisions. Elitists deny the existence of ruled by one , or ruled by many scenarios, arguing that ruled by few is always the case. According to Elitists, society consists of the elite and the masses, the elite characterized by power and privilege, the masses by being ruled. In Elitists theory, there are three basic types of national elites. The first type is divided and competitive, characterized by ruthlessness, violence, and conflict within the elite. This type of elite is often found when society is divided along highly personal issues like religion and ethnicity (e.g., the former Yugoslavia). The second type is unified in purpose and policy, with common ideology, and structured to attain goals set by the elite (e.g., Nazi Germany). The third is competitive but unified, though not to the extent to which the second type is unified. There are many conflicting views, but extreme positions are avoided to avoid conflict over public policy (e.g., the United States).

Some Elitists are Max Weber and William Domhoff. Domhoff s work includes an extensive look at what he calls the small ruling class . Domhoff s ruling class is socially exclusive, comprised of powerful owners of large corporations and banks and political figures. Domhoff asserts that this ruling class has retained it s power by being socially cohesive, highly involved in the corporate world, and having policy influence. It remains socially cohesive by being part of a private education system, being members of socially exclusive clubs, through marriage, and through the work that they do. The ruling class has remained highly involved in the corporate world by interconnecting their corporations through banks, law firms, consulting firms, and by retaining the same values. An Inner Group of Boards of Directors is also important here, as individuals may connect corporations by sitting on multiple boards. The ruling clas