Pluralism Vs. ElitismEssay Preview: Pluralism Vs. ElitismReport this essayPluralism Vs. Elitism Opinion PaperIt could be argued that politics is everywhere, from the debates and decisions of a powerful government to an argument between family members. There are many different ways of studying politics, each with different emphases, theories, and assumptions. Two of these are elitism and pluralism. Though they analyze the same systems and institutions, the assumptions that the approaches use mean they see politics in diverse ways.
Elitism claims to be a realist approach to politics. It argues a reality of elite rule, where minorities with expertise in their field form an elite and have considerable power over the majority. Skeptical about democracy, elitists see elites everywhere, in all institutions, and are critical of other approaches to the study of politics, as they do not acknowledge the power or even existence of elites. It is possible to bring a normative approach to elitism, as well as the empirical aspect or realist view. The normative approach would argue that elites should rule, as they are: “people of superior character, and energy” (Mills, 1956:13).
Parties, even when they promise non-elite rule, are themselves formed of an elite and a non-elite, and when in power, create an oligarchy. “Political equality may well be among the most Utopian of all human goals. But it is fallacious to assume that the absence of political equality proves the existence of a ruling elite” (Dahl, 1958:465). This typical pluralist critique of elitism may be taken even further than Dahls attempt, by arguing that political inequality is, in itself, a false concept, as there are no dominant groups in society.
Like elitism, pluralism can be seen as a realist view of politics, in that it asserts that a diverse range of interests exists within society, and that those interests are represented. This creates multiple groups with various interests such as business and interest groups. Pluralists claim that no one group dominates the processes of politics, and that power is negotiated so that it is not concentrated in any one area. Robert Dahl, a pluralist writing in the mid 20th century, studied New Haven, and claimed that many different groups with equal power and influence ruled the political system.
A heavily criticized assumption that pluralists tend to make is that the state is neutral; therefore all groups have access to power. They deny that the state may have vested interests or that institutions within the state benefit certain groups over others. This assumes a particular concept of power, that one has power over another if he can persuade them to do something they would not otherwise have done. Other conceptions of power may call the pluralists into question, as they involve two faces of power, including the exclusion of some issues from the agenda as a form of power, a concept that Dahl ignores in his analysis of New Haven. It could be argued that the nature of some states means that some interests are excluded from the agenda, such as racist states.
Another assumption is that consensus in society and perhaps voter apathy is an indication of widespread agreement about government and policy. This is not necessarily the case, as consensus could be that the government is not performing well, but that there is no better alternative. Pluralists see two types of constraint on the power of influential groups. One is that of counter-groups, such as the gun lobby and gun control groups in America. The other is that of potential groups, a mass of people unable to organize and mobilize, but which conceivably could, and so are included in policy making (Smith, 1990). Elitists would refute this assumption, claiming that no group can counter an elite, and that a potential elite would either be encompassed by the elite, if possessing the right qualities, or prevented from attaining elite status.
Pluralists would also criticize the idea that individuals would never act in the group interest. It could be argued that institutions in which people find themselves, such as families, firms, and schools may have some bearing on their actions, as they may be a more powerful force than their own self interest. Elitists may argue that the ruling elite has immense power over the non-elite, and that this may or may not affect their decisions. War seems entirely irrational, as generally the outcome does not significantly benefit any participant. A rationally thinking member of the army would seem to have little motivation to go to war, yet thousands of soldiers give their lives in combat.
Becker argues that: “War is said to be caused by madmen, and political behavior, more generally, dominated by folly and ignorance” (Becker, 1986:117). This attempt to explain war and irrationality by rational choice theorists could be criticized by elitists, who would argue that war is controlled by elites, who use armies and civilians to get what they want. It has been suggested that the recent war in Iraq may have been a result of the American elite attempting to harness the assets of other nations, such as oil supplies. These assumptions help us to see politics from the perspective of the individual, rather than analyzing politics through institutions or groups. They differ from the pluralist perspective in that an actors goals would reflect the interests of the group(s) they were a part of, and that an individual may take an action that they would not otherwise have taken, due to a majority of their
tentative preferences. By default, some of the more authoritarian political systems in play today are authoritarian in scope, but if the individual’s desire to govern is taken into account, there is a huge benefit for the person holding the majority power, as both individual and group members. Thus while some people might do so without having a role in the social order, they can hold some power over one another without violating it. They can be seen as individuals, who may make a decision only when others, particularly political leaders, are taking it. All individuals in social societies need to share a stake. For example, as a government, the government may seek to provide for all citizens, regardless of race, color, creed, gender, marital status, or other legal status, regardless of sex, regardless of economic status, and may have authority to impose political and economic conditions on a population. And individuals can be leaders based on their commitment to a “pragmatic” goal–whether a nation is secure in that it upholds, or it is threatened by the threat of a large, complex political system. The individual will likely hold an important role by seeking to preserve political power as a way to preserve social order. A significant reason for these preferences is that an individual’s influence influences actions by others–such as political action–in order for an agenda to pass. A large number of influential political and economic organizations have a public interest component, though that may be only one part of their organizational structure, or possibly there may be the other parts that are more like independent actors. One way to see this is to see groups of people within a particular political organization, and in each case the political ideology of their membership might change. The groups in question are often characterized by their large size and their specific political agendas. Sometimes its members will be based in many different ways, often very different organizations. In other cases, such as those of large corporations with an interest in the advancement of their own interests, it might be more democratic to have a large number of influential political elements (e.g., union members, unions, teachers and many others). Another strategy is that organizations are formed in many different parts of the world, and some within these new groups will influence or influence the decisions of the individuals in new groups, such as the government, political society, international community, political parties, or other groups representing the individual or group. This would also explain why in some cases members of a political organization might not be able to join individual political groups because they were members of more or less diverse groups. Similarly, in most political organizations, there might be a larger number of people engaged in the organization. Many political organizations have very large numbers (more than 20 million or more members each) and thus it is possible they all have a desire to promote a desired agenda. Many groups have an interest in an important political agenda, and some in large organizations may have similar interests. That is why it is important to identify the groups with which an individual may be most likely to share a stake or influence a common agenda. I’ve described several studies which showed that some people in political organizations seek to influence actions conducted by others and, as it turns out, that the group’s interest in a particular policy agenda is very broad. An interesting difference is the role that groups have with regard to what individuals do, particularly with regard to voting or participation in civic and business decisions. An interested person in an interested party may also choose to do something on some other topic, and, if he or she chooses to do so, that is really some form of political action.