CONTENT
Introduction 3
POWER 3
How is political power distributed
among members of society? 3
TYPES
OF AUTHORITY 4
Traditional Authority 4
Legal-Rational Authority 4
Charismatic Authority 5
TYPES
OF GOVERNMENT 5
Monarchy 6
Oligarchy 6
Dictatorship and Totalitarianism 6
Democracy 7
POLITICAL
BEHAVIOR IN THE UNITED STATES 8
Political Socialization 8
Participation and Apathy 9
Women and Politics 10
Interest Groups 11
MODELS
OF POWER STRUCTURE IN THE UNITED STATES 12
Elite Model 12
Pluralist Model 14
Who Does Rule? 15
SUMMARY 15
KEY TERMS 16
References: 17
Introduction
Political
system is one of the subsystem of society, and play sufficient role
in our life.
The
term political
system
refers to a recognized set of procedures for implementing and
obtaining the goals of a group.
Each society must have a political
system in order to maintain recognized procedures for allocating
valued resources. In political scientist Harold Lasswell’s
(1936) terms, politics
is who gets what, when, and how. Thus, like religion and the family,
a political system is a cultural universal; it is a social
institution found in every society.
We
will focus on government and politics within the United States as
well as other industrialized nations and preindustrial societies. In
their study of politics and political systems, sociologists are
concerned with social interactions among individuals and groups and
their impact on the larger political order. For example, in studying
the controversy over the nomination of Judge Robert Bork,
sociologists might wish to focus on how a change in the group
structure of American society—the increasing importance of the
black vote for southern Democratic candidates—affected the
decision making of Howell Heflin and other senators (and, ultimately,
the outcome of the Bork confirmation battle). From a sociological
perspective, therefore, a fundamental question is: how do a nation’s
social conditions affect its day-to-day political and governmental
life?
POWER
Power is at the heart of a political
system. Power may
be defined as the ability to exercise one’s will over others.
To put it another way, if one party in a relationship can control the
behavior of the other, that individual or group is exercising power.
Power relations can involve large organizations, small groups, or
even people in an intimate association. Blood and Wolfe (1960)
devised the concept of marital
power to
describe the manner in which decision making is distributed within
families.
There are three basic sources of
power within any political system—force, influence, and
authority. Force
is the actual
or threatened use of coercion to impose one’s will on others.
When leaders imprison or even execute political dissidents, they are
applying force; so, too, are terrorists when they seize an embassy or
assassinate a political leader. Influence,
on the other hand, refers to the exercise of power through a process
of persuasion. A citizen may change his or her position regarding a
Supreme Court nominee because of a newspaper editorial, the expert
testimony of a law school dean before the Senate Judiciary Committee,
or a stirring speech at a rally by a political activist. In each
case, sociologists would view such efforts to persuade people as
examples of influence. Authority,
the third source of power, will be discussed later.
Max Weber made an important
distinction between legitimate and illegitimate power. In a political
sense, the term legitimacy
refers to the
"belief of a citizenry that a government has the right to rule
and that a citizen ought to obey the rules and laws of that
government". Of course, the meaning of the term can be extended
beyond the sphere of government. Americans typically accept the power
of their parents, teachers, and religious leaders as legitimate. By
contrast, if the right of a leader to rule is not accepted by most
citizens (as is often the case when a dictator overthrows a popularly
elected government), the regime will be considered illegitimate. When
those in power lack legitimacy, they usually resort to coercive
methods in order to maintain control over social institutions.
How is
political power distributed among members of society?
Political power is not divided evenly among all members
of society. How extreme is this inequality? Three theoretical
perspectives answer this question in three different ways. First,
Marxist theories suggest that power is concentrated in the hands of
the few who own the means of production. Powerful capitalists
manipulate social and cultural arrangements to increase further their
wealth and power, often at the expense of the powerless.
Second,
power elite theories agree that power is concentrated in the hands of
a few people; the elite includes military leaders, government
officials, and business executives. This group consists of those who
occupy the top positions in our organizational hierarchies; they have
similar backgrounds and share the same interests and goals. According
to this view, any organization (even a nation-state) has a built-in
tendency to become an oligarchy (rule by the few).
Third, pluralist theories suggest that various groups
and interests compete for political power. In contrast to Marxist and
power elite theorists, pluralists see power as dispersed among many
people and groups who do not necessarily agree on what should be
done. Lobbyists for environmental groups, for example, will battle
with lobbyists for the coal industry over antipollution legislation.
In this way the will of the people is translated into political
action. Thurow, however, suggests that too many divergent views have
made it nearly impossible to arrive at a public policy that is both
effective in solving social problems and satisfactory to different
interest groups.
TYPES
OF AUTHORITY
The term authority
refers to power that has been institutionalized and is recognized by
the people over whom it is exercised. Sociologists commonly use the
term in connection with those who hold legitimate power through
elected or publicly acknowledged positions. It is important to stress
that a person’s authority is limited by the constraints of a
particular social position. Thus, a referee has the authority to
decide whether a penalty should be called during a football game but
has no authority over the price of tickets to the game.
Max Weber (1947) provided a
classification system regarding authority that has become one of the
most useful and frequently cited contributions of early sociology. He
identified three ideal types of authority: traditional,
legal-rational, and charismatic.
Weber did not insist that particular societies fit exactly into any
one of these categories. Rather, all can be present in a society, but
their relative degree of importance varies. Sociologists have found
Weber’s typology to be quite valuable in understanding
different manifestations of legitimate power within a society.
Traditional
Authority
In a political system based on
traditional
authority,
legitimate power is conferred by custom and accepted practice. The
orders of one’s superiors are felt to be legitimate because
"this is how things have always been done." For example, a
king or queen is accepted as ruler of a nation simply by virtue of
inheriting the crown. The monarch may be loved or hated, competent or
destructive; in terms of legitimacy, that does not matter. For the
traditional leader, authority rests in custom, not in personal
characteristics, technical competence, or even written law.
Traditional
authority is absolute in many instances because the ruler has the
ability to determine laws and policies. Since the authority is
legitimized by ancient custom, traditional authority is commonly
associated with preindustrial societies. Yet this form of authority
is also evident in more developed nations. For example, a leader may
take on the image of having divine guidance, as was true of Japan’s
Emperor Hirohito, who ruled during World War II. On another level,
ownership and leadership in some small businesses, such as grocery
stores and restaurants, may pass directly from parent to child and
generation to generation.
Legal-Rational
Authority
Power made legitimate by law is known
as legal-rational
authority.
Leaders of such societies derive their authority from the written
rules and regulations of political systems. For example, the
authority of the president of the United States and the Congress is
legitimized by the American Constitution. Generally, in societies
based on legal-rational authority, leaders are conceived as servants
of the people. They are not viewed as having divine inspiration, as
are the heads of certain societies with traditional forms of
authority The United States, as a society which values the rule of
law, has legally defined limits on the power of government. Power is
assigned to positions, not to individuals. Thus, when Ronald Reagan
became president in early 1981, he assumed the formal powers and
duties of that office as specified by the Constitution. When Reagan’s
presidency ended, those powers were transferred to his successor.
If a president acts within the
legitimate powers of the office, but not to our liking, we may wish
to elect a new president. But we will not normally argue that the
president’s power is illegitimate. However, if an official
clearly exceeds the
power of an office, as Richard Nixon did by obstructing justice
during investigation of the Watergate burglary, the official’s
power may come to be seen as illegitimate. Moreover, as was true of
Nixon, the person may be forced out of office.
Charismatic
Authority
Weber also observed that power can be
legitimized by the charisma of an individual. The term charismatic
authority refers
to power made legitimate by a leader’s exceptional personal or
emotional appeal to his or her followers. Charisma allows a person to
lead or inspire without relying on set rules or traditions.
Interestingly, such authority is derived more from the beliefs of
loyal followers than from the actual qualities of leaders. So long as
people perceive the
person as possessing qualities that set him or her apart from
ordinary citizens, the leader’s authority will remain secure
and often unquestioned.
Political scientist Ann Ruth Willner (1984) notes that
each charismatic leader draws upon the values, beliefs, and
traditions of a particular society. The conspicuous sexual activity
of longtime Indonesian president Achmed Sukarno reminded his
followers of the gods in Japanese legends and therefore was regarded
as a sign of power and heroism. By contrast, Indians saw Mahatma
Gandhi’s celibacy as a demonstration of superhuman
self-discipline. Charismatic leaders also associate themselves with
widely respected cultural and religious heroes. Willner describes how
Ayalollah Khomeini of Iran associated himself with Husein, a Shiile
Muslim martyr; and Fidel Castro of Cuba associated himself with Jesus
Christ.
Unlike traditional rulers, charismatic leaders often
become well known by breaking with established institutions and
advocating dramatic changes in the social structure. The strong hold
that such individuals have over their followers makes it easier to
build protest movements which challenge the dominant norms and values
of a society. Thus, charismatic leaders such as Jesus, Mahatma
Gandhi, and Martin Luther King all used their power to press for
changes in accepted social behavior. But so did Adolf Hitler, whose
charismatic appeal turned people toward violent and destructive ends.
Since it rests on the appeal of a single individual,
charismatic authority is necessarily much shorter lived than either
traditional or legal-rational authority. As a result, charismatic
leaders may attempt to solidify their positions of power by seeking
other legitimating mechanisms. For example, Fidel Castro came to
power in Cuba in 1959 as the leader of a popular revolution. Yet in
the decades which followed the seizure of power, Castro stood for
election (without opposition) as a means of further legitimating his
authority as leader of Cuba.
If such authority is to extend beyond
the lifetime of the charismatic leader, it must undergo what Weber
called the routinization
of charismatic authority—the
process by which the leadership qualities originally associated with
an individual are incorporated into either a traditional or a
legal-rational system. Thus, the charismatic authority of Jesus as
leader of the Christian church was transferred to the apostle Peter
and subsequently to the various prelates (or popes) of the faith.
Similarly, the emotional fervor supporting George Washington was
routinized into America’s constitutional system and the norm of
a two-term presidency. Once routinization has taken place, authority
eventually evolves into a traditional or legal-rational form.
As was noted earlier, Weber used traditional,
legal-rational, and charismatic authority as ideal types. In reality,
particular leaders and political systems combine elements of two or
more of these forms. Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt and John F.
Kennedy wielded power largely through the legal-rational basis of
their authority. At the same time, they were unusually charismatic
leaders who commanded (lie personal loyalty of large numbers of
Americans.
TYPES
OF GOVERNMENT
Each society establishes a political
system by which it is governed. In modern industrial nations, a
significant number of critical political decisions are made by formal
units of government. Five basic types of government are considered:monarchy, oligarchy,
dictatorship, totalitarianism, and democracy.
Monarchy
A monarchy
is a form of
government headed by a single member of a royal family, usually a
king, a queen, or some other hereditary ruler. In earlier times, many
monarchs claimed that God had granted them a divine right to rule
their lands. Typically, they governed on the basis of traditional
forms of authority, although these were sometimes accompanied by the
use of force. In the 1980s, monarchs hold genuine governmental power
in only a few nations, such as Monaco. Most monarchs have little
practical power and primarily serve ceremonial purposes.
Oligarchy
An oligarchy
is a form of
government in which a few individuals rule. It is a rather old method
of governing which flourished in ancient Greece and Egypt. Today,
oligarchy often takes the form of military rule. Some of the
developing nations of Africa, Asia, and Latin America are ruled by
small factions of military officers who forcibly seized power—either
from legally elected regimes or from other military cliques.
Strictly speaking, the term oligarchy
is reserved for
governments run by a few select individuals. However, the Soviet
Union and the People’s Republic of China can be classified as
oligarchies if we extend the meaning of the term somewhat. In each
case, power rests in the hands of a ruling group—the
Communist party. In a similar vein, drawing upon conflict theory, one
may argue that many industrialized "democratic" nations of
the west should rightly be considered oligarchies, since only a
powerful few actually rule: leaders of big business, government, and
the military. Later, we will examine this "elite model" of
the American political system in greater detail.
Dictatorship
and Totalitarianism
A dictatorship
is a government
in which one person has nearly total power to make and enforce laws.
Dictators rule primarily through the use of coercion, often including
torture and executions. Typically, they seize
power, rather than
being freely elected (as in a democracy) or inheriting a position of
power (as is true of monarchs). Some dictators are quite charismatic
and achieve a certain "popularity," though this popular
support is almost certain to be intertwined with fear. Other
dictators are bitterly hated by the populations over whom they rule
with an iron hand.
Frequently, dictatorships develop
such overwhelming control over people’s lives that they are
called totalitarian.
Monarchies and oligarchies also have the potential to achieve this
type of dominance. Totalitarianism
involves
virtually complete governmental control and surveillance over all
aspects of social and political life in a society. Bolt Nazi Germany
under Hitler and the Soviet Union of the 1980s are classified as
totalitarian states.
Political scientists Carl Friedrich and Zbigniew
Brzezinski have identified six bask traits that typify totalitarian
states. These include:
Large-scale use of ideology.
Totalitarian societies offer explanations for every part of life.
Social goals, valued behaviors, even enemies are conveyed in simple
(and usually distorted) terms. For example, the Nazis blamed Jews
for almost every. thing wrong in Germany or other nations. If there
was a crop failure due to drought, it was sure to be seen as a
Jewish conspiracy.
One-party systems.
A totalitarian Style has only one legal political party, which
monopolizes the offices of government. It penetrates and controls
all social institutions and serves as the source of wealth,
prestige, and power.
Control of weapons.
Totalitarian states also monopolize the use of arms. All military
units art subject to the control of the ruling regime.
Terror.
Totalitarian states often rely on general intimidation (such as
prohibiting unapproved publications) and individual deterrent (such
as torture and execution) to maintain control (Bahry and Silver,
1987). Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag
Archipelago (1973)
describe the Soviet Union’s imprisonment of political
dissenters in mental hospitals, where they are subjected to drug and
electric shock treatments.
Control of the media.
There is no "opposition press" in a totalitarian state.
The media communicate official
interpretations of
events and reinforce behaviors and policies favored by the regime.
Control of the economy.
Totalitarian states control major sectors of the economy. They may
dissolve private ownership of industry and even small farms. In some
cases, the central state establishes production goals for each
industrial and agricultural unit. The revolt of the Polish workers’
union. Solidarity, in the early 1980s was partly directed against
the government’s power over production quotas, working
conditions, and prices.
Through such methods, totalitarian governments deny
people representation in the political, economic, and social
decisions that affect their lives. Such governments have pervasive
control over people’s destinies.
Democracy
In a literal sense,
democracy means
government by the people. The word democracy originated in two Greek
roots—demos,
meaning "the populace" or "the common people";
and kratia,
meaning "rule." Of course, in large, populous nations,
government by all the people is impractical at the national level. It
would be impossible for the more than 246 million Americans to vote
on every important issue that comes before Congress. Consequently,
democracies are generally maintained through a mode of participation
known as representative
democracy, in
which certain individuals are selected to speak for the people.
The United States is commonly
classified as a representative democracy, since we elect members of
Congress and state legislatures to handle the task of writing our
laws. However, critics have questioned how representative
our democracy is. Are the masses genuinely represented? Is there
authentic self-government in the United States or merely competition
between powerful elites?
Clearly, citizens cannot be effectively represented if
they are not granted the right to vote. Yet our nation did not
enfranchise black males until 1870, and women were not allowed to
vote in presidential elections until 1920. American Indians were
allowed to become citizens (thereby qualifying to vote) only in 1924,
and as late as 1956, some states prevented Indians from voting in
local elections if they lived on reservations.
Unlike monarchies, oligarchies, and dictatorships, the
democratic form of government implies an opposition which is
tolerated or, indeed, encouraged to exist. In the United States, we
have two major political parties—the Democrats and
Republicans—as well as various minor parties. Sociologists use
the term political party to refer to an organization whose purposes
are to promote candidates for elected office, advance an ideology as
reflected in positions on political issues, win elections, and
exercise power. Whether a democracy has two major political parties
(as in the United States) or incorporates a multiparty system (as in
France and Israel), it will typically stress the need for differing
points of view.
Seymour Martin Upset, among other sociologists, has
attempted to identify the factors which may help to bring about
democratic forms of government. He argues that a high level of
economic development encourages both stability and democracy. Upset
reached this conclusion after studying 50 nations and finding a high
correlation between economic development and certain forms of
government.
Why should there be such a link? In a society with a
high level of development, the population generally tends to be
urbanized and literate and is better equipped to participate in
decision making and make the views of its members heard. In addition,
as Upset suggests, a relatively affluent society will be
comparatively free from demands on government by low-income citizens.
Poor people in such nations can reasonably aspire to upward mobility.
Therefore, along with the large middle class typically found in
industrial societies, the poorer segments of society may have a stake
in economic and political stability.
Upset’s formulation has been attacked by conflict
theorists, who tend to be critical of the distribution of power
within democracies. As we will see later, many conflict theorists
believe that the United States is run by a small economic and
political elite. At the same time, they observe that economic
stability does not necessarily promote or guarantee political
freedoms. Lipset (1972) himself agrees that democracy in practice is
far from ideal and that one must distinguish between varying degrees
of democracy in democratic systems of government. Thus, we cannot
assume that a high level of economic development or the
self-proclaimed label of "democracy" assures freedom and
adequate political representation.
POLITICAL
BEHAVIOR IN THE UNITED STATES
As
American citizens we take for granted many aspects of our political
system. We are accustomed to living in a nation with a Bill of
Rights, two major political parties, voting by secret ballot, an
elected president, state and local governments distinct from the
national government, and so forth. Yet, of course, each society has
its own ways of governing itself and making decisions. Just as we
expect Democratic and Republican candidates to compete for public
offices, residents of the Soviet Union are accustomed to the
domination of the Communist party. In this section, we will examine a
number of important aspects of political behavior within the United
States.
Political
Socialization
Five functional prerequisites that a society must
fulfill in order to survive were identified. Among these was the need
to teach recruits to accept the values and customs of the group. In a
political sense, this function is crucial; each succeeding generation
must be encouraged to accept a society’s basic political values
and its particular methods of decision making.
Political socialization is
the process by which individuals acquire political attitudes and
develop patterns of political behavior. This involves not only
learning the prevailing beliefs of a society but also coming to
accept the surrounding political system despite its limitations and
problems. In the United States, people are socialized to view
representative democracy as the best form of government and to
cherish such values as freedom, equality, patriotism, and the right
of dissent.
The principal institutions of political socialization
are those which also socialize us to other cultural norms—including
the family, schools, and the media. Many observers see the family as
playing a particularly significant role in this process. "The
family incubates political man," observed political scientist
Robert Lane. In fact, parents pass on their political attitudes and
evaluations to their sons and daughters through discussions at the
dinner table and also through the example of their political
involvement or apathy. Early socialization does not always determine
a person’s political orientation; there are changes over time
and between generations. Yet research on political socialization
continues to show that parents’ views have an important impact
on their children’s outlook.
The schools can be influential in political
socialization, since they provide young people with information and
analysis of the political world. Unlike the family and peer groups,
schools are easily susceptible to centralized and uniform control;
consequently, totalitarian societies commonly use educational
institutions for purposes of indoctrination. Yet, even in
democracies, where local schools are not under the pervasive control
of the national government, political education will generally
reflect the norms and values of the prevailing political order.
In the view of conflict theorists, American students
learn much more than factual information about our political and
economic way of life. They are socialized to view capitalism and
representative democracy as the "normal" and most desirable
ways of organizing a nation. At the same time, competing values and
forms of government are often presented in a most negative fashion or
are ignored. From a conflict perspective, this type of political
education serves the interests of the powerful and ignores the
significance of the social divisions found within the United States.
It is difficult to pinpoint a precise time in which
politics is learned. Fred Greenstein argues that the crucial time in
a young person’s psychological, social, and political
development is between ages 9 and 13. In the same vein, one study
found that children 13 and 14 years of age were much more able to
understand abstract political concepts than were children a few years
younger. Specifically, in response to a question about the meaning of
government, older children tended to identify with Congress, whereas
younger children identified with a more personal figure such as the
president. Other research, however, points to a significant leap in
political sophistication during the ages of 13 to 15.
Surprisingly, expression of a preference for a political
party often comes before young people have a full understanding of
the political system. Surveys indicate that 65 to 75 percent of
children aged 10 and 11 express commitment to a specific political
label, including "independent." Political scientists M.
Kent Jennings and Richard G. Niemi (1974) have found that children
who demonstrate high levels of political competence—by
understanding the differences between political parties and between
liberal and conservative philosophies—are more likely to become
politically active during adulthood.
Like the family and schools, the mass media can have
obvious effects on people’s thinking and political behavior.
Beginning with the Kennedy-Nixon presidential debates of 1960,
television has given increasing exposure to political candidates. One
result has been the rising importance of politicians’ "images"
as perceived by the American public. Today, many speeches given by
our nation’s leaders are designed not for immediate listeners,
but for the larger television audience. In the social policy section
later, we will examine the impact of television on American political
campaigns.
Although television has obvious impact on elective
politics, it has also become an important factor in other aspects of
American political life. In 1987, when a joint congressional
committee held televised hearings on the Iran-contra scandal,
Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North’s outspoken testimony brought
him a wave of public support. One effect of his media success, though
primarily in the short run, was an increase in support for the
"contras" and their effort to overthrow Nicaragua’s
Marxist regime. By contrast. Judge Robert Bork’s televised
testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1987 seemed to
hurt his chances of winning confirmation as a Supreme Court justice.
A number of communication studies
have reported that the media do not tend to influence the masses of
people directly. Elihu Katz (1957) describes the process as a
two-step flow of
communication,
using an approach which reflects interactionists’ emphasis on
the social significance of everyday social exchanges. In Katz’s
view, messages passed through the media first reach a small number of
opinion leaders, including teachers, religious authorities, and
community activists. These leaders "spread the word" to
others over whom they have influence.
Opinion leaders are not necessarily formal leaders of
organized groups of people. For example, someone who hears a
disturbing report about the dangers of radioactive wastes in a nearby
river will probably tell family members and friends. Each of these
persons may inform still others and perhaps persuade them to support
the position of an environmentalist group working to clean up the
river. Of course, in any communications process in which someone
plays an intermediate role, the message can be reinterpreted. Opinion
leaders can subtly transform a political message to their own ends.
Participation
and Apathy
In theory, a representative democracy will function most
effectively and fairly if there is an informed and active electorate
communicating its views to government leaders. Unfortunately, this is
hardly the case in the United States. Virtually all Americans are
familiar with the basics of the political process, and most tend to
identify to some extent with a political party, but only a small
minority (often members of the higher social classes) actually
participate in political organizations on a local or national level.
Studies reveal that only 8 percent of Americans belong to a political
club or organization. Not more than one in five has ever contacted an
official of national, state, or local government about a political
issue or problem.
The failure of most Americans to become involved in
political parties has serious implications for the functioning of our
democracy. Within the political system of the United States, the
political party serves as an intermediary between people and
government. Through competition in regularly scheduled elections, the
two-party system provides for challenges to public policies and for
an orderly transfer of power. An individual dissatisfied with the
state of the nation or a local community can become involved in the
political party process in many ways, such as by joining a political
club, supporting candidates for public office, or working to change
the party’s position on controversial issues. If, however,
people do not take interest in the decisions of major political
parties, public officials in a "representative" democracy
will be chosen from two unrepresentative lists of candidates. In the
1980s, it has become clear that many
Americans are turned off by political parties,
politicians, and the specter of big government. The most dramatic
indication of this growing alienation comes from voting statistics.
Voters of all ages and races appear to be less enthusiastic than ever
about American elections, even presidential contests. For example,
almost 80 percent of eligible American voters went to the polls in
the presidential election of 1896. Yet, by the 1984 election, voter
turnout had fallen to less than 60 percent of all adults. By
contrast, elections during the first half of the 1980s brought out 85
percent or m
Italy, Portugal, and Sweden.
Declining
political participation allows institutions of government to operate
with less of a sense of accountability to society. This issue is most
serious for the least powerful individual and groups within the
United States. Voter turn out has been particularly low among younger
Americans and members of racial and ethnic minorities. In 1984, only
36 percent of eligible voters aged 18 to 20 went to the polls.
According to a postelection survey, only 55.8 percent of eligible
black voters and 32.6 percent of Hispanic reported that they had
actually voted. Moreover, the poor—whose focus understandably
is on survival—are traditionally under-represented among voters
as well. The low turnout found among these groups is explained, at
least in part, by their common feeling of powerlessness. Yet such
voting statistics encourage political power brokers to continue to
ignore the interests of the young, the less affluent, and the
nation’s minorities.
Sociologist Anthony Orum notes that
people are more likely to participate actively in political life if
they have a sense of political
efficacy—that
is, if they feel that they have (he ability to influence politicians
and the political order. In addition, citizens are more likely to
become involved if they trust political leaders or feel that an
organized political party represents their interest. Without
question, in an age marked by the rise of big government and by
revelations of political corruption at the highest levels, many
Americans of all
social groups feel
powerless and distrustful. Yet such feelings are especially intense
among the young, the poor, and minorities. is a result, many view
political participation, including voting, as a waste of time.
Cross-national comparisons, while
confirming he comparatively low level of voting in the linked States,
also suggest that Americans are more
likely than
citizens of other nations to be active at the community level, to
contact local officials on behalf of themselves or others, and to
have worked for a political party. Perhaps this contrast reflects how
unusual it is for people to be directly involved in national
political decision making in the modem world. Nevertheless, it is
possible to speculate that if tens of millions of Americans did not
stay home on Election Day— and instead became more active in
the nation’s political life—the outcome of the political
process might be somewhat different.
Women
and Politics
In 1984, American women achieved an unprecedented
political breakthrough when Representative Geraldine Ferraro of New
York became the Democratic nominee for vice president of the United
States. Never before had a woman received the nomination of a major
party for such high office.
Nevertheless, women continue to be dramatically
underrepresented in the halls of government. In 1988, there were only
23 women (out of 435 members) in the House of Representatives and
only 2 women (out of 100 members) in the Senate. This is not because
women have failed to participate actively in political life. Eligible
women vote at a slightly higher rate than men. The League of Women
Voters, founded in 1920, is a nonpartisan organization which performs
valuable functions in educating the electorate of both sexes. Perhaps
the most visible role of women in American politics is as unpaid
workers for male candidates: ringing doorbells, telephoning
registered voters, and carrying petitions. In addition, wives of
elected male politicians commonly play significant supportive roles
and are increasingly speaking out in their own right on important and
controversial issues of public policy.
The sexism of American society has been the most serious
barrier to women interested in holding public office. Female
candidates have had to overcome the prejudices of both men and women
regarding women’s fitness for leadership. Not until 1955 did a
majority of Americans state that they would vote for a qualified
woman for president. Yet, as a 1984 national survey revealed,
Americans say they will support a woman running for office only if
she is by far the most qualified candidate.
Moreover, women often encounter prejudice,
discrimination, and abuse after they are elected. In 1979, a
questionnaire was circulated among male legislators in Oregon, asking
them to "categorize the lady legislators" with such labels
as "mouth, face, chest/dress, and so forth".
Despite such indignities, women are becoming more
successful in winning election to public office. For example, there
were 1176 women in state legislatures in 1988, as compared with only
31 in 1921,144 in 1941, and 301 in 1969. Not only are more women
being elected; more of them are identifying themselves as feminists.
The traditional woman in politics was a widow who took office after
her husband’s death to continue his work and policies. However,
women being elected in the 1980s are much more likely to view
politics as their own career rather than as an afterthought. These
trends are not restricted to the United States.
A
new dimension of women and politics emerged in the 1980s. Surveys
detected a growing "gender gap" in the political
preferences and activities of males and females. Women were more
likely to register as Democrats than as Republicans and were also
more critical of the policies of the Republican administration. What
accounts for this "gender gap"? According to political
analysts, the Democratic party’s continued support for the
equal rights amendment may be attracting women voters, a majority of
whom support this measure. At the same time, virtually all polling
data indicate that women are substantially less likely than men to
favor large defense budgets and military intervention overseas; these
policies have become more associated with the Republican party of the
1980s than with the Democrats.
Politicians have begun to watch carefully the voting
trends among women, since women voters could prove decisive in dose
elections. The gender gap did appear to be a factor in the 1984
elections—though not as significant a factor as some observers
had expected. According to a poll by ABC News, men supported
President Ronald Reagan’s successful bid for reelection by a
margin of 63 to 36 percent. By contrast, 56 percent of women voted
for Reagan while 44 percent supported the Democratic ticket of Walter
Mondale and Geraldine Ferraro. In the 1986 elections, the ender gap
narrowed somewhat, yet apparently contributed to the victories of
Democratic senatorial candidates in at least nine states, four of
them in the south. For example, in Colorado, men supported Republican
Ken Kramer over Democrat Timothy Wirth by a 49 to 48 percent margin,
yet Wirth was elected because women preferred him by a 53 to 44
percent margin. By contributing to these Democratic victories, women
voters were an important factor in the party’s 1986 takeover of
e Senate.
Interest
Groups
This
discussion of political behavior has focused primarily on individual
participation (and non-participation) in the decision-making
processes of government and on involvement in the nation’s
political parties. However, there are other important ways that
American citizens can play a role in the nation’s political
arena. Because of common needs or common frustrations, people may
band together in social movements such as the civil rights movement
of the 1960s or the anti-nuclear power movement of the 1980s.
Americans can also influence the political process through membership
in interest groups (some of which, in fact, may be part of larger
social movements).
An interest
group is a
voluntary association of citizens who attempt to influence public
policy. The National Organization for Women (NOW) is considered an
interest group, so, too, are the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation and the
National Rifle Association (NRA). Such groups are a vital part of the
American political process Many interest groups (often known as
lobbies)
are national in scope and address a wide variety of political and
social issues As we saw earlier, groups such as the American Civil
Liberties Union (ACLU), Common Cause, the American Conservative
Union, and Christian Voice were all actively involved in the debate
over the nomination of Judge Robert Bork for the Supreme Court.
Typically, we think of interest groups as being
primarily concerned with regulatory legislation However, as political
scientist Barbara Ann Stolz (1981) points out, even the federal
criminal code has become a target for interest-group activity
Business groups have sought to strike the "reckless
endangerment" provision that, in effect, makes it a crime for a
business to engage knowingly in conduct that will imperil someone’s
life Business interests have also attempted to broaden the criminal
code to include certain types of incidents that occur during labor
disputes, unions, by contrast, wish to maintain current laws.
Interest groups often pursue their
political goals through lobbying—the
process by which individuals and groups communicate with public
officials in order to influence decisions of government. They also
distribute persuasive literature and launch publicity campaigns to
build grass roots support for their political objectives Finally,
interest groups, through their political action committees, donate
funds to political candidates whose views are in line with the
groups’ legislative agendas.
The
role of interest groups within the American political system has
generated intense controversy, particularly because of the special
relation ships that exist between government officials and lobbyists
for interest groups The widespread nature of these ties is evident
from the number of former legislators who, after retiring or losing
bids for reelection, immediately go on the payroll of interest groups
In 1985, there were 300 former lawmakers and former high-level White
House officials parlaying their governmental experience into
profitable new careers as Washington lawyers, lobbyists, consultants,
and administrators So pervasive is this network of insiders that an
organization. Former Members of Congress, links them together
Currently, there are no laws preventing members of Congress from
returning as lobbyists to reshape (or even dismantle) legislation
that they created in the public interest.
Interest groups are occasionally
referred to as pressure
groups,
implying that they attempt to force their will on a resistant public
In the view of functionalists, such groups play a constructive role
in decision making by allowing orderly expression of public opinion
and by increasing political participation They also provide
legislators with a useful flow of information
Conflict theorists stress that although a very few
organizations work on behalf of the poor and disadvantaged, most
American interest groups represent affluent white professionals and
business leaders From a conflict perspective, the overwhelming
political clout of these powerful lobbies discourages participation
by the individual citizen and raises serious questions about who
actually rules a supposedly democratic nation.
MODELS
OF POWER STRUCTURE IN THE UNITED STATES
Who
really holds power in the United States’ Do "we the
people" genuinely run the country through elected
representatives? Or is there small elite of Americans that governs
behind the scenes? It is difficult to determine the location of power
in a society as complex as the Unite States In exploring this
critical question, social scientists have developed two basic views
of our nation’s power structure the elite and pluralism models.
Elite
Model
Karl Marx essentially believed that nineteenth century
representative democracy was a shape.
He argued that industrial societies
were dominated by relatively small numbers of people who owned
factories and controlled natural resources In Marx’s view,
government officials and military leaders were essentially servants
of the capitalist class and followed their wishes therefore, any key
decisions made by politicians inevitably reflected the interests of
the dominant bourgeoisie Like others who hold an elite
model of power
relations, Marx thus believed that society is ruled by a small group
of individuals who share a common set of political and economic
interests.
The Power Elite.
In his pioneering
work. The Power
Elite, sociologist
C. Wright Mills described the existence of a small ruling elite of
military, industrial, and governmental leaders who controlled the
fate of the United States. Power rested in the hands of a few, both
inside and outside of government—the power
elite. In
Mill’s words:
The power elite is composed of men whose positions
enable them to transcend the ordinary environments of ordinary men
and women, they are in positions to make decisions having major
consequences. … They arc in command of the major hierarchies
and organizations of modern society.
In Mills’s model, the power structure of the
United States can be illustrated by the use of a pyramid. At the top
are the corporate rich, leaders of the executive branch of
government, and heads of the military (whom Kills called the
"warlords"). Below this triumvirate are local opinion
leaders, members of the legislative branch of government, and leaders
of special-interest groups. Mills contended that such individuals and
groups would basically follow the wishes of the dominant power elite.
At the bottom of society are the unorganized, exploited masses.
This power elite model is, in many respects, similar to
the work of Karl Marx. The most striking difference is that Mills
felt that the economically powerful coordinate their maneuvers with
the military and political establishments in order to serve their
mutual interests. Yet, reminiscent of Marx. Mills argued that the
corporate rich were perhaps the most powerful element of the power
elite (first among "equals"). And, of course, there is a
further dramatic parallel between the work of these conflict
theorists The powerless masses at the bottom of Mills’s power
elite model certainly bring to mind Marx’s portrait of the
oppressed workers of the world, who have "nothing to lose but
their chains".
Mills failed to provide detailed case studies which
would substantiate the interrelationship among members of the power
elite. Instead, he suggested that such foreign policy decisions as
America’s entry into the Korean war reflected a determination
by business and military leaders that each could benefit from such
armed conflict. In Mills s view, such a sharing of perspectives was
facilitated by the frequent interchange of commanding roles among the
elite. For example, a banker might become the leader of a federal
regulatory commission overseeing financial institutions, and a
retired general might move to an executive position with a major
defense contracting firm.
A fundamental element in Mills’s thesis is that
the power elite not only has relatively few members but also operates
as a self-conscious, cohesive unit. Although not necessarily
diabolical or ruthless, the elite comprises similar types of people
who regularly interact with one another and have essentially the same
political and economic interests. Mills’s power elite is not a
conspiracy but rather a community of interest and sentiment among a
small number of influential Americans.
Admittedly, Mills failed to clarify when the elite acts
and when it tolerates protests. Nevertheless, his challenging
theories forced scholars to look more critically at the "democratic"
political system of the United States.
The Ruling Class.
Sociologist G. William Domhoff agreed with Mills that American
society is run by a powerful elite. But, rather than fully accepting
Mills’s power elite model, Domhoff argued that the United
States is controlled by a social upper class "that is a ruling
class by virtue of its dominant role in the economy and government".
This socially cohesive ruling class owns 20 to 25 percent of all
privately held wealth and 45 to 50 percent of all privately held
common stock.
Unlike Mills, Domhoff was quite
specific about who belongs to this social upper class. Membership
comes through being pan of a family recognized in The Social
Register—the
directory of the social elite in many American cities. Attendance at
prestigious private schools and membership in exclusive social clubs
are further indications that a person comes from America’s
social upper class. Domhoff estimates that about 0.5 percent of the
American population (or 1 of every 200 people) belongs to this social
and political elite.
Of
course, this would mean that the ruling class has more than 1 million
members and could hardly achieve the cohesiveness that Mills
attributed to the power elite. However, Domhoff adds that the social
upper class as a whole does not rule the nation. Instead, members of
this class who have assumed leadership roles within the corporate
community or the nation’s policy-planning network join with
high-level employees of profit-making and nonprofit institutions
controlled by the social upper class to exercise power.
In
Domhoff’s view, the ruling class should not be seen in a
conspiratorial way, as "sinister men lurking behind the throne."
On the contrary they tend to hold public positions of authority.
Almost all important appointive government posts— including
those of diplomats and cabinet members—are filled by members of
the social upper class. Domhoff contends that members of this class
dominate powerful corporations, foundations, universities, and the
executive branch of government. They control presidential nominations
and the political party process through campaign contributions. In
addition, the ruling class exerts a significant (though not absolute)
influence within Congress and units of state and local government.
Perhaps the major difference between the elite models of
Mills and Domhoff is that Mills insisted on the relative autonomy of
the political elite and attached great significance to the
independent power of the military. By contrast, Domhoff suggests that
high-level government and military leaders serve the interests of the
social upper class. Both theorists, in line with a Marxian approach,
assume that the rich are interested only in what benefits them
financially. Furthermore, as advocates of elite models of power.
Mills and Domhoff argue that the masses of American people have no
real influence on the decisions of the powerful.
One criticism of the elite model is that its advocates
sometimes suggest that elites are always victorious. With this in
mind, sociologist J. Alien Whitt (1982) examined the efforts of
California’s business elites to support urban mass transit. He
found that lobbying by these elites was successful in San Francisco
but failed in Los Angeles. Whitt points out that opponents of
policies backed by elites can mobilize to thwart their
implementation.
Domhoff admits that the ruling class does not exercise
total control over American society. However, he counters that this
elite is able to set political terms under which other groups and
classes must operate. Consequently, although the ruling class may
lose on a particular issue, it will not allow serious challenges to
laws which guarantee its economic privileges and political
domination.
Pluralist
Model
Several social scientists have
questioned the elite models of power relations proposed by Marx,
Mills, Domhoff, and other conflict theorists. Quite simply, the
critics insist that power in the United States is more widely shared
than the elite model indicates. In their view, a pluralist model more
accurately describes the American political system. According to the
pluralist model,
"many conflicting groups within the community have access to
government officials and compete with one another in an effort to
influence policy decisions".
Veto Groups.
David Riesman’s The
Lonely Crowd
suggested that the American political system could best be understood
through examination of the power of veto groups. The term veto
groups refers
to interest groups that have the capacity to prevent the exercise of
power by others. Functionally, they serve to increase political
participation by preventing the concentration of political power.
Examples cited by Riesman include farm groups, labor unions,
professional associations, and racial and ethnic groups. Whereas
Mills pointed to the dangers of rule by an undemocratic power elite,
Riesman insisted that veto groups could effectively paralyze the
nation’s political processes by blocking anyone
from exercising needed leadership functions. In Riesman’s
words, "The only leaders of national scope left in the United
States are those who can placate the veto groups".
Dahl’s Study of Pluralism.
Community studies of power have also supported the pluralist model.
One of the most famous—an investigation of decision making in
New Haven, Connecticut—was reported by Robert Dahl in his book,
Who Governs?
(1961). Dahl found that while the number of people involved in any
important decision was rather small, community power was nonetheless
diffuse. Few political actors exercised decision-making power on all
issues. Therefore, one individual or group might be influential in a
battle over urban renewal but at the same time might have little
impact over educational policy. Several other studies of local
politics, in such communities as Chicago and Oberlin, Ohio, further
document that monolithic power structures do not operate on the level
of local government.
Just
as the elite model has been challenged on political and
methodological grounds, the pluralist model has been subjected to
serious questioning. Domhoff (1978) reexamined Dahl’s study of
decision making in New Haven and argued that Dahl and other
pluralists had failed to trace how local elites prominent in decision
making were part of a larger national ruling class. In addition,
studies of community power, such as Dahl’s work in New Haven,
can examine decision making only on issues which become pan of the
political agenda. This focus fails to address the possible power of
elites to keep certain matters entirely out of the realm of
government debate. Conflict theorists contend that these elites will
not allow any outcome of the political process which threatens their
dominance. Indeed, they may even be strong enough to block discussion
of such measures by policymakers.
Who
Does Rule?
Without question, the pluralist and elite models have
little in common. Each describes a dramatically different
distribution of power, with sharply contrasting consequences for
society. Is there any way that we can reconcile the vast
disagreements in these two approaches?
Perhaps
we can conclude that, despite their apparent points of
incompatibility, each model offers an accurate picture of American
political life. Power in various areas rests in the hands of a small
number of citizens who are well-insulated from the will of the masses
(elite view). Yet there are so many diverse issues and controversies
in the nation’s political institutions that few individuals or
groups consistently exercise power outside their distinctive spheres
of influence (pluralist view). Even presidents of the United States
have acknowledged that they felt more comfortable making decisions
either in the area of foreign policy (Richard Nixon) or in the area
of domestic policy (Lyndon Johnson). Moreover, the post-World War II
period has seen increasing power vested in the federal government
(elite model). But, even within the federal bureaucracy, there are a
staggering number of agencies with differing ideas and interests
(pluralist model).
We can end this discussion with the one common point of
the elite and pluralist perspectives— power in the American
political system is unequally distributed. All citizens may be equal
in theory, yet those high in the nation’s power structure are
"more equal."
SUMMARY
Each society must have a political
system in order
to have recognized procedures for the allocation of valued
resources—in Harold D. Lasswell’s terms, for deciding who
gets what, when, and how. We have examined various types of political
authority and forms of government and explores the dimensions of the
American political system.
Power
relations can involve large organizations, small groups, or even
individuals in an intimate relationship.
There are three basic sources of
power
within any political system — force,
influence,
and authority.
Max Weber provided ( e of the most
useful and frequently cited contributions of early sociology by
identifying three ideal types of authority: traditional,
legal-rational,
and charismatic.
The
United States, as a society which values the role of law, has
legally defined limits on the power of government.
In the 1980s, monarchies
hold genuine governmental power in only a few nations of the world.
Today, oligarchy
often takes the form of military rule, although the Soviet Union and
the People’s Republic of China can be described as oligarchies
in which power rests in the hands of the ruling Communist party.
Political scientists Carl Friedrich
and Zbigniew Brzezinski have identified six basic traits that typify
totalitarianism:
large-scale use of ideology, one-party systems, control of weapons,
terror, control of the media, and control of the economy.
The United States is commonly
classified as a representative
democracy,
since we elect members of Congress and state legislatures to handle
the task of writing our laws.
The principal institutions of
political
socialization
m American society arc the family, schools, and media.
Only
a small minority of Americans actually participate in political
organizations or in decision making on a local or national level.
Women
are becoming more successful at winning election to public office.
An interest
group a often
national in scope and frequently addresses a wide variety of social
and political issues.
Advocates of the elite
model of the
American power structure see the nation as being ruled by a small
group of individuals who share common political and economic
interests, whereas advocates of a pluralist
model believe
that power is more widely shared among conflicting groups.
Television
is having a growing impact on American political campaigns.
KEY
TERMS
Authority
Power that has been institutionalized and is recognized by the people
over whom it is exercised.
Charismatic authority Max
Weber’s term for power made legitimate by a leader’s
exceptional personal or emotional appeal to his or her followers.
Democracy
In a literal sense, government by the people.
Dictatorship
A government in which one person has nearly total power to make and
enforce laws.
Dictatorship of the proletariat
Marx’s term for the temporary rule by the working class during
a stage between the successful proletarian revolution and the
establishment of a classless communist society.
Elite model
A view of society as ruled by a small group of individuals who share
a common set of political and economic interests.
Force
The actual or threatened use of coercion to impose one’s will
on others.
Influence
The exercise of power through a process of persuasion.
Interest group
A voluntary association of citizens who attempt to influence public
policy.
Legal-rational authority
Max Weber’s term for power made legitimate by law.
Legitimacy
The belief of a citizenry that a government has the right to rule and
that a citizen ought to obey the rules and laws of that government.
Lobbying
The process by which individuals and groups communicate with public
officials in order to influence decisions of government.
Marital power
A term used by Blood and Wolfe to describe the manner in which
decision making is distributed within families.
Monarchy
A form of government headed by a single member of a royal family,
usually a king, a queen, or some other hereditary ruler.
Oligarchy
A form of government in which a few individuals rule.
Pluralist model
A view of society in which many conflicting groups within a community
have access to governmental officials and compete with one another in
an attempt to influence policy decisions.
Political action committee
(PAC) A
political committee established by a national bank, corporation,
trade association, or cooperative or membership association to accept
voluntary contributions for candidates or political parties.
Political efficacy
The feeling that one has the ability to influence politicians and the
political order.
Political party
An organization whose purposes are to promote candidates for public
office, advance an ideology as reflected in positions on public
issues, win elections, and exercise power.
Political socialization
The process by which individuals acquire political attitudes and
develop patterns of political behavior.
Political system
A recognized set of procedures for implementing and obtaining the
goals of a group.
Politics
In Harold D. Lasswell’s words, "who gets what, when, how."
Power
The ability to exercise one’s will over others.
Power elite
A term used by C. Wright Mills for a small group of military,
industrial, and government leaders who control the fate of the United
States.
Pressure groups
A term sometimes used to refer to interest groups.
Representative democracy
A form of government in which certain individuals are selected to
speak for the people.
Routinization of charismatic
authority Max
Weber’s term for the process by which the leadership qualities
originally associated with an individual are incorporated into either
a traditional or a legal-rational system of authority.
Terrorism
The use or threat of violence against random or symbolic targets in
pursuit of political aims.
Totalitarianism
Virtually complete government control and surveillance over all
aspects of social and political life in a society. (390)
Traditional authority
Legitimate power conferred by custom and accepted practice.
Two-step
flow of communication
Elihu Katz’s term for a process through which a message is
spread by the media to opinion leaders and is subsequently passedi
along to the general public.
Veto groups
David Riesman’s term for interest groups that have the capacity
to prevent the exercise of power by others.
References:
Donald Light, Suzanne
Keller, Craig Calhoun, “Readings And Review For Sociology”,
Fifth Edition, prepared by Theodore C. Wagenaar and Tomas F. Gieryn,
New York, 1989
Richard
T. Schaefer, “Sociology”, Western Illinois University,
1989
17
Ministry Tula State University | ||
Department of Sociology | ||
Term test paper on Sociology | ||
“Government and Politics” | ||
| made by: | Nevskiy | |
| Group: | 220671я | |
| checked by: | Scherbakova | |
Tula 1999 | ||