luate pluralists’ criticisms of elitist theory
Introduction
In this essay, I will argue that the pluralist criticism of the elitist theory credibly point to the flaws and shortcomings of the elitist theory. Pluralism will be considered as a political system where multiple groups with various interest are involved in decision making and no single group or organisation controls all issue areas (Garson 2007:1) (Dahl 1963:327). The elitist theory will be considered as the concentration of power in the hands of a small minority, consisting of members of a socio-economic elite and this power enables this small minority to influence political decision making (Garson 2007:1).
I will begin this essay by arguing against the methodological flaw of the elitist theory and how this flaw is appropriately criticised by the pluralist theory. Secondly, I will argue that the elitist assumption of the power structure is problematic and that this problem is adequately critiqued by pluralist. Thirdly, I will argue that the elitist notion of power is short-sighted, and this myopic notion of power is appropriately criticised by pluralist who takes the elitist notion of power a step further. Lastly, I will argue that the equation of potential control to actual control is a flaw of the elitist theory and I will argue that this flaw is properly critiqued by pluralists.
Methodological Flaw of the Elitist Theory
The elitist theory is methodologically flawed as the objectives/goals of the ruling elite have not been adequately defined and there has not been a substantial demonstration that the alternatives of the ruling elite prevail over the alternative of other groups. For instance, Mill (1965) did not adequately define the objective of the ruling elite, and Hunter (1953) could not effectively demonstrate that the alternative of the ruling elite was not in line with the public majority (Dahl 1958: 466) (Mankoff 1970: 419). Bothe these shortcomings of the elitist theory allow for the methodological flaw of the elitist theory. The pluralist critique of the elitist theory rightly points to these methodological flaws. For instance, Robert Dahl highlights the methodological problem of the elitist theory by setting out guidelines which can be used to indicate the existence of a ruling elite (1958: 466). According to Dahl, to convincingly point to the existence of a ruling elite, such group needs to be well defined. Furthermore, a reasonable number of cases which point to the alternative of the ruling elite prevailing over the alternative of other groups in significant political decisions (within a political system) is also required to demonstrate the existence of a ruling elite. (1958: 466).
However, elitist may argue that, by primarily focusing on decisions and objectives, pluralist fail to notice the ‘power of pre-emption’ (Parenti 1970: 503). For example, pre-emptive consideration is sometimes given to the interest of business leaders by political office holders, thus, business leaders have little need to involve themselves in political decision making (Parenti 1970: 503). We see this in the actions of Mayor Daley who wrote to 3 (or 4) of the city’s chief corporate leaders, asking them about their interest (Banfield 1965: 251). Thus, rather than primarily focusing on decisions and objectives, Elitist argue that focus should also be placed on the power to set the agenda and power to set the prevailing values which allow for the interest of one group to prevail in comparison to another (Parenti 1970: 503). Although, this persuasive objection has been rightly criticised by the pluralist who argues that theories about unobservable values and unseen participants cannot be scientifically (or empirically) studied. Rather, what can be empirically entertained is what is visible i.e. individuals whose decision or participation directly affect decision making (Parenti 1970: 504).
Elitist approach and the assumption of a Power Structure
The fundamental/basic premise of the elitist theory is that every human organisation consist of a power structure which reflects the stratification of the human organisation (Bachrach and Baratz 1962:947). This premise is appropriately criticised by pluralists, who argues that no explicit assumption can be made about power in a community (Polsby 1960: 476). The problem with such assumption is that it leads one to ask the question: ‘Who runs this community? as oppose to the better-suited question which is: ‘Does anyone at all run this community’ (Polsby 1960: 476). The latter question is favourable as it can generate a response which can lead to the finding of the power elite or an inestimable number of non-elite groups who take part in political decision making. On the other hand, the former question is problematic and appropriately criticised by pluralist as it will almost always lead to the existence of a power/ruling elite (Polsby 1960: 476). This is because the questions that follow from the former question would be something like ‘How do the people named in the above response run the community?’ (Polsby 1960: 476) This line of enquiry (which stems from the former problematic question) does not proffer the question of whether those said to rule do literally/actually rule (Polsby 1960: 476). Thus, the elitist assumption that there exists a power structure is problematic as it leads to a line of inquiry which almost always leads to the existence of a power elite.
On the other hand, pluralist focuses on outcomes in a few issues area so as to ascertain whose alternative prevails in the political decision-making process (Polsby 1960: 476). Although, one may argue that focusing on key issue areas does not exclude the possibility that the alternative of the power elite prevails over other groups in other issue areas (Polsby 1960: 477). However, by studying significant issues pluralist ensure a safeguard from this possibility. (Polsby 1960: 477). For instance, issues areas such as public education, the nominations by the two political parties, the creation of a ‘union high school district’ and the establishment of a new high school building were crucial issues studied by pluralist. (Polsby 1960: 477). However, one may object to this safeguard employed by pluralist on the grounds that elitist may prevail in trivial, non-significant issues. This objection is ironically met by elitist who argues that power elite thrives in significant issue areas but are unsuccessful only in inconsequential issue areas (Lynd and Lynd 1937). Furthermore, if at all there exist a power elite, it is unlikely that such elite will thrive in trivial issue areas but fail to ensure the prevalence of their alternative in issue areas that are significant (Polsby 1960: 478).
Another problem of the elitist approach, regarding its assumption of power, is the postulation that power structure is likely to be fixed over a period of time (Bachrach and Baratz 1962: 947). Pluralist adequately meet the flaw in this elitist assumption by noting that there exists a link between power and issues, and such issues could give rise to coalitions. Such coalitions, according to pluralist, is likely to be ephemeral at worst or possessing little qualities of endurance or stability at best (Polsby 1960: 478-479). Thus, as there is a link between power and issues (issues which in turn give rise to coalitions), to assume that power is fixed, is to assume that coalitions are fixed. And any assumption that coalitions are unfaltering is a false account of the realities of a society (Polsby 1960: 478-479).
The Elitist Notion of Power
The elitist concept of power focuses on the resources of actors, while the pluralist concept of power focuses on the exercise of power (Polsby 1960: 602-603) (Polsby 1960: 480-483). Pluralist correctly point to the flaw in this elitist notion of power. According to Polsby, elitist take a short-sighted view of power by focusing on the available resources of actors. This is because available resources can be exercised in such a way that they are used in the process of decision making (Polsby 1960: 483). Resources such as money, social status and information can be exercised in a way that they are used in the process of decision making (Dahl: 1959: 10). Thus, the pluralist notion of power takes the elitist notion of power a step further. This is because the pluralist notion of power not only considers resources available to actors but also the way in which such resources can be converted to the exercise of power (Polsby 1960: 483). Furthermore, the elitist notion of power may not adequately evaluate the genuine disposable resources of actors. The example given by Polsby clearly depict this. According to Polsby, when considering a company, the liquidity and principle of a company may restrain the amount of money (resources) the company may employ in order to influence decision making (1960: 483). Thus, power is not necessarily reflected in the resources available to actors.
Potential for control vs actual control
The pluralist criticism of elitism points to the inexact link of potential for control and actual control (Dahl 1958: 465). A political system may consist of a group possessing certain abilities or properties which allow such group to have an elevated/higher potential for control (Dahl 1958: 465). For instance, if military leaders and their subordinates in the U.S desired a military rule, they could initiate this without the assistance of business leaders or office holders in the executive branch (Dahl 1958: 465). However, such military dictatorship/rule has not been set up. This example illustrates that potential control is not, in a strict sense, equitable to actual control.
However, in the situation whereby potential control becomes actual control and certain groups have more influence than others in certain issue areas, one may argue that there exist a ruling elite. However, pluralist criticises this objection by pointing to the erroneous equation of a more influential group to a ruling elite (Dahl 1958: 465). A more influential group might rightly indicate the existence of political inequality; however, it is inaccurate to equate political inequality to the existence of a ruling/power elite (Dahl 1958: 465). Furthermore, pluralist makes the sound argument that the elevated/higher influence of one group over another group in one issue area does not constitute to a ruling elite. This is because it is empirically unsound to posit that a group having a high degree of influence in one issue area will have a high level of influence in other issue areas (Dahl 1958: 465).
Conclusion
In conclusion, the pluralist critique of the elitist theory is credible as it adequately addresses the methodological flaw of the elitist theory. Secondly, the pluralist critique of the elitist theory is sound as it properly addresses the problematic elitist assumption of the power structure in human institutions/ organisations. Furthermore, as the pluralist critique properly addresses the short-sighted notion of power in the elitist theory it can be argued to be a credible critique of the elitist theory. Lastly, by pointing to the erroneous equation of potential control to actual control, the pluralist theory proffer an appropriate criticism to the elitist theory.