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 playsufficient role in our life.
The term political system refers to a recognized set of procedures forimplementing and obtaining the goals of a group.
Each society must have a political system in order to maintainrecognized procedures for allocating valued resources. In politicalscientist Harold Lasswell's (1936) terms, politics is who gets what, when,and how. Thus, like religion and the family, a political system is acultural universal; it is a social institution found in every society.
We will focus on government and politics within the United States aswell as other industrialized nations and preindustrial societies. In theirstudy of politics and political systems, sociologists are concerned withsocial interactions among individuals and groups and their impact on thelarger political order. For example, in studying the controversy over thenomination of Judge Robert Bork, sociologists might wish to focus on how achange in the group structure of American society-the increasing importanceof the black vote for southern Democratic candidates-affected the decisionmaking of Howell Heflin and other senators (and, ultimately, the outcome ofthe Bork confirmation battle). From a sociological perspective, therefore,a fundamental question is: how do a nation's social conditions affect itsday-to-day political and governmental life?
POWER
Power is at the heart of a political system. Power may be defined asthe ability to exercise one's will over others. To put it another way, ifone party in a relationship can control the behavior of the other, thatindividual or group is exercising power. Power relations can involve largeorganizations, small groups, or even people in an intimate association.
Blood and Wolfe (1960) devised the concept of marital power to describe themanner in which decision making is distributed within families.
There are three basic sources of power within any politicalsystem-force, influence, and authority. Force is the actual or threateneduse of coercion to impose one's will on others. When leaders imprison oreven execute political dissidents, they are applying force; so, too, areterrorists when they seize an embassy or assassinate a political leader.
Influence, on the other hand, refers to the exercise of power through aprocess of persuasion. A citizen may change his or her position regarding a
Supreme Court nominee because of a newspaper editorial, the experttestimony of a law school dean before the Senate Judiciary Committee, or astirring speech at a rally by a political activist. In each case,sociologists would view such efforts to persuade people as examples ofinfluence. Authority, the third source of power, will be discussed later.
Max Weber made an important distinction between legitimate andillegitimate 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 acitizen 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, andreligious leaders as legitimate. By contrast, if the right of a leader torule is not accepted by most citizens (as is often the case when a dictatoroverthrows a popularly elected government), the regime will be consideredillegitimate. When those in power lack legitimacy, they usually resort tocoercive 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 thisquestion in three different ways. First, Marxist theories suggest thatpower is concentrated in the hands of the few who own the means ofproduction. Powerful capitalists manipulate social and culturalarrangements to increase further their wealth and power, often at theexpense of the powerless.
Second, power elite theories agree that power is concentrated in thehands of a few people; the elite includes military leaders, governmentofficials, and business executives. This group consists of those who occupythe top positions in our organizational hierarchies; they have similarbackgrounds and share the same interests and goals. According to this view,any organization (even a nation-state) has a built-in tendency to become anoligarchy (rule by the few).
Third, pluralist theories suggest that various groups and interestscompete for political power. In contrast to Marxist and power elitetheorists, pluralists see power as dispersed among many people and groupswho do not necessarily agree on what should be done. Lobbyists forenvironmental groups, for example, will battle with lobbyists for the coalindustry over antipollution legislation. In this way the will of the peopleis translated into political action. Thurow, however, suggests that toomany divergent views have made it nearly impossible to arrive at a publicpolicy that is both effective in solving social problems and satisfactoryto different interest groups.
TYPES OF AUTHORITY
The term authority refers to power that has been institutionalized andis recognized by the people over whom it is exercised. Sociologistscommonly use the term in connection with those who hold legitimate powerthrough elected or publicly acknowledged positions. It is important tostress that a person's authority is limited by the constraints of aparticular social position. Thus, a referee has the authority to decidewhether a penalty should be called during a football game but has noauthority over the price of tickets to the game.
Max Weber (1947) provided a classification system regarding authoritythat has become one of the most useful and frequently cited contributionsof early sociology. He identified three ideal types of authority:traditional, legal-rational, and charismatic. Weber did not insist thatparticular societies fit exactly into any one of these categories. Rather,all can be present in a society, but their relative degree of importancevaries. Sociologists have found Weber's typology to be quite valuable inunderstanding different manifestations of legitimate power within asociety.
Traditional Authority
In a political system based on traditional authority, legitimate poweris conferred by custom and accepted practice. The orders of one's superiorsare felt to be legitimate because "this is how things have always beendone. "For example, a king or queen is accepted as ruler of a nation simplyby virtue of inheriting the crown. The monarch may be loved or hated,competent or destructive; in terms of legitimacy, that does not matter. Forthe traditional leader, authority rests in custom, not in personalcharacteristics, technical competence, or even written law.
Traditional authority is absolute in many instances because the rulerhas the ability to determine laws and policies. Since the authority islegitimized by ancient custom, traditional authority is commonly associatedwith preindustrial societies. Yet this form of authority is also evident inmore developed nations. For example, a leader may take on the image ofhaving divine guidance, as was true of Japan's Emperor Hirohito, who ruledduring World War II. On another level, ownership and leadership in somesmall businesses, such as grocery stores and restaurants, may pass directlyfrom 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 andregulations of political systems. For example, the authority of thepresident of the United States and the Congress is legitimized by the
American Constitution. Generally, in societies based on legal-rationalauthority, leaders are conceived as servants of the people. They are notviewed as having divine inspiration, as are the heads of certain societieswith traditional forms of authority The United States, as a society whichvalues the rule of law, has legally defined limits on the power ofgovernment. Power is assigned to positions, not to individuals. Thus, when
Ronald Reagan became president in early 1981, he assumed the formal powersand duties of that office as specified by the Constitution. When Reagan'spresidency ended, those powers were transferred to his successor.
If a president acts within the legitimate powers of the office, butnot to our liking, we may wish to elect a new president. But we will notnormally argue that the president's power is illegitimate. However, if anofficial clearly exceeds the power of an office, as Richard Nixon did byobstructing justice during investigation of the Watergate burglary, theofficial's power may come to be seen as illegitimate. Moreover, as was trueof Nixon, the person may be forced out of office.
Charismatic Authority
Weber also observed that power can be legitimized by the charisma ofan individual. The term charismatic authority refers to power madelegitimate by a leader's exceptional personal or emotional appeal to his orher followers. Charisma allows a person to lead or inspire without relyingon set rules or traditions. Interestingly, such authority is derived morefrom the beliefs of loyal followers than from the actual qualities ofleaders. So long as people perceive the person as possessing qualities thatset him or her apart from ordinary citizens, the leader's authority willremain secure and often unquestioned.
Political scientist Ann Ruth Willner (1984) notes that eachcharismatic leader draws upon the values, beliefs, and traditions of aparticular society. The conspicuous sexual activity of longtime Indonesianpresident Achmed Sukarno reminded his followers of the gods in Japaneselegends and therefore was regarded as a sign of power and heroism. Bycontrast, Indians saw Mahatma Gandhi's celibacy as a demonstration ofsuperhuman self-discipline. Charismatic leaders also associate themselveswith widely respected cultural and religious heroes. Willner describes how
Ayalollah Khomeini of Iran associated himself with Husein, a Shiile Muslimmartyr; and Fidel Castro of Cuba associated himself with Jesus Christ.
Unlike traditional rulers, charismatic leaders often become well knownby breaking with established institutions and advocating dramatic changesin the social structure. The strong hold that such individuals have overtheir followers makes it easier to build protest movements which challengethe dominant norms and values of a society. Thus, charismatic leaders suchas Jesus, Mahatma Gandhi, and Martin Luther King all used their power topress 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, charismaticauthority is necessarily much shorter lived than either traditional orlegal-rational authority. As a result, charismatic leaders may attempt tosolidify their positions of power by seeking other legitimating mechanisms.
For example, Fidel Castro came to power in Cuba in 1959 as the leader of apopular revolution. Yet in the decades which followed the seizure of power,
Castro stood for election (without opposition) as a means of furtherlegitimating his authority as leader of Cuba.
If such authority is to extend beyond the lifetime of the charismaticleader, it must undergo what Weber called the routinization of charismaticauthority-the process by which the leadership qualities originallyassociated with an individual are incorporated into either a traditional ora legal-rational system. Thus, the charismatic authority of Jesus as leaderof the Christian church was transferred to the apostle Peter andsubsequently 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. Onceroutinization has taken place, authority eventually evolves into atraditional or legal-rational form.
As was noted earlier, Weber used traditional, legal-rational, andcharismatic authority as ideal types. In reality, particular leaders andpolitical systems combine elements of two or more of these forms.
Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy wielded power largelythrough the legal-rational basis of their authority. At the same time, theywere unusually charismatic leaders who commanded (lie personal loyalty oflarge 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 politicaldecisions are made by formal units of government. Five basic types ofgovernment are considered: monarchy, oligarchy, dictatorship,totalitarianism, and democracy.
Monarchy
A monarchy is a form of government headed by a single member of aroyal family, usually a king, a queen, or some other hereditary ruler. Inearlier times, many monarchs claimed that God had granted them a divineright to rule their lands. Typically, they governed on the basis oftraditional forms of authority, although these were sometimes accompaniedby the use of force. In the 1980s, monarchs hold genuine governmental powerin only a few nations, such as Monaco. Most monarchs have little practicalpower 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 Greeceand Egypt. Today, oligarchy often takes the form of military rule. Some ofthe developing nations of Africa, Asia, and Latin America are ruled bysmall factions of military officers who forcibly seized power-either fromlegally elected regimes or from other military cliques.
Strictly speaking, the term oligarchy is reserved for governments runby a few select individuals. However, the Soviet Union and the People's
Republic of China can be classified as oligarchies if we extend the meaningof the term somewhat. In each case, power rests in the hands of a rulinggroup-the Communist party. In a similar vein, drawing upon conflict theory,one may argue that many industrialized "democratic" nations of the westshould rightly be considered oligarchies, since only a powerful fewactually rule: leaders of big business, government, and the military.
Later, we will examine this "elite model" of the American political systemin greater detail.
Dictatorship and Totalitarianism
A dictatorship is a government in which one person has nearly totalpower to make and enforce laws. Dictators rule primarily through the use ofcoercion, often including torture and executions. Typically, they seizepower, rather than being freely elected (as in a democracy) or inheriting aposition of power (as is true of monarchs). Some dictators are quitecharismatic and achieve a certain "popularity," though this popular supportis almost certain to be intertwined with fear. Other dictators are bitterlyhated by the populations over whom they rule with an iron hand.
Frequently, dictatorships develop such overwhelming control overpeople's lives that they are called totalitarian. Monarchies andoligarchies also have the potential to achieve this type of dominance.
Totalitarianism involves virtually complete governmental control andsurveillance over all aspects of social and political life in a society.
Bolt Nazi Germany under Hitler and the Soviet Union of the 1980s areclassified as totalitarian states.
Political scientists Carl Friedrich and Zbigniew Brzezinski haveidentified six bask traits that typify totalitarian states. These include:
1. 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.
2. 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.
3. Control of weapons. Totalitarian states also monopolize the use of arms.
All military units art subject to the control of the ruling regime.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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 peoplerepresentation in the political, economic, and social decisions that affecttheir lives. Such governments have pervasive control over people'sdestinies.
Democracy
In a literal sense, democracy means government by the people. The worddemocracy 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 thenational 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 ofparticipation known as representative democracy, in which certainindividuals are selected to speak for the people.
The United States is commonly classified as a representativedemocracy, since we elect members of Congress and state legislatures tohandle the task of writing our laws. However, critics have questioned howrepresentative our democracy is. Are the masses genuinely represented? Isthere authentic self-government in the United States or merely competitionbetween powerful elites?
Clearly, citizens cannot be effectively represented if they are notgranted the right to vote. Yet our nation did not enfranchise black malesuntil 1870, and women were not allowed to vote in presidential electionsuntil 1920. American Indians were allowed to become citizens (therebyqualifying to vote) only in 1924, and as late as 1956, some statesprevented Indians from voting in local elections if they lived onreservations.
Unlike monarchies, oligarchies, and dictatorships, the democratic formof government implies an opposition which is tolerated or, indeed,encouraged to exist. In the United States, we have two major politicalparties-the Democrats and Republicans-as well as various minor parties.
Sociologists use the term political party to refer to an organization whosepurposes are to promote candidates for elected office, advance an ideologyas reflected in positions on political issues, win elections, and exercisepower. 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 toidentify the factors which may help to bring about democratic forms ofgovernment. He argues that a high level of economic development encouragesboth stability and democracy. Upset reached this conclusion after studying
50 nations and finding a high correlation between economic development andcertain forms of government.
Why should there be such a link? In a society with a high level ofdevelopment, the population generally tends to be urbanized and literateand is better equipped to participate in decision making and make the viewsof its members heard. In addition, as Upset suggests, a relatively affluentsociety will be comparatively free from demands on government by low-incomecitizens. Poor people in such nations can reasonably aspire to upwardmobility. Therefore, along with the large middle class typically found inindustrial societies, the poorer segments of society may have a stake ineconomic and political stability.
Upset's formulation has been attacked by conflict theorists, who tendto be critical of the distribution of power within democracies. As we willsee later, many conflict theorists believe that the United States is run bya small economic and political elite. At the same time, they observe thateconomic stability does not necessarily promote or guarantee politicalfreedoms. Lipset (1972) himself agrees that democracy in practice is farfrom ideal and that one must distinguish between varying degrees ofdemocracy in democratic systems of government. Thus, we cannot assume thata 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 politicalsystem. We are accustomed to living in a nation with a Bill of Rights, twomajor political parties, voting by secret ballot, an elected president,state and local governments distinct from the national government, and soforth. Yet, of course, each society has its own ways of governing itselfand making decisions. Just as we expect Democratic and Republicancandidates to compete for public offices, residents of the Soviet Union areaccustomed to the domination of the Communist party. In this section, wewill 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 tosurvive were identified. Among these was the need to teach recruits toaccept the values and customs of the group. In a political sense, thisfunction is crucial; each succeeding generation must be encouraged toaccept a society's basic political values and its particular methods ofdecision making.
Political socialization is the process by which individuals acquirepolitical attitudes and develop patterns of political behavior. Thisinvolves not only learning the prevailing beliefs of a society but alsocoming to accept the surrounding political system despite its limitationsand problems. In the United States, people are socialized to viewrepresentative democracy as the best form of government and to cherish suchvalues as freedom, equality, patriotism, and the right of dissent.
The principal institutions of political socialization are those whichalso socialize us to other cultural norms-including the family, schools,and the media. Many observers see the family as playing a particularlysignificant role in this process. "The family incubates political man,"observed political scientist Robert Lane. In fact, parents pass on theirpolitical attitudes and evaluations to their sons and daughters throughdiscussions at the dinner table and also through the example of theirpolitical involvement or apathy. Early socialization does not alwaysdetermine a person's political orientation; there are changes over time andbetween generations. Yet research on political socialization continues toshow that parents 'views have an important impact on their children'soutlook.
The schools can be influential in political socialization, since theyprovide young people with information and analysis of the political world.
Unlike the family and peer groups, schools are easily susceptible tocentralized and uniform control; consequently, totalitarian societiescommonly use educational institutions for purposes of indoctrination. Yet,even in democracies, where local schools are not under the pervasivecontrol of the national government, political education will generallyreflect the norms and values of the prevailing political order.
In the view of conflict theorists, American students learn much morethan factual information about our political and economic way of life. Theyare 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 mostnegative fashion or are ignored. From a conflict perspective, this type ofpolitical education serves the interests of the powerful and ignores thesignificance of the social divisions found within the United States.
It is difficult to pinpoint a precise time in which politics islearned. Fred Greenstein argues that the crucial time in a young person'spsychological, 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 weremuch more able to understand abstract political concepts than were childrena few years younger. Specifically, in response to a question about themeaning of government, older children tended to identify with Congress,whereas younger children identified with a more personal figure such as thepresident. Other research, however, points to a significant leap inpolitical sophistication during the ages of 13 to 15.
Surprisingly, expression of a preference for a political party oftencomes before young people have a full understanding of the politicalsystem. Surveys indicate that 65 to 75 percent of children aged 10 and 11express commitment to a specific political label, including "independent."
Political scientists M. Kent Jennings and Richard G. Niemi (1974) havefound that children who demonstrate high levels of political competence-byunderstanding the differences between political parties and between liberaland conservative philosophies-are more likely to become politically activeduring adulthood.
Like the family and schools, the mass media can have obvious effectson people's thinking and political behavior. Beginning with the Kennedy-
Nixon presidential debates of 1960, television has given increasingexposure to political candidates. One result has been the rising importanceof politicians ' "images" as perceived by the American public. Today, manyspeeches given by our nation's leaders are designed not for immediatelisteners, but for the larger television audience. In the social policysection later, we will examine the impact of television on Americanpolitical campaigns.
Although television has obvious impact on elective politics, it hasalso become an important factor in other aspects of American politicallife. In 1987, when a joint congressional committee held televised hearingson the Iran-contra scandal, Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North's outspokentestimony brought him a wave of public support. One effect of his mediasuccess, though primarily in the short run, was an increase in support forthe "contras" and their effort to overthrow Nicaragua's Marxist regime. Bycontrast. Judge Robert Bork's televised testimony before the Senate
Judiciary Committee in 1987 seemed to hurt his chances of winningconfirmation as a Supreme Court justice.
A number of communication studies have reported that the media do nottend to influence the masses of people directly. Elihu Katz (1957)describes the process as a two-step flow of communication, using anapproach which reflects interactionists 'emphasis on the socialsignificance of everyday social exchanges. In Katz's view, messages passedthrough the media first reach a small number of opinion leaders, includingteachers, 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 groupsof people. For example, someone who hears a disturbing report about thedangers of radioactive wastes in a nearby river will probably tell familymembers and friends. Each of these persons may inform still others andperhaps persuade them to support the position of an environmentalist groupworking to clean up the river. Of course, in any communications process inwhich 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 effectivelyand fairly if there is an informed and active electorate communicating itsviews to government leaders. Unfortunately, this is hardly the case in the
United States. Virtually all Americans are familiar with the basics of thepolitical process, and most tend to identify to some extent with apolitical party, but only a small minority (often members of the highersocial classes) actually participate in political organizations on a localor national level. Studies reveal that only 8 percent of Americans belongto a political club or organization. Not more than one in five has evercontacted an official of national, state, or local government about apolitical issue or problem.
The failure of most Americans to become involved in political partieshas serious implications for the functioning of our democracy. Within thepolitical system of the United States, the political party serves as anintermediary between people and government. Through competition inregularly scheduled elections, the two-party system provides for challengesto public policies and for an orderly transfer of power. An individualdissatisfied with the state of the nation or a local community can becomeinvolved in the political party process in many ways, such as by joining apolitical club, supporting candidates for public office, or working tochange the party's position on controversial issues. If, however, people donot take interest in the decisions of major political parties, publicofficials in a "representative" democracy will be chosen from twounrepresentative lists of candidates. In the 1980s, it has become clearthat many
Americans are turned off by political parties, politicians, and thespecter of big government. The most dramatic indication of this growingalienation comes from voting statistics. Voters of all ages and racesappear to be less enthusiastic than ever about American elections, evenpresidential contests. For example, almost 80 percent of eligible Americanvoters 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 alladults. By contrast, elections during the first half of the 1980s broughtout 85 percent or more of the voting-age population in Austria, Belgium,
Italy, Portugal, and Sweden.
Declining political participation allows institutions of government tooperate with less of a sense of accountability to society. This issue ismost serious for the least powerful individual and groups within the United
States. Voter turn out has been particularly low among younger Americansand members of racial and ethnic minorities. In 1984, only 36 percent ofeligible voters aged 18 to 20 went to the polls. According to apostelection survey, only 55.8 percent of eligible black voters and 32.6percent of Hispanic reported that they had actually voted. Moreover, thepoor-whose focus understandably is on survival-are traditionally under -represented among voters as well. The low turnout found among these groupsis explained, at least in part, by their common feeling of powerlessness.
Yet such voting statistics encourage political power brokers to continue toignore the interests of the young, the less affluent, and the nation'sminorities.
Sociologist Anthony Orum notes that people are more likely toparticipate actively in political life if they have a sense of politicalefficacy-that is, if they feel that they have (he ability to influencepoliticians and the political order. In addition, citizens are more likelyto become involved if they trust political leaders or feel that anorganized political party represents their interest. Without question, inan age marked by the rise of big government and by revelations of politicalcorruption at the highest levels, many Americans of all social groups feelpowerless and distrustful. Yet such feelings are especially intense amongthe young, the poor, and minorities. is a result, many view politicalparticipation, including voting, as a waste of time.
Cross-national comparisons, while confirming he comparatively lowlevel of voting in the linked States, also suggest that Americans are morelikely than citizens of other nations to be active at the community level,to contact local officials on behalf of themselves or others, and to haveworked for a political party. Perhaps this contrast reflects how unusual itis for people to be directly involved in national political decision makingin the modem world. Nevertheless, it is possible to speculate that if tensof millions of Americans did not stay home on Election Day-and insteadbecame more active in the nation's political life-the outcome of thepolitical process might be somewhat different.
Women and Politics
In 1984, American women achieved an unprecedented politicalbreakthrough when Representative Geraldine Ferraro of New York became the
Democratic nominee for vice president of the United States. Never beforehad a woman received the nomination of a major party for such high office.
Nevertheless, women continue to be dramatically underrepresented inthe halls of government. In 1988, there were only 23 women (out of 435members) in the House of Representatives and only 2 women (out of 100members) in the Senate. This is not because women have failed toparticipate actively in political life. Eligible women vote at a slightlyhigher rate than men. The League of Women Voters, founded in 1920, is anonpartisan organization which performs valuable functions in educating theelectorate of both sexes. Perhaps the most visible role of women in
American politics is as unpaid workers for male candidates: ringingdoorbells, telephoning registered voters, and carrying petitions. Inaddition, wives of elected male politicians commonly play significantsupportive roles and are increasingly speaking out in their own right onimportant and controversial issues of public policy.
The sexism of American society has been the most serious barrier towomen interested in holding public office. Female candidates have had toovercome the prejudices of both men and women regarding women's fitness forleadership. Not until 1955 did a majority of Americans state that theywould vote for a qualified woman for president. Yet, as a 1984 nationalsurvey revealed, Americans say they will support a woman running for officeonly if she is by far the most qualified candidate.
Moreover, women often encounter prejudice, discrimination, and abuseafter they are elected. In 1979, a questionnaire was circulated among malelegislators 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 inwinning election to public office. For example, there were 1176 women instate 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 areidentifying themselves as feminists. The traditional woman in politics wasa widow who took office after her husband's death to continue his work andpolicies. However, women being elected in the 1980s are much more likely toview politics as their own career rather than as an afterthought. Thesetrends are not restricted to the United States.
A new dimension of women and politics emerged in the 1980s. Surveysdetected a growing "gender gap" in the political preferences and activitiesof males and females. Women were more likely to register as Democrats thanas Republicans and were also more critical of the policies of the
Republican administration. What accounts for this "gender gap"? Accordingto political analysts, the Democratic party's continued support for theequal rights amendment may be attracting women voters, a majority of whomsupport this measure. At the same time, virtually all polling data indicatethat women are substantially less likely than men to favor large defensebudgets and military intervention overseas; these policies have become moreassociated with the Republican party of the 1980s than with the Democrats.
Politicians have begun to watch carefully the voting trends amongwomen, since women voters could prove decisive in dose elections. Thegender gap did appear to be a factor in the 1984 elections-though not assignificant a factor as some observers had expected. According to a poll by
ABC News, men supported President Ronald Reagan's successful bid forreelection by a margin of 63 to 36 percent. By contrast, 56 percent ofwomen voted for Reagan while 44 percent supported the Democratic ticket of
Walter Mondale and Geraldine Ferraro. In the 1986 elections, the ender gapnarrowed somewhat, yet apparently contributed to the victories of
Democratic senatorial candidates in at least nine states, four of them inthe south. For example, in Colorado, men supported Republican Ken Kramerover Democrat Timothy Wirth by a 49 to 48 percent margin, yet Wirth waselected because women preferred him by a 53 to 44 percent margin. Bycontributing to these Democratic victories, women voters were an importantfactor in the party's 1986 takeover of e Senate.
Interest Groups
This discussion of political behavior has focused primarily onindividual participation (and non-participation) in the decision-makingprocesses of government and on involvement in the nation's politicalparties. However, there are other important ways that American citizens canplay a role in the nation's political arena. Because of common needs orcommon frustrations, people may band together in social movements such asthe civil rights movement of the 1960s or the anti-nuclear power movementof the 1980s. Americans can also influence the political process throughmembership in interest groups (some of which, in fact, may be part oflarger social movements).
An interest group is a voluntary association of citizens who attemptto influence public policy. The National Organization for Women (NOW) isconsidered an interest group, so, too, are the Juvenile Diabetes Foundationand the National Rifle Association (NRA). Such groups are a vital part ofthe American political process Many interest groups (often known aslobbies) are national in scope and address a wide variety of political andsocial 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 thenomination of Judge Robert Bork for the Supreme Court.
Typically, we think of interest groups as being primarily concernedwith regulatory legislation However, as political scientist Barbara Ann
Stolz (1981) points out, even the federal criminal code has become a targetfor interest-group activity Business groups have sought to strike the
"reckless endangerment" provision that, in effect, makes it a crime for abusiness to engage knowingly in conduct that will imperil someone's life
Business interests have also attempted to broaden the criminal code toinclude certain types of incidents that occur during labor disputes,unions, by contrast, wish to maintain current laws.
Interest groups often pursue their political goals throughlobbying-the process by which individuals and groups communicate withpublic officials in order to influence decisions of government. They alsodistribute persuasive literature and launch publicity campaigns to buildgrass roots support for their political objectives Finally, interestgroups, through their political action committees, donate funds topolitical candidates whose views are in line with the groups 'legislativeagendas.
The role of interest groups within the American political system hasgenerated intense controversy, particularly because of the special relationships that exist between government officials and lobbyists for interestgroups The widespread nature of these ties is evident from the number offormer legislators who, after retiring or losing bids for reelection,immediately go on the payroll of interest groups In 1985, there were 300former lawmakers and former high-level White House officials parlayingtheir governmental experience into profitable new careers as Washingtonlawyers, lobbyists, consultants, and administrators So pervasive is thisnetwork of insiders that an organization. Former Members of Congress, linksthem together Currently, there are no laws preventing members of Congressfrom returning as lobbyists to reshape (or even dismantle) legislation thatthey 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 theview of functionalists, such groups play a constructive role in decisionmaking by allowing orderly expression of public opinion and by increasingpolitical participation They also provide legislators with a useful flow ofinformation
Conflict theorists stress that although a very few organizations workon behalf of the poor and disadvantaged, most American interest groupsrepresent affluent white professionals and business leaders From a conflictperspective, the overwhelming political clout of these powerful lobbiesdiscourages participation by the individual citizen and raises seriousquestions 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 theresmall elite of Americans that governs behind the scenes? It is difficult todetermine the location of power in a society as complex as the Unite States
In exploring this critical question, social scientists have developed twobasic views of our nation's power structure the elite and pluralism models.
Elite Model
Karl Marx essentially believed that nineteenth century representativedemocracy was a shape.
He argued that industrial societies were dominated by relatively smallnumbers of people who owned factories and controlled natural resources In
Marx's view, government officials and military leaders were essentiallyservants of the capitalist class and followed their wishes therefore, anykey decisions made by politicians inevitably reflected the interests of thedominant bourgeoisie Like others who hold an elite model of powerrelations, Marx thus believed that society is ruled by a small group ofindividuals 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 ofmilitary, industrial, and governmental leaders who controlled the fate ofthe United States. Power rested in the hands of a few, both inside andoutside of government-the power elite. In Mill's words:
The power elite is composed of men whose positions enable them totranscend the ordinary environments of ordinary men and women, they are inpositions to make decisions having major consequences. ... They arc incommand of the major hierarchies and organizations of modern society.
In Mills's model, the power structure of the United States can beillustrated 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 localopinion leaders, members of the legislative branch of government, andleaders of special-interest groups. Mills contended that such individualsand 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 theeconomically powerful coordinate their maneuvers with the military andpolitical establishments in order to serve their mutual interests. Yet,reminiscent of Marx. Mills argued that the corporate rich were perhaps themost powerful element of the power elite (first among "equals"). And, ofcourse, there is a further dramatic parallel between the work of theseconflict theorists The powerless masses at the bottom of Mills's powerelite model certainly bring to mind Marx's portrait of the oppressedworkers of the world, who have "nothing to lose but their chains".
Mills failed to provide detailed case studies which would substantiatethe interrelationship among members of the power elite. Instead, hesuggested that such foreign policy decisions as America's entry into the
Korean war reflected a determination by business and military leaders thateach could benefit from such armed conflict. In Mills s view, such asharing of perspectives was facilitated by the frequent interchange ofcommanding roles among the elite. For example, a banker might become theleader of a federal regulatory commission overseeing financialinstitutions, and a retired general might move to an executive positionwith a major defense contracting firm.
A fundamental element in Mills's thesis is that the power elite notonly has relatively few members but also operates as a self-conscious,cohesive unit. Although not necessarily diabolical or ruthless, the elitecomprises similar types of people who regularly interact with one anotherand have essentially the same political and economic interests. Mills'spower elite is not a conspiracy but rather a community of interest andsentiment among a small number of influential Americans.
Admittedly, Mills failed to clarify when the elite acts and when ittolerates protests. Nevertheless, his challenging theories forced scholarsto look more critically at the "democratic" political system of the United
States.
The Ruling Class. Sociologist G. William Domhoff agreed with Millsthat American society is run by a powerful elite. But, rather than fullyaccepting Mills's power elite model, Domhoff argued that the United Statesis controlled by a social upper class "that is a ruling class by virtue ofits dominant role in the economy and government ". This socially cohesiveruling 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 thissocial upper class. Membership comes through being pan of a familyrecognized in The Social Register-the directory of the social elite in many
American cities. Attendance at prestigious private schools and membershipin exclusive social clubs are further indications that a person comes from
America's social upper class. Domhoff estimates that about 0.5 percent ofthe American population (or 1 of every 200 people) belongs to this socialand political elite.
Of course, this would mean that the ruling class has more than 1million members and could hardly achieve the cohesiveness that Millsattributed to the power elite. However, Domhoff adds that the social upperclass as a whole does not rule the nation. Instead, members of this classwho have assumed leadership roles within the corporate community or thenation's policy-planning network join with high-level employees of profit -making and nonprofit institutions controlled by the social upper class toexercise power.
In Domhoff's view, the ruling class should not be seen in aconspiratorial way, as "sinister men lurking behind the throne." On thecontrary they tend to hold public positions of authority. Almost allimportant appointive government posts-including those of diplomats andcabinet members-are filled by members of the social upper class. Domhoffcontends that members of this class dominate powerful corporations,foundations, universities, and the executive branch of government. Theycontrol presidential nominations and the political party process throughcampaign contributions. In addition, the ruling class exerts a significant
(though not absolute) influence within Congress and units of state andlocal government.
Perhaps the major difference between the elite models of Mills and
Domhoff is that Mills insisted on the relative autonomy of the politicalelite and attached great significance to the independent power of themilitary. By contrast, Domhoff suggests that high-level government andmilitary leaders serve the interests of the social upper class. Boththeorists, in line with a Marxian approach, assume that the rich areinterested only in what benefits them financially. Furthermore, asadvocates of elite models of power. Mills and Domhoff argue that the massesof American people have no real influence on the decisions of the powerful.
One criticism of the elite model is that its advocates sometimessuggest that elites are always victorious. With this in mind, sociologist
J. Alien Whitt (1982) examined the efforts of California's business elitesto support urban mass transit. He found that lobbying by these elites wassuccessful in San Francisco but failed in Los Angeles. Whitt points outthat opponents of policies backed by elites can mobilize to thwart theirimplementation.
Domhoff admits that the ruling class does not exercise total controlover American society. However, he counters that this elite is able to setpolitical terms under which other groups and classes must operate.
Consequently, although the ruling class may lose on a particular issue, itwill not allow serious challenges to laws which guarantee its economicprivileges and political domination.
Pluralist Model
Several social scientists have questioned the elite models of powerrelations proposed by Marx, Mills, Domhoff, and other conflict theorists.
Quite simply, the critics insist that power in the United States is morewidely shared than the elite model indicates. In their view, a pluralistmodel more accurately describes the American political system. According tothe pluralist model, "many conflicting groups within the community haveaccess to government officials and compete with one another in an effort toinfluence policy decisions ".
Veto Groups. David Riesman's The Lonely Crowd suggested that the
American political system could best be understood through examination ofthe power of veto groups. The term veto groups refers to interest groupsthat have the capacity to prevent the exercise of power by others.
Functionally, they serve to increase political participation by preventingthe concentration of political power. Examples cited by Riesman includefarm groups, labor unions, professional associations, and racial and ethnicgroups. Whereas Mills pointed to the dangers of rule by an undemocraticpower elite, Riesman insisted that veto groups could effectively paralyzethe nation's political processes by blocking anyone from exercising neededleadership functions. In Riesman's words, "The only leaders of nationalscope left in the United States are those who can placate the veto groups ".
Dahl's Study of Pluralism. Community studies of power have alsosupported the pluralist model. One of the most famous-an investigation ofdecision making in New Haven, Connecticut-was reported by Robert Dahl inhis book, Who Governs? (1961). Dahl found that while the number of peopleinvolved in any important decision was rather small, community power wasnonetheless diffuse. Few political actors exercised decision-making poweron all issues. Therefore, one individual or group might be influential in abattle over urban renewal but at the same time might have little impactover educational policy. Several other studies of local politics, in suchcommunities as Chicago and Oberlin, Ohio, further document that monolithicpower structures do not operate on the level of local government.
Just as the elite model has been challenged on political andmethodological grounds, the pluralist model has been subjected to seriousquestioning. Domhoff (1978) reexamined Dahl's study of decision making in
New Haven and argued that Dahl and other pluralists had failed to trace howlocal elites prominent in decision making were part of a larger nationalruling class. In addition, studies of community power, such as Dahl's workin New Haven, can examine decision making only on issues which become panof the political agenda. This focus fails to address the possible power ofelites to keep certain matters entirely out of the realm of governmentdebate. Conflict theorists contend that these elites will not allow anyoutcome of the political process which threatens their dominance. Indeed,they may even be strong enough to block discussion of such measures bypolicymakers.
Who Does Rule?
Without question, the pluralist and elite models have little incommon. Each describes a dramatically different distribution of power, withsharply contrasting consequences for society. Is there any way that we canreconcile the vast disagreements in these two approaches?
Perhaps we can conclude that, despite their apparent points ofincompatibility, each model offers an accurate picture of Americanpolitical life. Power in various areas rests in the hands of a small numberof citizens who are well-insulated from the will of the masses (eliteview). Yet there are so many diverse issues and controversies in thenation's political institutions that few individuals or groups consistentlyexercise power outside their distinctive spheres of influence (pluralistview). Even presidents of the United States have acknowledged that theyfelt 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 inthe federal government (elite model). But, even within the federalbureaucracy, there are a staggering number of agencies with differing ideasand interests (pluralist model).
We can end this discussion with the one common point of the elite andpluralist perspectives-power in the American political system is unequallydistributed. All citizens may be equal in theory, yet those high in thenation's power structure are "more equal."
SUMMARY
Each society must have a political system in order to have recognizedprocedures for the allocation of valued resources-in Harold D. Lasswell'sterms, for deciding who gets what, when, and how. We have examined varioustypes of political authority and forms of government and explores thedimensions of the American political system.
1. Power relations can involve large organizations, small groups, or even individuals in an intimate relationship.
2. There are three basic sources of power within any political system - force, influence, and authority.
3. 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.
4. The United States, as a society which values the role of law, has legally defined limits on the power of government.
5. In the 1980s, monarchies hold genuine governmental power in only a few nations of the world.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. The principal institutions of political socialization m American society arc the family, schools, and media.
10. Only a small minority of Americans actually participate in political organizations or in decision making on a local or national level.
11. Women are becoming more successful at winning election to public office.
12. An interest group a often national in scope and frequently addresses a wide variety of social and political issues.
13. 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.
14. Television is having a growing impact on American political campaigns.
KEY TERMS
Authority Power that has been institutionalized and is recognized bythe people over whom it is exercised.
Charismatic authority Max Weber's term for power made legitimate by aleader'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 powerto make and enforce laws.
Dictatorship of the proletariat Marx's term for the temporary rule bythe working class during a stage between the successful proletarianrevolution and the establishment of a classless communist society.
Elite model A view of society as ruled by a small group of individualswho share a common set of political and economic interests.
Force The actual or threatened use of coercion to impose one's will onothers.
Influence The exercise of power through a process of persuasion.
Interest group A voluntary association of citizens who attempt toinfluence public policy.
Legal-rational authority Max Weber's term for power made legitimate bylaw.
Legitimacy The belief of a citizenry that a government has the rightto rule and that a citizen ought to obey the rules and laws of thatgovernment.
Lobbying The process by which individuals and groups communicate withpublic officials in order to influence decisions of government.
Marital power A term used by Blood and Wolfe to describe the manner inwhich decision making is distributed within families.
Monarchy A form of government headed by a single member of a royalfamily, 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 groupswithin a community have access to governmental officials and compete withone another in an attempt to influence policy decisions.
Political action committee (PAC) A political committee established bya national bank, corporation, trade association, or cooperative ormembership association to accept voluntary contributions for candidates orpolitical parties.
Political efficacy The feeling that one has the ability to influencepoliticians and the political order.
Political party An organization whose purposes are to promotecandidates for public office, advance an ideology as reflected in positionson public issues, win elections, and exercise power.
Political socialization The process by which individuals acquirepolitical attitudes and develop patterns of political behavior.
Political system A recognized set of procedures for implementing andobtaining 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 ofmilitary, 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 certainindividuals are selected to speak for the people.
Routinization of charismatic authority Max Weber's term for theprocess by which the leadership qualities originally associated with anindividual are incorporated into either a traditional or a legal-rationalsystem of authority.
Terrorism The use or threat of violence against random or symbolictargets in pursuit of political aims.
Totalitarianism Virtually complete government control and surveillanceover all aspects of social and political life in a society. (390)
Traditional authority Legitimate power conferred by custom andaccepted practice.
Two-step flow of communication Elihu Katz's term for a process throughwhich a message is spread by the media to opinion leaders and issubsequently passedi along to the general public.
Veto groups David Riesman's term for interest groups that have thecapacity to prevent the exercise of power by others.
References:
1. 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
2. Richard T. Schaefer, "Sociology", Western Illinois University, 1989
