CONTENT
Introduction3
POWER3
How is political power distributedamong members of society?3
TYPESOF AUTHORITY4
Traditional Authority4
Legal-Rational Authority4
Charismatic Authority5
TYPESOF GOVERNMENT5
Monarchy6
Oligarchy6
Dictatorship and Totalitarianism6
Democracy7
POLITICALBEHAVIOR IN THE UNITED STATES8
Political Socialization8
Participation and Apathy9
Women and Politics10
Interest Groups11
MODELSOF POWER STRUCTURE IN THE UNITED STATES12
Elite Model12
Pluralist Model14
Who Does Rule?15
SUMMARY15
KEY TERMS16
References:17
Politicalsystem is one of the subsystem of society, and play sufficient rolein our life.
Theterm politicalsystemrefers to a recognized set of procedures for implementing andobtaining the goals of a group.
Each society must have a politicalsystem in order to maintain recognized procedures for allocatingvalued resources. In political scientist Harold Lasswell’s(1936) terms, politicsis who gets what, when, and how. Thus, like religion and the family,a political system is a cultural universal; it is a socialinstitution found in every society.
Wewill focus on government and politics within the United States aswell as other industrialized nations and preindustrial societies. Intheir study of politics and political systems, sociologists areconcerned with social interactions among individuals and groups andtheir impact on the larger political order. For example, in studyingthe controversy over the nomination of Judge Robert Bork,sociologists might wish to focus on how a change in the groupstructure of American society—the increasing importance of theblack vote for southern Democratic candidates—affected thedecision making of Howell Heflin and other senators (and, ultimately,the outcome of the Bork confirmation battle). From a sociologicalperspective, therefore, a fundamental question is: how do a nation’ssocial conditions affect its day-to-day political and governmentallife?
Power is at the heart of a politicalsystem. Power maybe defined as the ability to exercise one’s will over others.To put it another way, if one party in a relationship can control thebehavior of the other, that individual or group is exercising power.Power relations can involve large organizations, small groups, oreven people in an intimate association. Blood and Wolfe (1960)devised the concept of maritalpower todescribe the manner in which decision making is distributed withinfamilies.
There are three basic sources ofpower within any political system—force, influence, andauthority. Forceis the actualor threatened use of coercion to impose one’s will on others.When leaders imprison or even execute political dissidents, they areapplying force; so, too, are terrorists when they seize an embassy orassassinate a political leader. Influence,on the other hand, refers to the exercise of power through a processof persuasion. A citizen may change his or her position regarding aSupreme Court nominee because of a newspaper editorial, the experttestimony of a law school dean before the Senate Judiciary Committee,or a stirring speech at a rally by a political activist. In eachcase, sociologists would view such efforts to persuade people asexamples of influence. Authority,the third source of power, will be discussed later.
Max Weber made an importantdistinction between legitimate and illegitimate power. In a politicalsense, the term legitimacyrefers to the"belief of a citizenry that a government has the right to ruleand that a citizen ought to obey the rules and laws of thatgovernment". Of course, the meaning of the term can be extendedbeyond the sphere of government. Americans typically accept the powerof their parents, teachers, and religious leaders as legitimate. Bycontrast, if the right of a leader to rule is not accepted by mostcitizens (as is often the case when a dictator overthrows a popularlyelected government), the regime will be considered illegitimate. Whenthose in power lack legitimacy, they usually resort to coercivemethods in order to maintain control over social institutions.
Political power is not divided evenly among all membersof society. How extreme is this inequality? Three theoreticalperspectives answer this question in three different ways. First,Marxist theories suggest that power is concentrated in the hands ofthe few who own the means of production. Powerful capitalistsmanipulate social and cultural arrangements to increase further theirwealth and power, often at the expense of the powerless.
Second,power elite theories agree that power is concentrated in the hands ofa few people; the elite includes military leaders, governmentofficials, and business executives. This group consists of those whooccupy the top positions in our organizational hierarchies; they havesimilar backgrounds and share the same interests and goals. Accordingto this view, any organization (even a nation-state) has a built-intendency to become an oligarchy (rule by the few).
Third, pluralist theories suggest that various groupsand interests compete for political power. In contrast to Marxist andpower elite theorists, pluralists see power as dispersed among manypeople and groups who do not necessarily agree on what should bedone. Lobbyists for environmental groups, for example, will battlewith lobbyists for the coal industry over antipollution legislation.In this way the will of the people is translated into politicalaction. Thurow, however, suggests that too many divergent views havemade it nearly impossible to arrive at a public policy that is botheffective in solving social problems and satisfactory to differentinterest groups.
The term authorityrefers to power that has been institutionalized and is recognized bythe people over whom it is exercised. Sociologists commonly use theterm in connection with those who hold legitimate power throughelected or publicly acknowledged positions. It is important to stressthat a person’s authority is limited by the constraints of aparticular social position. Thus, a referee has the authority todecide whether a penalty should be called during a football game buthas no authority over the price of tickets to the game.
Max Weber (1947) provided aclassification system regarding authority that has become one of themost useful and frequently cited contributions of early sociology. Heidentified three ideal types of authority: traditional,legal-rational, and charismatic.Weber did not insist that particular societies fit exactly into anyone of these categories. Rather, all can be present in a society, buttheir relative degree of importance varies. Sociologists have foundWeber’s typology to be quite valuable in understandingdifferent manifestations of legitimate power within a society.
In a political system based ontraditionalauthority,legitimate power is conferred by custom and accepted practice. Theorders of one’s superiors are felt to be legitimate because"this is how things have always been done." For example, aking or queen is accepted as ruler of a nation simply by virtue ofinheriting the crown. The monarch may be loved or hated, competent ordestructive; in terms of legitimacy, that does not matter. For thetraditional leader, authority rests in custom, not in personalcharacteristics, technical competence, or even written law.
Traditionalauthority is absolute in many instances because the ruler has theability to determine laws and policies. Since the authority islegitimized by ancient custom, traditional authority is commonlyassociated with preindustrial societies. Yet this form of authorityis also evident in more developed nations. For example, a leader maytake on the image of having divine guidance, as was true of Japan’sEmperor Hirohito, who ruled during World War II. On another level,ownership and leadership in some small businesses, such as grocerystores and restaurants, may pass directly from parent to child andgeneration to generation.
Power made legitimate by law is knownas legal-rationalauthority.Leaders of such societies derive their authority from the writtenrules and regulations of political systems. For example, theauthority of the president of the United States and the Congress islegitimized by the American Constitution. Generally, in societiesbased on legal-rational authority, leaders are conceived as servantsof the people. They are not viewed as having divine inspiration, asare the heads of certain societies with traditional forms ofauthority The United States, as a society which values the rule oflaw, has legally defined limits on the power of government. Power isassigned to positions, not to individuals. Thus, when Ronald Reaganbecame president in early 1981, he assumed the formal powers andduties of that office as specified by the Constitution. When Reagan’spresidency ended, those powers were transferred to his successor.
If a president acts within thelegitimate powers of the office, but not to our liking, we may wishto elect a new president. But we will not normally argue that thepresident’s power is illegitimate. However, if an officialclearly exceeds thepower of an office, as Richard Nixon did by obstructing justiceduring investigation of the Watergate burglary, the official’spower may come to be seen as illegitimate. Moreover, as was true ofNixon, the person may be forced out of office.
Weber also observed that power can belegitimized by the charisma of an individual. The term charismaticauthority refersto power made legitimate by a leader’s exceptional personal oremotional appeal to his or her followers. Charisma allows a person tolead or inspire without relying on set rules or traditions.Interestingly, such authority is derived more from the beliefs ofloyal followers than from the actual qualities of leaders. So long aspeople perceive theperson as possessing qualities that set him or her apart fromordinary citizens, the leader’s authority will remain secureand often unquestioned.
Political scientist Ann Ruth Willner (1984) notes thateach charismatic leader draws upon the values, beliefs, andtraditions of a particular society. The conspicuous sexual activityof longtime Indonesian president Achmed Sukarno reminded hisfollowers of the gods in Japanese legends and therefore was regardedas a sign of power and heroism. By contrast, Indians saw MahatmaGandhi’s celibacy as a demonstration of superhumanself-discipline. Charismatic leaders also associate themselves withwidely respected cultural and religious heroes. Willner describes howAyalollah Khomeini of Iran associated himself with Husein, a ShiileMuslim martyr; and Fidel Castro of Cuba associated himself with JesusChrist.
Unlike traditional rulers, charismatic leaders oftenbecome well known by breaking with established institutions andadvocating dramatic changes in the social structure. The strong holdthat such individuals have over their followers makes it easier tobuild protest movements which challenge the dominant norms and valuesof a society. Thus, charismatic leaders such as Jesus, MahatmaGandhi, and Martin Luther King all used their power to press forchanges in accepted social behavior. But so did Adolf Hitler, whosecharismatic 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 eithertraditional or legal-rational authority. As a result, charismaticleaders may attempt to solidify their positions of power by seekingother legitimating mechanisms. For example, Fidel Castro came topower in Cuba in 1959 as the leader of a popular revolution. Yet inthe decades which followed the seizure of power, Castro stood forelection (without opposition) as a means of further legitimating hisauthority as leader of Cuba.
If such authority is to extend beyondthe lifetime of the charismatic leader, it must undergo what Webercalled the routinizationof charismatic authority—theprocess by which the leadership qualities originally associated withan individual are incorporated into either a traditional or alegal-rational system. Thus, the charismatic authority of Jesus asleader of the Christian church was transferred to the apostle Peterand subsequently to the various prelates (or popes) of the faith.Similarly, the emotional fervor supporting George Washington wasroutinized into America’s constitutional system and the norm ofa two-term presidency. Once routinization has taken place, authorityeventually 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 ormore of these forms. Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt and John F.Kennedy wielded power largely through the legal-rational basis oftheir authority. At the same time, they were unusually charismaticleaders who commanded (lie personal loyalty of large numbers ofAmericans.
Each society establishes a politicalsystem by which it is governed. In modern industrial nations, asignificant number of critical political decisions are made by formalunits of government. Five basic types of government are considered:monarchy, oligarchy,dictatorship, totalitarianism, and democracy.
A monarchyis a form ofgovernment headed by a single member of a royal family, usually aking, a queen, or some other hereditary ruler. In earlier times, manymonarchs claimed that God had granted them a divine right to ruletheir lands. Typically, they governed on the basis of traditionalforms of authority, although these were sometimes accompanied by theuse of force. In the 1980s, monarchs hold genuine governmental powerin only a few nations, such as Monaco. Most monarchs have littlepractical power and primarily serve ceremonial purposes.
An oligarchyis a form ofgovernment in which a few individuals rule. It is a rather old methodof governing which flourished in ancient Greece and Egypt. Today,oligarchy often takes the form of military rule. Some of thedeveloping nations of Africa, Asia, and Latin America are ruled bysmall factions of military officers who forcibly seized power—eitherfrom legally elected regimes or from other military cliques.
Strictly speaking, the term oligarchyis reserved forgovernments run by a few select individuals. However, the SovietUnion and the People’s Republic of China can be classified asoligarchies if we extend the meaning of the term somewhat. In eachcase, power rests in the hands of a ruling group—theCommunist party. In a similar vein, drawing upon conflict theory, onemay argue that many industrialized "democratic" nations ofthe west should rightly be considered oligarchies, since only apowerful few actually rule: leaders of big business, government, andthe military. Later, we will examine this "elite model" ofthe American political system in greater detail.
A dictatorshipis a governmentin which one person has nearly total power to make and enforce laws.Dictators rule primarily through the use of coercion, often includingtorture and executions. Typically, they seizepower, rather thanbeing freely elected (as in a democracy) or inheriting a position ofpower (as is true of monarchs). Some dictators are quite charismaticand achieve a certain "popularity," though this popularsupport is almost certain to be intertwined with fear. Otherdictators are bitterly hated by the populations over whom they rulewith an iron hand.
Frequently, dictatorships developsuch overwhelming control over people’s lives that they arecalled totalitarian.Monarchies and oligarchies also have the potential to achieve thistype of dominance. Totalitarianisminvolvesvirtually complete governmental control and surveillance over allaspects of social and political life in a society. Bolt Nazi Germanyunder Hitler and the Soviet Union of the 1980s are classified astotalitarian states.
Political scientists Carl Friedrich and ZbigniewBrzezinski have identified six bask traits that typify totalitarianstates. 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 Jewsfor almost every. thing wrong in Germany or other nations. If therewas a crop failure due to drought, it was sure to be seen as aJewish conspiracy.
One-party systems.A totalitarian Style has only one legal political party, whichmonopolizes the offices of government. It penetrates and controlsall social institutions and serves as the source of wealth,prestige, and power.
Control of weapons.Totalitarian states also monopolize the use of arms. All militaryunits art subject to the control of the ruling regime.
Terror.Totalitarian states often rely on general intimidation (such asprohibiting unapproved publications) and individual deterrent (suchas torture and execution) to maintain control (Bahry and Silver,1987). Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s GulagArchipelago (1973)describe the Soviet Union’s imprisonment of politicaldissenters in mental hospitals, where they are subjected to drug andelectric shock treatments.
Control of the media.There is no "opposition press" in a totalitarian state.The media communicate officialinterpretations ofevents and reinforce behaviors and policies favored by the regime.
Control of the economy.Totalitarian states control major sectors of the economy. They maydissolve private ownership of industry and even small farms. In somecases, the central state establishes production goals for eachindustrial and agricultural unit. The revolt of the Polish workers’union. Solidarity, in the early 1980s was partly directed againstthe government’s power over production quotas, workingconditions, and prices.
Through such methods, totalitarian governments denypeople representation in the political, economic, and socialdecisions that affect their lives. Such governments have pervasivecontrol over people’s destinies.
In a literal sense,democracy meansgovernment by the people. The word democracy originated in two Greekroots—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. Itwould be impossible for the more than 246 million Americans to voteon every important issue that comes before Congress. Consequently,democracies are generally maintained through a mode of participationknown as representativedemocracy, inwhich certain individuals are selected to speak for the people.
The United States is commonlyclassified as a representative democracy, since we elect members ofCongress and state legislatures to handle the task of writing ourlaws. However, critics have questioned how representativeour democracy is. Are the masses genuinely represented? Is thereauthentic self-government in the United States or merely competitionbetween powerful elites?
Clearly, citizens cannot be effectively represented ifthey are not granted the right to vote. Yet our nation did notenfranchise black males until 1870, and women were not allowed tovote in presidential elections until 1920. American Indians wereallowed to become citizens (thereby qualifying to vote) only in 1924,and as late as 1956, some states prevented Indians from voting inlocal elections if they lived on reservations.
Unlike monarchies, oligarchies, and dictatorships, thedemocratic form of government implies an opposition which istolerated or, indeed, encouraged to exist. In the United States, wehave two major political parties—the Democrats andRepublicans—as well as various minor parties. Sociologists usethe term political party to refer to an organization whose purposesare to promote candidates for elected office, advance an ideology asreflected in positions on political issues, win elections, andexercise power. Whether a democracy has two major political parties(as in the United States) or incorporates a multiparty system (as inFrance and Israel), it will typically stress the need for differingpoints of view.
Seymour Martin Upset, among other sociologists, hasattempted to identify the factors which may help to bring aboutdemocratic forms of government. He argues that a high level ofeconomic development encourages both stability and democracy. Upsetreached this conclusion after studying 50 nations and finding a highcorrelation between economic development and certain forms ofgovernment.
Why should there be such a link? In a society with ahigh level of development, the population generally tends to beurbanized and literate and is better equipped to participate indecision making and make the views of its members heard. In addition,as Upset suggests, a relatively affluent society will becomparatively 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 inindustrial societies, the poorer segments of society may have a stakein economic and political stability.
Upset’s formulation has been attacked by conflicttheorists, who tend to be critical of the distribution of powerwithin democracies. As we will see later, many conflict theoristsbelieve that the United States is run by a small economic andpolitical elite. At the same time, they observe that economicstability does not necessarily promote or guarantee politicalfreedoms. Lipset (1972) himself agrees that democracy in practice isfar from ideal and that one must distinguish between varying degreesof democracy in democratic systems of government. Thus, we cannotassume that a high level of economic development or theself-proclaimed label of "democracy" assures freedom andadequate political representation.
AsAmerican citizens we take for granted many aspects of our politicalsystem. We are accustomed to living in a nation with a Bill ofRights, two major political parties, voting by secret ballot, anelected president, state and local governments distinct from thenational government, and so forth. Yet, of course, each society hasits own ways of governing itself and making decisions. Just as weexpect Democratic and Republican candidates to compete for publicoffices, residents of the Soviet Union are accustomed to thedomination of the Communist party. In this section, we will examine anumber of important aspects of political behavior within the UnitedStates.
Five functional prerequisites that a society mustfulfill in order to survive were identified. Among these was the needto teach recruits to accept the values and customs of the group. In apolitical sense, this function is crucial; each succeeding generationmust be encouraged to accept a society’s basic political valuesand its particular methods of decision making.
Political socialization isthe process by which individuals acquire political attitudes anddevelop patterns of political behavior. This involves not onlylearning the prevailing beliefs of a society but also coming toaccept the surrounding political system despite its limitations andproblems. In the United States, people are socialized to viewrepresentative democracy as the best form of government and tocherish such values as freedom, equality, patriotism, and the rightof dissent.
The principal institutions of political socializationare those which also socialize us to other cultural norms—includingthe family, schools, and the media. Many observers see the family asplaying a particularly significant role in this process. "Thefamily incubates political man," observed political scientistRobert Lane. In fact, parents pass on their political attitudes andevaluations to their sons and daughters through discussions at thedinner table and also through the example of their politicalinvolvement or apathy. Early socialization does not always determinea person’s political orientation; there are changes over timeand between generations. Yet research on political socializationcontinues to show that parents’ views have an important impacton their children’s outlook.
The schools can be influential in politicalsocialization, since they provide young people with information andanalysis of the political world. Unlike the family and peer groups,schools are easily susceptible to centralized and uniform control;consequently, totalitarian societies commonly use educationalinstitutions for purposes of indoctrination. Yet, even indemocracies, where local schools are not under the pervasive controlof the national government, political education will generallyreflect the norms and values of the prevailing political order.
In the view of conflict theorists, American studentslearn much more than factual information about our political andeconomic way of life. They are socialized to view capitalism andrepresentative democracy as the "normal" and most desirableways of organizing a nation. At the same time, competing values andforms of government are often presented in a most negative fashion orare ignored. From a conflict perspective, this type of politicaleducation 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 whichpolitics is learned. Fred Greenstein argues that the crucial time ina young person’s psychological, social, and politicaldevelopment is between ages 9 and 13. In the same vein, one studyfound that children 13 and 14 years of age were much more able tounderstand abstract political concepts than were children a few yearsyounger. Specifically, in response to a question about the meaning ofgovernment, older children tended to identify with Congress, whereasyounger 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 politicalparty often comes before young people have a full understanding ofthe political system. Surveys indicate that 65 to 75 percent ofchildren aged 10 and 11 express commitment to a specific politicallabel, including "independent." Political scientists M.Kent Jennings and Richard G. Niemi (1974) have found that childrenwho demonstrate high levels of political competence—byunderstanding the differences between political parties and betweenliberal and conservative philosophies—are more likely to becomepolitically active during adulthood.
Like the family and schools, the mass media can haveobvious 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. Oneresult has been the rising importance of politicians’ "images"as perceived by the American public. Today, many speeches given byour nation’s leaders are designed not for immediate listeners,but for the larger television audience. In the social policy sectionlater, we will examine the impact of television on American politicalcampaigns.
Although television has obvious impact on electivepolitics, it has also become an important factor in other aspects ofAmerican political life. In 1987, when a joint congressionalcommittee held televised hearings on the Iran-contra scandal,Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North’s outspoken testimony broughthim a wave of public support. One effect of his media success, thoughprimarily in the short run, was an increase in support for the"contras" and their effort to overthrow Nicaragua’sMarxist regime. By contrast. Judge Robert Bork’s televisedtestimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1987 seemed tohurt his chances of winning confirmation as a Supreme Court justice.
A number of communication studieshave reported that the media do not tend to influence the masses ofpeople directly. Elihu Katz (1957) describes the process as atwo-step flow ofcommunication,using an approach which reflects interactionists’ emphasis onthe social significance of everyday social exchanges. In Katz’sview, messages passed through the media first reach a small number ofopinion leaders, including teachers, religious authorities, andcommunity activists. These leaders "spread the word" toothers over whom they have influence.
Opinion leaders are not necessarily formal leaders oforganized groups of people. For example, someone who hears adisturbing report about the dangers of radioactive wastes in a nearbyriver will probably tell family members and friends. Each of thesepersons may inform still others and perhaps persuade them to supportthe position of an environmentalist group working to clean up theriver. Of course, in any communications process in which someoneplays an intermediate role, the message can be reinterpreted. Opinionleaders can subtly transform a political message to their own ends.
In theory, a representative democracy will function mosteffectively and fairly if there is an informed and active electoratecommunicating its views to government leaders. Unfortunately, this ishardly the case in the United States. Virtually all Americans arefamiliar with the basics of the political process, and most tend toidentify to some extent with a political party, but only a smallminority (often members of the higher social classes) actuallyparticipate in political organizations on a local or national level.Studies reveal that only 8 percent of Americans belong to a politicalclub or organization. Not more than one in five has ever contacted anofficial of national, state, or local government about a politicalissue or problem.
The failure of most Americans to become involved inpolitical parties has serious implications for the functioning of ourdemocracy. Within the political system of the United States, thepolitical party serves as an intermediary between people andgovernment. Through competition in regularly scheduled elections, thetwo-party system provides for challenges to public policies and foran orderly transfer of power. An individual dissatisfied with thestate of the nation or a local community can become involved in thepolitical party process in many ways, such as by joining a politicalclub, supporting candidates for public office, or working to changethe party’s position on controversial issues. If, however,people do not take interest in the decisions of major politicalparties, public officials in a "representative" democracywill be chosen from two unrepresentative lists of candidates. In the1980s, it has become clear that many
Americans are turned off by political parties,politicians, and the specter of big government. The most dramaticindication of this growing alienation comes from voting statistics.Voters of all ages and races appear to be less enthusiastic than everabout American elections, even presidential contests. For example,almost 80 percent of eligible American voters went to the polls inthe presidential election of 1896. Yet, by the 1984 election, voterturnout had fallen to less than 60 percent of all adults. Bycontrast, elections during the first half of the 1980s brought out 85percent or more of the voting-age population in Austria, Belgium,Italy, Portugal, and Sweden.
Decliningpolitical participation allows institutions of government to operatewith less of a sense of accountability to society. This issue is mostserious for the least powerful individual and groups within theUnited States. Voter turn out has been particularly low among youngerAmericans and members of racial and ethnic minorities. In 1984, only36 percent of eligible voters aged 18 to 20 went to the polls.According to a postelection survey, only 55.8 percent of eligibleblack voters and 32.6 percent of Hispanic reported that they hadactually voted. Moreover, the poor—whose focus understandablyis on survival—are traditionally under-represented among votersas well. The low turnout found among these groups is explained, atleast in part, by their common feeling of powerlessness. Yet suchvoting statistics encourage political power brokers to continue toignore the interests of the young, the less affluent, and thenation’s minorities.
Sociologist Anthony Orum notes thatpeople are more likely to participate actively in political life ifthey have a sense of politicalefficacy—thatis, if they feel that they have (he ability to influence politiciansand the political order. In addition, citizens are more likely tobecome involved if they trust political leaders or feel that anorganized political party represents their interest. Withoutquestion, in an age marked by the rise of big government and byrevelations of political corruption at the highest levels, manyAmericans of allsocial groups feelpowerless and distrustful. Yet such feelings are especially intenseamong the young, the poor, and minorities. is a result, many viewpolitical participation, including voting, as a waste of time.
Cross-national comparisons, whileconfirming he comparatively low level of voting in the linked States,also suggest that Americans are morelikely thancitizens of other nations to be active at the community level, tocontact local officials on behalf of themselves or others, and tohave worked for a political party. Perhaps this contrast reflects howunusual it is for people to be directly involved in nationalpolitical decision making in the modem world. Nevertheless, it ispossible to speculate that if tens of millions of Americans did notstay home on Election Day— and instead became more active inthe nation’s political life—the outcome of the politicalprocess might be somewhat different.
In 1984, American women achieved an unprecedentedpolitical breakthrough when Representative Geraldine Ferraro of NewYork became the Democratic nominee for vice president of the UnitedStates. Never before had a woman received the nomination of a majorparty for such high office.
Nevertheless, women continue to be dramaticallyunderrepresented in the halls of government. In 1988, there were only23 women (out of 435 members) in the House of Representatives andonly 2 women (out of 100 members) in the Senate. This is not becausewomen have failed to participate actively in political life. Eligiblewomen vote at a slightly higher rate than men. The League of WomenVoters, founded in 1920, is a nonpartisan organization which performsvaluable functions in educating the electorate of both sexes. Perhapsthe most visible role of women in American politics is as unpaidworkers for male candidates: ringing doorbells, telephoningregistered voters, and carrying petitions. In addition, wives ofelected male politicians commonly play significant supportive rolesand are increasingly speaking out in their own right on important andcontroversial issues of public policy.
The sexism of American society has been the most seriousbarrier to women interested in holding public office. Femalecandidates have had to overcome the prejudices of both men and womenregarding women’s fitness for leadership. Not until 1955 did amajority of Americans state that they would vote for a qualifiedwoman for president. Yet, as a 1984 national survey revealed,Americans say they will support a woman running for office only ifshe is by far the most qualified candidate.
Moreover, women often encounter prejudice,discrimination, and abuse after they are elected. In 1979, aquestionnaire was circulated among male legislators in Oregon, askingthem to "categorize the lady legislators" with such labelsas "mouth, face, chest/dress, and so forth".
Despite such indignities, women are becoming moresuccessful in winning election to public office. For example, therewere 1176 women in state legislatures in 1988, as compared with only31 in 1921,144 in 1941, and 301 in 1969. Not only are more womenbeing elected; more of them are identifying themselves as feminists.The traditional woman in politics was a widow who took office afterher husband’s death to continue his work and policies. However,women being elected in the 1980s are much more likely to viewpolitics as their own career rather than as an afterthought. Thesetrends are not restricted to the United States.
Anew dimension of women and politics emerged in the 1980s. Surveysdetected a growing "gender gap" in the politicalpreferences and activities of males and females. Women were morelikely to register as Democrats than as Republicans and were alsomore critical of the policies of the Republican administration. Whataccounts for this "gender gap"? According to politicalanalysts, the Democratic party’s continued support for theequal rights amendment may be attracting women voters, a majority ofwhom support this measure. At the same time, virtually all pollingdata indicate that women are substantially less likely than men tofavor large defense budgets and military intervention overseas; thesepolicies have become more associated with the Republican party of the1980s than with the Democrats.
Politicians have begun to watch carefully the votingtrends among women, since women voters could prove decisive in doseelections. The gender gap did appear to be a factor in the 1984elections—though not as significant a factor as some observershad expected. According to a poll by ABC News, men supportedPresident Ronald Reagan’s successful bid for reelection by amargin of 63 to 36 percent. By contrast, 56 percent of women votedfor Reagan while 44 percent supported the Democratic ticket of WalterMondale and Geraldine Ferraro. In the 1986 elections, the ender gapnarrowed somewhat, yet apparently contributed to the victories ofDemocratic senatorial candidates in at least nine states, four ofthem in the south. For example, in Colorado, men supported RepublicanKen Kramer over Democrat Timothy Wirth by a 49 to 48 percent margin,yet Wirth was elected because women preferred him by a 53 to 44percent margin. By contributing to these Democratic victories, womenvoters were an important factor in the party’s 1986 takeover ofe Senate.
Thisdiscussion of political behavior has focused primarily on individualparticipation (and non-participation) in the decision-makingprocesses of government and on involvement in the nation’spolitical parties. However, there are other important ways thatAmerican citizens can play a role in the nation’s politicalarena. Because of common needs or common frustrations, people mayband together in social movements such as the civil rights movementof the 1960s or the anti-nuclear power movement of the 1980s.Americans can also influence the political process through membershipin interest groups (some of which, in fact, may be part of largersocial movements).
An interestgroup is avoluntary association of citizens who attempt to influence publicpolicy. The National Organization for Women (NOW) is considered aninterest group, so, too, are the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation and theNational Rifle Association (NRA). Such groups are a vital part of theAmerican 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 CivilLiberties Union (ACLU), Common Cause, the American ConservativeUnion, and Christian Voice were all actively involved in the debateover the nomination of Judge Robert Bork for the Supreme Court.
Typically, we think of interest groups as beingprimarily concerned with regulatory legislation However, as politicalscientist Barbara Ann Stolz (1981) points out, even the federalcriminal code has become a target for interest-group activityBusiness groups have sought to strike the "recklessendangerment" provision that, in effect, makes it a crime for abusiness to engage knowingly in conduct that will imperil someone’slife Business interests have also attempted to broaden the criminalcode to include certain types of incidents that occur during labordisputes, unions, by contrast, wish to maintain current laws.
Interest groups often pursue theirpolitical goals through lobbying—theprocess by which individuals and groups communicate with publicofficials in order to influence decisions of government. They alsodistribute persuasive literature and launch publicity campaigns tobuild grass roots support for their political objectives Finally,interest groups, through their political action committees, donatefunds to political candidates whose views are in line with thegroups’ legislative agendas.
Therole of interest groups within the American political system hasgenerated intense controversy, particularly because of the specialrelation ships that exist between government officials and lobbyistsfor interest groups The widespread nature of these ties is evidentfrom the number of former legislators who, after retiring or losingbids for reelection, immediately go on the payroll of interest groupsIn 1985, there were 300 former lawmakers and former high-level WhiteHouse officials parlaying their governmental experience intoprofitable new careers as Washington lawyers, lobbyists, consultants,and administrators So pervasive is this network of insiders that anorganization. Former Members of Congress, links them togetherCurrently, there are no laws preventing members of Congress fromreturning as lobbyists to reshape (or even dismantle) legislationthat they created in the public interest.
Interest groups are occasionallyreferred to as pressuregroups,implying that they attempt to force their will on a resistant publicIn the view of functionalists, such groups play a constructive rolein decision making by allowing orderly expression of public opinionand by increasing political participation They also providelegislators with a useful flow of information
Conflict theorists stress that although a very feworganizations work on behalf of the poor and disadvantaged, mostAmerican interest groups represent affluent white professionals andbusiness leaders From a conflict perspective, the overwhelmingpolitical clout of these powerful lobbies discourages participationby the individual citizen and raises serious questions about whoactually rules a supposedly democratic nation.
Whoreally holds power in the United States’ Do "we thepeople" genuinely run the country through electedrepresentatives? Or is there small elite of Americans that governsbehind the scenes? It is difficult to determine the location of powerin a society as complex as the Unite States In exploring thiscritical question, social scientists have developed two basic viewsof our nation’s power structure the elite and pluralism models.
Karl Marx essentially believed that nineteenth centuryrepresentative democracy was a shape.
He argued that industrial societieswere dominated by relatively small numbers of people who ownedfactories and controlled natural resources In Marx’s view,government officials and military leaders were essentially servantsof the capitalist class and followed their wishes therefore, any keydecisions made by politicians inevitably reflected the interests ofthe dominant bourgeoisie Like others who hold an elitemodel of powerrelations, Marx thus believed that society is ruled by a small groupof individuals who share a common set of political and economicinterests.
The Power Elite.In his pioneeringwork. The PowerElite, sociologistC. Wright Mills described the existence of a small ruling elite ofmilitary, industrial, and governmental leaders who controlled thefate of the United States. Power rested in the hands of a few, bothinside and outside of government—the powerelite. InMill’s words:
The power elite is composed of men whose positionsenable them to transcend the ordinary environments of ordinary menand women, they are in positions to make decisions having majorconsequences. … They arc in command of the major hierarchiesand organizations of modern society.
In Mills’s model, the power structure of theUnited States can be illustrated by the use of a pyramid. At the topare the corporate rich, leaders of the executive branch ofgovernment, and heads of the military (whom Kills called the"warlords"). Below this triumvirate are local opinionleaders, members of the legislative branch of government, and leadersof special-interest groups. Mills contended that such individuals andgroups 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 tothe work of Karl Marx. The most striking difference is that Millsfelt that the economically powerful coordinate their maneuvers withthe military and political establishments in order to serve theirmutual interests. Yet, reminiscent of Marx. Mills argued that thecorporate rich were perhaps the most powerful element of the powerelite (first among "equals"). And, of course, there is afurther dramatic parallel between the work of these conflicttheorists The powerless masses at the bottom of Mills’s powerelite model certainly bring to mind Marx’s portrait of theoppressed workers of the world, who have "nothing to lose buttheir chains".
Mills failed to provide detailed case studies whichwould substantiate the interrelationship among members of the powerelite. Instead, he suggested that such foreign policy decisions asAmerica’s entry into the Korean war reflected a determinationby business and military leaders that each could benefit from sucharmed conflict. In Mills s view, such a sharing of perspectives wasfacilitated by the frequent interchange of commanding roles among theelite. For example, a banker might become the leader of a federalregulatory commission overseeing financial institutions, and aretired general might move to an executive position with a majordefense contracting firm.
A fundamental element in Mills’s thesis is thatthe power elite not only has relatively few members but also operatesas a self-conscious, cohesive unit. Although not necessarilydiabolical or ruthless, the elite comprises similar types of peoplewho regularly interact with one another and have essentially the samepolitical and economic interests. Mills’s power elite is not aconspiracy but rather a community of interest and sentiment among asmall number of influential Americans.
Admittedly, Mills failed to clarify when the elite actsand when it tolerates protests. Nevertheless, his challengingtheories 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 Americansociety is run by a powerful elite. But, rather than fully acceptingMills’s power elite model, Domhoff argued that the UnitedStates is controlled by a social upper class "that is a rulingclass by virtue of its dominant role in the economy and government".This socially cohesive ruling class owns 20 to 25 percent of allprivately held wealth and 45 to 50 percent of all privately heldcommon stock.
Unlike Mills, Domhoff was quitespecific about who belongs to this social upper class. Membershipcomes through being pan of a family recognized in The SocialRegister—thedirectory of the social elite in many American cities. Attendance atprestigious private schools and membership in exclusive social clubsare further indications that a person comes from America’ssocial upper class. Domhoff estimates that about 0.5 percent of theAmerican population (or 1 of every 200 people) belongs to this socialand political elite.
Ofcourse, this would mean that the ruling class has more than 1 millionmembers and could hardly achieve the cohesiveness that Millsattributed to the power elite. However, Domhoff adds that the socialupper class as a whole does not rule the nation. Instead, members ofthis class who have assumed leadership roles within the corporatecommunity or the nation’s policy-planning network join withhigh-level employees of profit-making and nonprofit institutionscontrolled by the social upper class to exercise power.
InDomhoff’s view, the ruling class should not be seen in aconspiratorial 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— includingthose of diplomats and cabinet members—are filled by members ofthe social upper class. Domhoff contends that members of this classdominate powerful corporations, foundations, universities, and theexecutive branch of government. They control presidential nominationsand the political party process through campaign contributions. Inaddition, 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 ofMills and Domhoff is that Mills insisted on the relative autonomy ofthe political elite and attached great significance to theindependent power of the military. By contrast, Domhoff suggests thathigh-level government and military leaders serve the interests of thesocial upper class. Both theorists, in line with a Marxian approach,assume that the rich are interested only in what benefits themfinancially. Furthermore, as advocates of elite models of power.Mills and Domhoff argue that the masses of American people have noreal influence on the decisions of the powerful.
One criticism of the elite model is that its advocatessometimes suggest that elites are always victorious. With this inmind, sociologist J. Alien Whitt (1982) examined the efforts ofCalifornia’s business elites to support urban mass transit. Hefound that lobbying by these elites was successful in San Franciscobut failed in Los Angeles. Whitt points out that opponents ofpolicies backed by elites can mobilize to thwart theirimplementation.
Domhoff admits that the ruling class does not exercisetotal control over American society. However, he counters that thiselite is able to set political terms under which other groups andclasses must operate. Consequently, although the ruling class maylose on a particular issue, it will not allow serious challenges tolaws which guarantee its economic privileges and politicaldomination.
Several social scientists havequestioned the elite models of power relations proposed by Marx,Mills, Domhoff, and other conflict theorists. Quite simply, thecritics insist that power in the United States is more widely sharedthan the elite model indicates. In their view, a pluralist model moreaccurately describes the American political system. According to thepluralist model,"many conflicting groups within the community have access togovernment officials and compete with one another in an effort toinfluence policy decisions".
Veto Groups.David Riesman’s TheLonely Crowdsuggested that the American political system could best be understoodthrough examination of the power of veto groups. The term vetogroups refersto interest groups that have the capacity to prevent the exercise ofpower by others. Functionally, they serve to increase politicalparticipation by preventing the concentration of political power.Examples cited by Riesman include farm groups, labor unions,professional associations, and racial and ethnic groups. WhereasMills pointed to the dangers of rule by an undemocratic power elite,Riesman insisted that veto groups could effectively paralyze thenation’s political processes by blocking anyonefrom exercising needed leadership functions. In Riesman’swords, "The only leaders of national scope left in the UnitedStates 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 inNew Haven, Connecticut—was reported by Robert Dahl in his book,Who Governs?(1961). Dahl found that while the number of people involved in anyimportant decision was rather small, community power was nonethelessdiffuse. Few political actors exercised decision-making power on allissues. Therefore, one individual or group might be influential in abattle over urban renewal but at the same time might have littleimpact over educational policy. Several other studies of localpolitics, in such communities as Chicago and Oberlin, Ohio, furtherdocument that monolithic power structures do not operate on the levelof local government.
Justas the elite model has been challenged on political andmethodological grounds, the pluralist model has been subjected toserious questioning. Domhoff (1978) reexamined Dahl’s study ofdecision making in New Haven and argued that Dahl and otherpluralists had failed to trace how local elites prominent in decisionmaking 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 thepolitical agenda. This focus fails to address the possible power ofelites to keep certain matters entirely out of the realm ofgovernment debate. Conflict theorists contend that these elites willnot allow any outcome of the political process which threatens theirdominance. Indeed, they may even be strong enough to block discussionof such measures by policymakers.
Without question, the pluralist and elite models havelittle in common. Each describes a dramatically differentdistribution of power, with sharply contrasting consequences forsociety. Is there any way that we can reconcile the vastdisagreements in these two approaches?
Perhapswe 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 smallnumber of citizens who are well-insulated from the will of the masses(elite view). Yet there are so many diverse issues and controversiesin the nation’s political institutions that few individuals orgroups consistently exercise power outside their distinctive spheresof influence (pluralist view). Even presidents of the United Stateshave acknowledged that they felt more comfortable making decisionseither in the area of foreign policy (Richard Nixon) or in the areaof domestic policy (Lyndon Johnson). Moreover, the post-World War IIperiod has seen increasing power vested in the federal government(elite model). But, even within the federal bureaucracy, there are astaggering number of agencies with differing ideas and interests(pluralist model).
We can end this discussion with the one common point ofthe elite and pluralist perspectives— power in the Americanpolitical system is unequally distributed. All citizens may be equalin theory, yet those high in the nation’s power structure are"more equal."
Each society must have a politicalsystem in orderto have recognized procedures for the allocation of valuedresources—in Harold D. Lasswell’s terms, for deciding whogets what, when, and how. We have examined various types of politicalauthority and forms of government and explores the dimensions of theAmerican political system.
Powerrelations can involve large organizations, small groups, or evenindividuals in an intimate relationship.
There are three basic sources ofpowerwithin any political system — force,influence,and authority.
Max Weber provided ( e of the mostuseful and frequently cited contributions of early sociology byidentifying three ideal types of authority: traditional,legal-rational,and charismatic.
TheUnited States, as a society which values the role of law, haslegally defined limits on the power of government.
In the 1980s, monarchieshold genuine governmental power in only a few nations of the world.
Today, oligarchyoften takes the form of military rule, although the Soviet Union andthe People’s Republic of China can be described as oligarchiesin which power rests in the hands of the ruling Communist party.
Political scientists Carl Friedrichand Zbigniew Brzezinski have identified six basic traits that typifytotalitarianism: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 commonlyclassified as a representativedemocracy,since we elect members of Congress and state legislatures to handlethe task of writing our laws.
The principal institutions ofpoliticalsocializationm American society arc the family, schools, and media.
Onlya small minority of Americans actually participate in politicalorganizations or in decision making on a local or national level.
Womenare becoming more successful at winning election to public office.
An interestgroup a oftennational in scope and frequently addresses a wide variety of socialand political issues.
Advocates of the elitemodel of theAmerican power structure see the nation as being ruled by a smallgroup of individuals who share common political and economicinterests, whereas advocates of a pluralistmodel believethat power is more widely shared among conflicting groups.
Televisionis having a growing impact on American political campaigns.
AuthorityPower that has been institutionalized and is recognized by the peopleover whom it is exercised.
Charismatic authority MaxWeber’s term for power made legitimate by a leader’sexceptional personal or emotional appeal to his or her followers.
DemocracyIn a literal sense, government by the people.
DictatorshipA government in which one person has nearly total power to make andenforce laws.
Dictatorship of the proletariatMarx’s term for the temporary rule by the working class duringa stage between the successful proletarian revolution and theestablishment of a classless communist society.
Elite modelA view of society as ruled by a small group of individuals who sharea common set of political and economic interests.
ForceThe actual or threatened use of coercion to impose one’s willon others.
InfluenceThe exercise of power through a process of persuasion.
Interest groupA voluntary association of citizens who attempt to influence publicpolicy.
Legal-rational authorityMax Weber’s term for power made legitimate by law.
LegitimacyThe belief of a citizenry that a government has the right to rule andthat a citizen ought to obey the rules and laws of that government.
LobbyingThe process by which individuals and groups communicate with publicofficials in order to influence decisions of government.
Marital powerA term used by Blood and Wolfe to describe the manner in whichdecision making is distributed within families.
MonarchyA form of government headed by a single member of a royal family,usually a king, a queen, or some other hereditary ruler.
OligarchyA form of government in which a few individuals rule.
Pluralist modelA view of society in which many conflicting groups within a communityhave access to governmental officials and compete with one another inan attempt to influence policy decisions.
Political action committee(PAC) Apolitical committee established by a national bank, corporation,trade association, or cooperative or membership association to acceptvoluntary contributions for candidates or political parties.
Political efficacyThe feeling that one has the ability to influence politicians and thepolitical order.
Political partyAn organization whose purposes are to promote candidates for publicoffice, advance an ideology as reflected in positions on publicissues, win elections, and exercise power.
Political socializationThe process by which individuals acquire political attitudes anddevelop patterns of political behavior.
Political systemA recognized set of procedures for implementing and obtaining thegoals of a group.
PoliticsIn Harold D. Lasswell’s words, "who gets what, when, how."
PowerThe ability to exercise one’s will over others.
Power eliteA term used by C. Wright Mills for a small group of military,industrial, and government leaders who control the fate of the UnitedStates.
Pressure groupsA term sometimes used to refer to interest groups.
Representative democracyA form of government in which certain individuals are selected tospeak for the people.
Routinization of charismaticauthority MaxWeber’s term for the process by which the leadership qualitiesoriginally associated with an individual are incorporated into eithera traditional or a legal-rational system of authority.
TerrorismThe use or threat of violence against random or symbolic targets inpursuit of political aims.
TotalitarianismVirtually complete government control and surveillance over allaspects of social and political life in a society. (390)
Traditional authorityLegitimate power conferred by custom and accepted practice.
Two-stepflow of communicationElihu Katz’s term for a process through which a message isspread by the media to opinion leaders and is subsequently passedialong to the general public.
Veto groupsDavid Riesman’s term for interest groups that have the capacityto prevent the exercise of power by others.
Donald Light, SuzanneKeller, Craig Calhoun, “Readings And Review For Sociology”,Fifth Edition, prepared by Theodore C. Wagenaar and Tomas F. Gieryn,New York, 1989
RichardT. Schaefer, “Sociology”, Western Illinois University,1989
| Ministryof general and professional education of Russian Federation Tula State University | ||
Department of Sociology | ||
Term testpaper on Sociology | ||
“Governmentand Politics” | ||
| madeby: | NevskiyM.A. | |
| Group: | 220671я | |
| checked by: | ScherbakovaV.P. | |
Tula 1999 | ||