Distribution of Power Summary

Classical Pluralism Power is widely distributed in modern democracies Parties, pressure groups represent the interests of the people and compete for influence Multiple centres of power – polyarchy (RA Dahl) The State is the neutral arena for discussion and the neutral arbiter of disputes (G Parry)

Criticisms of Classical pluralism 1. Fails to consider second and third faces of power (Lukes) 2. Fails to appreciate the extent of the power of wealth and capital (Marxism) 3. Fails to recognise the unequal power of interest groups – polyarchy rather idealistic 4. Fails to consider ‘outsider’ groups – those deliberately placed outside of the decision making process because their views are challenging to those in authority

Elite Pluralism A response by pluralists to criticisms of classical pluralism Elite pluralists recognise that some groups have more influence and access than others Also recognise that pressure groups themselves are elitist in structure Claim that pressure group elites still represent the views of the community on most issues Claim that unrepresented groups e.g. The poor and ethnic minorities still get listened to because of the number of votes they command Studies – David Marsh – identifies ‘policy communities’ surrounding big issues. Such communities are made up of insider AND outsider groups. The ordinary person’s voice is heard by decision makers through these policy communities

Classical Elite Theory Claims that domination by elites is both desirable and inevitable Mosca, Michels, Pareto Pareto – psychological characteristics – lions and foxes and the circulation of elites Mosca emphasised organisational abilities of elite members and suggested that different qualities were expected at different historical periods Michels – ‘iron law of oligarchy’ – all organisations necessarily and inevitably become elite dominated as a grow and gain influence

The Power Elite 20 th century variation on elite theory by C Wright Mills Elite rule not necessarily inevitable but is the pattern for modern western countries A ‘power elite’ has emerged in USA made up of national government, big business and the military – they inter marry, share a similar educational and social background and dominate decision making EVIDENCE- key political decisions like the dropping of the atom bomb on Hiroshima or recent invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan are made with virtually no consultation with the people Mills sounds similar to Marxism BUT Marxists would argue real power comes from ownership of wealth not from membership of organisations KEY QUESTION – is there a power elite in the UK?

Elites in Britain – the Evidence Stanworth and Giddens (1974) found that the vast majority of the UK elite were recruited from fee paying schools and Oxford and Cambridge Universities 13 top Tories currently in government went to Eton Feminist research suggests women are excluded from elite recruitment – only 143 of 650 MPs are women Only 27 MPs are from ethnic minority backgrounds Have major recent foreign policy decisions been made by a ‘power elite’ with no consultation with the people? YES – Iraq war 2003 despite largest ever demonstration ever against such action NO – Syria – intervention favoured by PM Cameron but had to back down when Parliament voted against

Marxism Power is concentrated in hands of bourgeoisie and the State represents and protects their interests Milliband – instrumentalist – those who run the state share a common educational and social background and therefore promote the interests of capitalism Poulantzas – structuralist – the state is part of the ‘structure’ of capitalist society and will therefore act in the interests of capitalism regardless of the social background of who is in control. The State itself has a degree of relative autonomy and will always act in the long term interests of capitalism rather than short term interests of elite leaders Gramsci – hegemonic – emphasises the power of ideas in the power of the state – consent to an unjust system is manufactured through the ideological and cultural hegemony of the bourgeoisie

Criticisms of Marxism 1. The Ruling class no longer exists because of wider share ownership and property ownership – millions of people are ‘stakeholders’ in capitalism 2. Marxism has been criticised for being ‘reductionist’ – reducing every argument to class and wealth and ignoring important sociological themes such as gender and ethnicity

Postmodernism and Power FOUCAULT: Power resides in ‘discourses’ – ways of talking about things rather than from social structures (Foucault calls himself a post structuralist). As discourses change so does power and how it is applied Foucault Introduces the idea of ‘disciplinary power’ – the result of a new post modern discourse which seeks to control the human body and the human mind Disciplinary power is applied through judges, prison officers, psychiatrists etc. And seeks to ‘normalise’ deviant behaviour Foucault emphasises the use of surveillance technology as mechanism of disciplinary power

Criticisms of Foucault Foucault gives no indication as to from where dominant discourses originate Structuralists like Marxists would claim discourses reflect ideology which in turn serves the economic structure of society

Feminism Patriarchy is central to understanding power in society – men are dominant women are subordinate Studies – Sylvia Walby – 6 sources of male power – work, domestic work, culture, sexuality, violence and the sate Much empirical evidence suggest women remain absent from top jobs are remain principle child carers

Review Each Lesson on this topic Feminism Elite theory Pluralism Elite pluralism m Marxism m

Revision Guide Read pages – note any additional studies. Complete practice questions and practice exam question Use white textbook for general reading