Class and Power

In the preceding unit, it has been pointed out that ‘status’ and ‘class’ are analytically separate forms of social stratification though they are closely related in real life situations.  ‘Class’ is also closely related to ‘power’.  But like ‘status’, ‘power’ is also a distinct form of social differentiation.  To make the distinction between ‘class’ and ‘power’ clear, it is necessary to deal with them as distinct analytical categories.

Meaning Of Class

Class is a form of social stratification as explained to you in the preceding unit.  Class is basically a grouping of people having common economic and occupational interests.  Thus classes may be identified as concrete entities on the basis of differences in income, occupation, property and land.  Landlords, peasants and agricultural workers comprise rural class structure in India.  Industrialists, professionals, white-collar workers, black coated workers constitute urban industrial class structure.

The concept of ‘class ‘ is mainly associated with the name of Karl Marx.  Although, other scholars have also paid attention to it.  By class, Marx (Marx and Engels, 1963) means a group of those who perform the same function in the organisation of production.  The capitalists in the modern industrial society constitute homogenous class because they own means of production. The workers depend upon wage-labour and have no say in decision-making regarding production, hence they are a class of the proletariat or ‘have nots’.

Meaning Of Power

Following Weber, power pay be defined as the capacity of a person or group of people to execute his will despite opposition from others.  For example, suppose there are two persons A and B.  If A wants B to obey his order and B does it despite his unwillingness because A can dictate him to carry out his order it is the case of power of A exercised upon B.  Thus, power can be at times a sort of brute force.  However, power must be distinguished from other concepts such as ‘legitimacy’, ‘authority’ and ‘coercion’.  When the ‘power’ of a body of people or a group gets the sanction of the society it is legitimized. Further, if the legitimized power is vested in a group in the larger interest of the society, it becomes ‘legitimate authority’.  All institutions created under statutory provisions enacted by the state would have legitimacy to exercise control over the people.  there is, however, some difference between authority and coercion.  Authority may be coercive as well as liberal depending upon the nature of the state power and interpretations of its institutional complex.

Classical Views On ‘Class’ And ‘Power’: Economic Determinism Vs. Political Elitism

The notion of social class is closely associated with the name of Marx.  For Marx class is the main basis of social differentiation in all societies. A number of scholars, however, perceived power as the key concept for analyzing social stratification.  Bottomore (1985) rightly emphasizes that the concept of ‘political elite’ is not opposed to democracy as it is opposed to the idea of socialism as propounded by Marx.

Karl Marx: Class and Society

Marx’s theory may be stated briefly as follows:

In every society except the most primitive one, two categories of people may be identified; (a) a ruling class, and (b) one or more subservient classes.

The dominance of the ruling class is to be explained in terms of its hold over the means of production (property) in the society.

Dominance of the ruling group in economic sphere leads to its hold over other spheres too including political arena

There is a constant conflict between the two contending classes, namely, bourgeoisie and proletariat.  This conflict and the subsequent changes are guided by the change in the forces of production (technology).

The lines of class-conflict are most sharply drawn in the modern capitalist (industrial) society.  The class struggle within the capitalist society will end with the victory of the working class.  This victory will be followed by the abolition of private property and emergence of a classless society. In such a situation there would be no super ordination and subordination, and therefore no inequality.

Power and Elite

Elite theory as developed by Pareto and Mosca rejects the Marxist notion of a classless egalitarian society.  It considers Marxist theory merely as an utopian ideology and emphasizes the egalitarian society is a myth rather than reality.  According to the elite theory all societies a re divided into two groups of (i) a ruling minority, and (ii) the masses.  A given ruling elite is replaced by another, keeping the structure of society intact and stable.  Structure of society, be it capitalist or communist, does not threaten the rule of elite.  Apart from their personal attributes, the elite owe t heir power to the organisation.  They form a united and cohesive minority in the face of unorganised or fragmented masses.

Vilfredo Pareto: The Circulation Of Elite

For Pareto (1935) every society is divided into the ‘masses’ and the ‘elite’.  Though elite form a minority, they are divided into a governing elite and a non governing elite.  The ‘governing elite’ consist of those who directly or indirectly control the governments.  The ‘non-governing elite’ are either out of power or are elite in waiting to get an opportunity to rule over the society.  Pareto explains ‘circulation of elites’ in terms of change in the psychological characteristics of the elite. Such a change in turn depends upon the change among the lower strata (masses).  Thus Pareto’s conception of circulation of elite implies:

circulation of individuals between the elites and non-elite, and

replacement of one group of elite by a new one.  He describes the changes in the psychological character of the elite and masses contending for power with the help of the concepts of ‘residues’ and ‘derivation’.

Analysing the process of circulation of elite Pareto concentrates mainly on two types of residues.  He argues that the rule of the governing elite may be of two kinds.  It may be maintained either by cunning (predominance of residues of combination) or by force (predominance of residence of the persistence of aggregate). Pareto’s two types of elite representing residues of combinations and persistence of aggregate (also known as ‘speculators’ and ‘rentiers’) bear a close resemblance to Machiavelli’s  ‘foxes’ and ‘lions’.

According to Pareto aristocracies (governing elite) do not decline only in number but also in quality.  In course of time, the governing elite lose their vigour.  There is decline in the proportion of the residues, which enable them to win their power and hold it.  Consequently their hold over power is weakened and they are replaced by the new elite.  The new elite come to the power because there is an increase of elements of superior quality in them.  Pareto, therefore, concludes that the history of all societies is not the history of class struggle, but it is ‘a graveyard of aristocracies.’

Gaetano Mosca: The Political Class

The framework which Mosca (1939) provides for analyzing the circulation of elite is very close to that of  Pareto.  Like Pareto Mosca also observes that in every society there is a minority which rules over the masses.  He also shares the view of Pareto that ‘the governing elite’ or what he himself prefers to call ‘political class’ is replaced by the new forces (circulation of elite).  However, he differs from Pareto on several counts.  Pareto emphasizes strongly the separation between the rulers and the ruled in every society.  He also rejects the view that a democratic polity is different from any other form of governance.

Thus Pareto observes that even in democracy, there is rule of elite over the people.  Mosca, on the other hand is of the view that there is an interaction between the ruling minority and the majority. There is no simple dominance by the ruling minority over the masses. Unlike Pareto he also recognises difference between modern democracy and other forms of polity.  Finally, Pareto’s conception of circulation of elite is based on psychological explanation, Mosca takes into consideration both the sociological and the psychological factors.  He emphasizes that the new social groups may be formed in a society as a result of economic or cultural change.  In this regard Mosca moves close to Marx. Influence of Marx on Mosca is also seen in his use of the concept of ‘political class’ instead of ‘elite’.

Max Weber: Power and Bureaucracy

Both Pareto and Mosca deal with the formation of elite at the marco level.  However, Max Weber and Robert Michels, as pointed out earlier, have worked out the implications, of a minority rule at the organisation (micro) level.  Weber’s point of departure is seen in his emphasis on ‘power’ as an analytically distinct dimension of social stratification from both status and class.  You have seen in the preceding unit how Weber differs from Marx regarding the concept of class.  Weber points out that while market is the center of economic activity, party (or parliament) constitutes the center of power.

Weber also observes that the Marxian view regarding the abolition of private property giving way to the emergence of an egalitarian society is unrealistic.  He argues that all the modern industrial societies, the capitalists as well as the socialist, endear social inequalities though of different forms.  He appreciates its necessity as a means of rational-legal authority.  However, Weber (Gerth and Mills, 1946) is quite concerned about the dysfunctional consequences of bureaucracy as a few at the top rule over the society at large. He is also concerned about the ultimate effects of growing bureaucratization which could hamper democracy and freedom.  It represents t he most complete and effective institutionalization of power.  According to Weber bureaucratization as an institutional form is inherent in all modern societies.  The Marxist conception of socialist society is seen by Weber as an extension of bureaucratic authority to entire society.  He, therefore, concludes that ‘socialism’ will also result into ‘dictatorship of bureaucrats’ rather than of the ‘proletariat.’

Robert Michels: The Iron Law Of Oligarchy:

Marxist perception of  egalitarian society with a real democratic organisation is examined also by Robert Michels, (1949) an Italian sociologist.  He questions the so-called democratic value in his book-‘Political Parties’-published in 1911.  It is a study of European socialist parties and trade unions, with specific reference to German socialist party.  The socialist parties and organisations aimed at the overthrow of the capitalist state and society.  They also claimed to be ‘democratic’ by directly representing the interests of the proletariat.  But Michels observed that these ideals bore little resemblance with the actual situations.

According to Michels democracy is inconceivable without organisation, but organisation sounds the death knell of democracy.  Direct participation of the people and their direct involvement in decision-making are not possible.  Direct democracy can be substituted by representative system.  But in the opinion of Michels, representative system in turn leads to bureaucratization which by its very nature is undemocratic.  Once the leadership is established at the top of the bureaucratic pyramid, its primary concern is the maintenance of its own power.  Leaders wish to retain the status and privileges even at the cost of the interest of the society.  The leaders maintain their hold over power through their manipulative skills. Preservation of the organisation becomes an end in itself rather than a means to an end.  This attitude according Michels became apparent in the case of the German Socialist Party.  Its commitment to the overthrow of the capitalist state was steadily pushed into the background.  Its leaders joined the existing ruling elite forming a party of the political power structure.

In short, Michels conveys the message that the failure of democracy at the organisational level means that it cannot hope to succeed at the societal level. Society is ruled by elite which consist of the leader of various organisations and parties.  The overriding concern of the ruling elite is maintenance of its own power.  This is what Michels calls ‘iron law of oligarchy’, which applies to both the capitalist and the communist societies.  He concludes that it is organisation, which gives birth to the dominion of the elected over the electors, of the mandatories over the mandators, of the delegates over the delegators.  Who says organisation, says oligarchy.

Class And Power In Contemporary Societies

We will now discuss briefly about the nature of power structure (i.e., ruling elite) in various societies characterized by different economic structure, we will take up both the developing and the developed societies of the world.  The developed societies comprise of the countries, which have made remarkable development in the fields of science, technology and industry. But they are not alike.  For example, America is capitalist and its polity is characterised by liberal democratic system.  The economy of the Soviet Union and other east European countries is primarily socialistic.  Moreover, because of the one party system, the political system of these countries is often characterised as authoritarian.  Though, recent changes in these countries including the USSR and China, show a shift towards liberalisation of their economy and polity.

For the treatment of developing society we will take up the case of India.  It is a case of a developing society characterised primarily by a mixed economy with parliamentary system of government.

Developed Societies

Amongst the developed countries we shall be dilating primarily on the two major powers USA and USSR, which represent the first and the second world and capitalist and socialistic economic patterns respectively.

Capitalist Democratic Set-Up: USA

A large number of studies have been conducted to explain the nature of distribution of power in American society.  C.Wright Mills’ (1956) work is a land mark in this direction.  Mills argues that the American society is dominated by ‘Power-Elite’ constituted by people from military, business and industry and politics.  He explains the elite rule in America in ‘institutional’ rather than ‘psychological’ terms.  According to him, the institutional structure is such that those who are at the top of the institutional hierarchy largely monopolies power. Certain institutions occupy pivotal positions in these institutions.  In the United States, Mills identifies three institutions, namely, the major corporations, the military and the federal government.

The unity of the power elite is strengthened by the similarity of their social and educational background and overlapping of personnel between the three elites.  Consequently, they share similar values and views, which provide them a basis for mutual trust and cooperation.  In the opinion of Mills, the power elite in America holds unprecedented power and accountability.  Despite the fact that its decisions affect all members of society, the power elite is not accountable for its action either directly or indirectly to the public.  According to Mills, power elite are more concerned with the management of the impressions of the masses about themselves rather than providing alternative politics and programmes.  This is true in the case of both ‘Democrats’ and ‘Republicans’.

However, Mills does not provide a general theory of society.  His area of observation is the contemporary American society only. Secondly, unlike the classical elite theories, he provides an institutional explanation of elite rule in the United States.  Furthermore, like Pareto and Mosca, Mills too believes that the modern democratic society is ultimately ruled by the elite.  But Mills condemns the elite rule, he does not justify it.  Unlike Pareto particularly, he is a vehement critique of elite rule in the American democracy.  Finally, he prefers to term the ‘elite rule’ in the United States by ‘power elite’.  He rejects both the notions- ‘governing elite’ (Pareto) and ‘ruling class’(Mosca).   In doing so he has been influenced by Pareto and Mosca on the one hand and Marx on the other.

Socialist Authoritarian Block: Ussr

A study of elite formation in the Soviet Union has been conducted by Milovan Djilas.  Djilas work (1957) is considered as the most explicit and detailed critic of a totalitarian society.  Importance of this book also lies in the fact that the author himself has been a leading member of the communist party in Yugoslavia and also Vice-president in Tito’s administration.

According to Djilas, even after the abolition of private ownership of the means of production, a new class has emerged in the Soviet society.  This ‘new class’, which rules the country, has all the characteristics of its own. It is different from the earlier ruling classes in the sense that its power is more complete and less subject to restrain.  In the opinion of Djilas, the ‘new class’ is made up of those who have special privileges and economic preferences because of monopoly over the administration.  However, it is not a group of administrators or bureaucrats in true sense of the term.  The bureaucrats, who are not administrative officials, make up the core of the ‘New Class’.  A party or political bureaucracy and other officials are mainly an apparatus under the control of this class.  The new class has emerged gradually from a small group of professional revolutionaries.  These elite turn into a ‘class of owners and exploiters’.  Djilas argues that the new class is the actual owner of the means of production.

Ralph Dahrendorf, (1959) a German sociologist, also provides a similar view.  He examines Marxist approach for understanding what he calls the ‘modern-industrial’ society.  In this well-known work, he provides a critique of Marxist theory.  According to him the Marxist theory is relevant for the understanding of society till it reaches the stage of capitalist development.  The  ‘post-capitalist’ society cannot be understood in terms of class or economic determinism.  According to Dahrendorf, ‘authority’ in terms of super ordination and subordination and not class relationship provides the key for the understanding of class and class conflict in modern industrial society.  In the post-industrial society classes are formed out of power-based inequality and not in terms of economic differentiation.

Developing Society: The Case Of India

Traditional Indian society did not permit considerable dissociation between ‘class’ and ‘power’.  However, this situation has altered to some extent after independence.  Two important factors which have contributed considerably in this context are parliamentary form of democracy, and policies and programmes of rural development.  Changes in the relationship between ‘class’ and ‘power’ can be seen in terms of a visible change in the composition of Indian elite.

Before the British rule in India, the upper castes dominated in both economic and political spheres. Although Kashtriyas ruled over the society with the support of Brahmins.  During Mughal period, these two castes along with the Mughals chieftains successfully retained their hegemony. Thus the Indian elite before British rule were drawn from nexus between caste and feudal structure.

British rule in India played dual role of importing modern values based on Western education on the one hand and retaining the traditional Indian social values on the other.  The British policy of the Permanent Settlement also helped in consolidation of the position of upper caste landlords. The British policy more or less strengthened the nexus between class and power.  However, the liberal values and Western education brought about by the colonial rule considerably altered the elite composition of Indian society.  The traditional ‘monarchical-feudal’ elites were replaced by the nationalist-liberal elites. The new elites were western educated, modern and drawn from middle classes representing law, journalism and teaching professions.  Most of the national leaders including Gandhi and Nehru were drawn from these professions.  The ‘nationalist elite’ was homogeneous and belonged to towns and cities.

Adult franchise, elections and decentalisation of power have also brought about a hiatus between power and class.  Despite the fact that the upper castes continue to dominate, the other backward castes have emerged as a recognizable force to reckon with. Especially after the abolition of Zamindari system and introduction of green revolution, some of the OBCs have turned into dominant castes in rural areas replacing the upper castes.  After 1967, their importance has been felt time and again.  Congruity between ‘caste’ and ‘class’ has received a jolt.  This has altered the composition of the Indian elite at different levels from village to the central level.  Social and economic bases of the Indian elite have also widened.  The monopoly of power of the upper castes and middle class professionals has weakened.  A large number of them now come from lower social strata.  Furthermore, the homogeneity as found in regard to the traditional elite does not exist now.