send mail to support@abhimanu.com mentioning your email id and mobileno registered with us! if details not recieved
Resend Opt after 60 Sec.
By Loging in you agree to Terms of Services and Privacy Policy
Claim your free MCQ
Please specify
Sorry for the inconvenience but we’re performing some maintenance at the moment. Website can be slow during this phase..
Please verify your mobile number
Login not allowed, Please logout from existing browser
Please update your name
Subscribe to Notifications
Stay updated with the latest Current affairs and other important updates regarding video Lectures, Test Schedules, live sessions etc..
Your Free user account at abhipedia has been created.
Remember, success is a journey, not a destination. Stay motivated and keep moving forward!
Refer & Earn
Enquire Now
My Abhipedia Earning
Kindly Login to view your earning
Support
Power, for Max Weber is ‘the probability that one actor within a social relationship will be in a position to carry out his will despite resistance regardless of the basis on which this probability rests’. Power is exercised by individuals and therefore involves choice, agency (individuals) and intention. Power is exercised over other individuals and may involve resistance and conflict. There are differences in interests between the powerful and the powerless; and Power is negative, involving restrictions and deprivations for those subjected to domination.
Weber's concept of class, status and party along with his analysis of state and bureaucracy are the centre of his concept of power. Each grouping is focussed around or oriented towards power as an independent point of conflict. Each represents an aspect of and a basis for power.
Marx does not give a clear definition of power, for him, power means coercion. Marx views power to be held by a particular group in society at the expense of the rest of the society.
Weberian approach is individualistic and explain existence of power at interpersonal levels. As this approach , Marxian approach. is based on the structural relationship rather than the individual. Power exists independent of the will of individual. Populantzas (1978) defines power as the capacity of one class to realize its interests in opposition to other classes. Accordingly, power cannot be separated from economic and class relations. Power involves class struggle, and not simply conflict between individuals; and analysis of power cannot be undertaken without understanding the systems of socio-economic relations.
The structural-functional approach of Parsons refuting the Marxian approach sees power as not necessarily involving conflict and coercion. Parsons defines power as a positive social capacity for achieving the betterment of the community i.e., power is the universalized capacity of social system and it is exercised to achieve collective goals; power is similar to money for Parsons as a generalised capacity to secure common goals of a social system.
Etymologically speaking the term elite is derived from the Latin term ‘eligere’, which means to ‘choose’ or select. In English, Lord Byron for the first time, made use of this term in his poetic work, Don Juan, 1824. Sociologically, Elite can be broadly defined as a minority group or category of individuals within a society, who may be socially acknowledged as superior in some sense, and who influence or control some or all of the other segments of the society. Superiority, prestige and power are the three main notions generally linked with it. According to elite theory of power, in every society there is a competent and able minority class, which has access to full social and political power and the people belonging to this class get to the top positions and become the best. The origin of elite theory can be found in the writings of J.A. Schumpeter in ‘Imperialism and Social Classes’, Harold J. Lasswell, in ‘The Comparative Study of Elites’; C. Wright Mills in The Power Elite’ Vilferdo Pareto, in ‘The Mind and Society’; Robert Michels, in ‘Political Parties-A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy’ and Ortega Y. Gassets in ‘The Revolt of the Masses’. These writers were of the view that the elite class has following characteristics or salient features.
1. In every society there is a minority section of population, which takes all decisions.
2. The elite usually come to power through general elections, but those who really come to control power, are elected from among the few selected persons.
3. The elites are not controlled by the majority and in no way they are accountable to them.
4. This minority section, called elite has special power, organisation, political ability, which enables him to maintain their character, as a special class.
5. Basis of political elite is social background of the people and there is always social consciousness among the people belonging to this class.
6. Elite usually allows entry to the others, in their circle, on the conditions, which suit their convenience.
7. In order to survive, the elite try to adjust themselves to the pressures which come from outside and as such there is great adaptability in the elite group. Various viewpoints on this approach are as under
Vilferdo Pareto has developed the idea of circulation of elite. According to him there is always a circulation between different categories of governing elite itself and between the elite and the population. The individuals can form new elite groups as well as challenge the already existing elite group and thus try to snatch power from the existing elite group. Elites rise and fall. Pareto calls this phenomenon the circulation of elites.
In refers to a process of individual circulation between the elite and the non-elite or to a process in which one elite is replaced by another. It is said, “history is the graveyard of aristocracies.” Rulers whether kings, elected representatives, or military rulers come and go.
There may be circulation between the elite and the rest of the population, which may take either of the two forms:
(i) Individuals from the lower strata may succeed in entering the existing group of elite or
(ii) Individuals in the lower strata may form new elite groups, which then engage in a struggle for power with the existing elite.
Pareto explains the circulation of elites through the psychological factors. The psychological factors are indicated by the changes in the state of mind and feelings in ideas and sentiments. Pareto gave the idea of derivatives and residues. Pareto maintains that the differential distribution of residues among the members of elite is important for social affairs. Depending on the domination of residues two types of men are depicted – Speculator (Foxes) and Rentiers (Lions). Speculators are dominated by class one residues. Whereas rentiers are dominated by class two residues. When society is governed by speculator, society is subject to rapid change. When rentiers dominate, changes take place slowly.
A natural tendency exists for the elites of the two types to rotate in position of political power. When an elite of one type has ruled for sometime, inferior elements develop in the mining class. On the other hand, superior elements accumulate in the governed classes of elites. The elite group consisting of speculators commits mistakes which open the way to ascent of rentiers, but after latter are consolidated in power positions, they also commit mistakes, opening the doors for the speculators. This process continues. That is why history, asserts Pareto, is a graveyard of aristocracies”.
According to him in all political organisations there is an elite class, which controls power and means of power. He divided the society into ruling class and the ruled. The ruling class is always in minority but is respected in the society on account of its qualities. He has named elites as ‘Political Class’. According to his philosophy real power of the elite is because of their organizational capacity. They control such important means as property, public utility services, and well-established and respected religious institutions. The elite group has also control over the mass media and is also vigilant.
Mosca has also given the concept of sub-elite. It is this elite group, which includes civil servants, managers of industries, scientists and scholars, and real force, which provides material to the political elite for the governance of the people. In the absence of sub-elite, it will really be difficult for the elite group to successfully run the administration and rule over vast majority of the people. Mosca had given the ideas about political formula. Various viewpoints on this approach are as under
Elites are classified into two types viz., strategic and segmental. The segmental are the elites in their respective branches e.g. cultural elite, economic elite, social elite etc. Strategic elites are those, whose judgments, decisions and actions have determinable consequences for many members of society. Among strategic elites, there is even a smaller group called ‘power elite’ in the words of C. Wright Mills. ‘Power elite’ refers to those political, economic and military circles, which as an intricate set of overlapping cliques share decisions having at least national consequences.
C. Wright Mills observed that in American society, the corporate heads, chief military officials and the political leaders form the core of the power elite and they are the actual rulers. The constitute a cohesive group. All the three have similar social background i.e. they belong to upper or upper middle class. Their life chances and life-styles are similar. They have close relations with each other. There are family relationships between these three elites.
Michels[1] was of the view that the elite group depends on organizational activity. The organization not only brings power but also the elite into existence. He gave the idea of iron law of oligarchy. According to him organisation means specialisation and greater the network of organisation more will be the specialisation. This makes the minority, which actively participates in political affairs, as very effective and active. The majority simply begins to respect and obey and minority. According to him this majority-minority concept is not peculiar to any particular society, but to all societies/systems.
Djilas, a socialist, expressed his ideas about elites in his volume entitled, ‘The New Class’. He has divided bureaucracy into two classes namely bureaucracy in general and special strata of bureaucrats. The latter are not administrators but a core of governing bureaucracy. They hold an administrative monopoly. In the beginning it uses party as the basis, but gradually they weaken the party and themselves become strong and powerful. But his ideas have been criticised on several grounds. First, it is said that Djilas has confused political leadership with bureaucracy. Then it is said, about his ideas that gradually political party will become weaker does not hold good, but we find that even in Russia, Communist Party has not weakened itself.
James Burnham gave his political ideas in his volume entitled, ‘The Managerial Revolution’ brought out in 1942. According to him capitalism is on the decline and in future society, both from political and economic viewpoint, will be governed by administrative elite. In this the decisions will be taken by few people. The people will control all administrative matters and will be most benefited by it. This will be possible because those who own the land will be excluded from its administration. In this way, according to him, the power, which is now held by the capitalists, will be held by the bureaucracy and others who emerge as elite on the debris of the capitalist system.
Bottomore in his book, Elites and Society has identified five ideal types of elites: (1) a dynastic elite; (ii) the middle class; (iii) the revolutionary intellectuals; (iv) the colonial administrators; and (v) the nationalist leaders in developing societies.
As we know that in every society there are intellectuals. In every society they play a big role. They create and generate ideas. In the past in India e.g. Brahmins were considered as the intellectuals but today it is believed that the intellectuals are associated with the universities. The intellectuals all over the world have seen real brains behind important revolutions. They are very small in number but powerful instrument of social change, though their role differs from country to country. The intellectuals can fall under the following categories: (1) Dynastic intellectual; (ii) The Middle class; (iii) The Revolutionary intellectuals; (iv) The Colonial administrators; and (v) Nationalist leaders. The dynastic intellectual helps in creating an environment in which economic development can take place and obviously they have limited role to play. Then comes the middle class, which includes public servants and salaried group people. They usually take recourse to reactionary policies, but very many leaders, in many countries come from this class. As regards revolutionary intellectuals, they are those who are under the influence of Marxism, and as such in non-socialist countries these are with the non-governing, rather than the governing elite. But whatsoever may be the category of elite, the fact remains that, they cannot form a class, it is primarily because they differ both in character and composition. Their ideas come in the background of the social class to which they belong. They have the capacity but not the organisation, and as such intellectuals cannot be real power elite in society.
Inequality is a universal phenomenon. It may take an economic form that is reflected in some being owners of means of production; and others being non-owners. It could take a social form in the shape of caste system of India. Some castes are higher whereas others are lower. It could possibly take the form of political inequalities as well. Some are ruling groups, and others are the ruled. These inequalities have been examined by social scientists following various approaches. . Elites play decisive roles in all societies. Next, the roles and status of the major elite groups viz., the political elites, high government officials, intellectuals and the business elites are discussed. The social composition of the elite groups is also discussed here.
The socialists wish to establish a classless society, in which according to some there will be no political elite. But that does not appear to be true. Many political thinkers have adopted the idea that in the classless society small number of people will control the affairs in all walks of life. These will in fact, be more powerful, than the political elites in the democratic societies, but the former will have absolute and unbounded power. In socialist societies all those who come to power will dispense with all the intermediately bodies and have no means of defending the masses against the elite. In this way according to these thinkers in a socialist society, the elite will have more power than the political elites in democracies and that the existing situation is bound to continue because the elites have social, economic and political powers in their hands. Max Weber, while contributing to the idea came to the conclusion that bureaucracy is bound to be more powerful, in socialist than in capitalist societies. In socialist societies administration always get concentrated in the hands of few bureaucrats. It was wrong to think, according to Weber, that political leaders in any society could check the growth of power in the hands of bureaucracy.
The Pluralist elites have however developed a new theory about democracy, which is quite different from the one developed by the Classical elites. According to them democracy was a political system in which political parties competed for the votes of a mass electorates. The masses influence the elites in each party because they can exercise a choice between rival elites. Karl Mannheim came forward with the idea that though in democratic society, actual policy was formulated by the elite, yet that did not mean that the society was not democratic. The society continued to be democratic because the people had the possibility of making their aspirants feel at regular intervals that they have the power to force the leaders to take decision in the way they liked. According to him there was no contradiction between political elite and a democratic system. Political elite was different from totalitarianism, because whereas the people could remove their leaders, in the former, they could not do so in the latter case.
Schampeter (1833-1950) another Pluralist also came forward with the idea that democracy came with capitalist system of economy. According to him it was the business of politicians to deal with any and every situation. Then came economic theory of democracy. Anthony Downs in his ‘An Economy Theory of Democracy’ has said that in a democracy, political parties behave in the same manner as a businessman would behave in a profit seeking economy. As a businessman will like to produce, what gives him business profit so a political party will formulate policies in a democracy, as will fetch them maximum votes. Each party will try to fetch maximum votes from the masses and this leads to the concept of plurality of elite, which acts as a system of checks and balances in a democratic society. As the producers and the consumers try to defend their interests so the trade unions and the associations organise themselves to defend the interests of their workers and members.
The viewpoint of Pluralist is different from the classical elite. According to them :-
1. Instead of concentrating power in the hands of a few individuals, they have made it open-ended. They have tried to find out, if there is any section in the society, which guides it. They have come to the conclusion that the society is not controlled by a particular class/elite.
2. According to them power flows from different sources, which are always ever changing.
3. They have tried to trace real power and authority in the society, among those, who take decisions.
4. These thinkers are also of the view that with the changing times, group power also changes and is possessed by different people and as such it is not permanent with just few persons or a section of society, as the classical thinkers of the elite theory will make us believe.
5. They have based their ideas not on social conditions but on the roles, which a section plays in the society.
Although agreeing with Mills that there is an unequal distribution of power in the United States, David Riesman rejects the notion that the power holders are, or can be, a unified group. The diversity of interests that exist in mass society makes it impossible for any single group to dominate society by controlling the decision-making process. Thus, Riesman understood the system of rule to be made up of various sectors of power, each serving as a potential buffer against any one group gaining control of the decision-making process throughout the system.
In his book Robert Dahl,” Who Governs”, he makes an investigation of local politics in New Heven, Connecticut. Dahl uses the decision-making method arguing that the only way to discover the distribution of power is to examine actual decisions. Dahl found no evidence of a ruling elite in New Heven. He claims that power is dispersed among various interest groups and that this plurality of elites does not form a unified group with common interests.
Dahl’s conclusions on the local level are echoed in a study of power on the national level by Arnold M. Rose. In the Book “Power Structure” Rose rejects the view that USA is ruled by a unified power elite, arguing instead for a “Multi- Influence hypothesis”. This approach conceives of a society as consisting of many elites, each relatively small numerically and operating in different spheres of life. Rose claims that the national political decisions are not dominated by economic interests alone and politicians respond to the demands of various interest groups in society.
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.
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’.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.’
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’.
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.’
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
[1] Political parties,1949
[2] Riesman's 1950 book, The Lonely Crowd, a sociological study of modern conformity, which postulates the existence of the "inner-directed" and "other-directed" personalities. Riesman was also a noted commentator on American higher education, publishing, with his seminal work, The Academic Revolution co-written with Christopher Jencks
By: Parveen Bansal ProfileResourcesReport error
Access to prime resources
New Courses