In Marxist theory, it was the 60s and early 70s that saw the debate focussed around the differing views of instrumentalists and structuralists. The instrumental position was associated with the work of Ralph Miliband, and the state was seen as an instrument of the ruling class. The state, according to Miliband, takes decisions, which directly favour the owners and controllers of capital. This is done for three reasons. Firstly the state personnel are drawn from the same social background, the state is capitalist and in order to protect it, they must encourage capital accumulation, and lastly in a capitalist society, the interests of capital and the national interest are often viewed as the same. There have been many criticisms of the Marxist theory, one of which is that its far to deterministic also some argue that In advanced industrial societies there has been a separation of ownership and control. Control of businesses is passing from owners to salaried managers. If this is the case there’s very little justification for seeing a ruling class both owning and controlling the means of production. Also Marxists focus on class. Critics argue that it ignores forms of inequality. Many of today’s social movements are concerned with the rights of women, ethnic minorities, gays, lesbians and disabled people. Such political struggles do not fit easily into a Marxist analysis of power.
Stephen Luke believes that there are three ways in which sociologists have approached the study of power. Each involves studying a different dimension or ‘face’ of power.
The first face of power according to Luke is success in decision-making, which has been adopted by pluralists like Robert Dahl. Pluralists argue that power can be seen by the outcomes of the decision making process. Dahl's approach clearly illustrates the pluralist approach. In his study of New Haven in Connecticut, Who Governs (1961), he studied three major issues, and concluded that no group dominated New Haven politics. The study reflected the pluralists' preference for the study of specific issues and concrete decisions. Polsby (1963), who argued that sociologists should study specific issues in order to determine who gets their own way, echoes this conclusion. However a clear problem with this approach is that it is only examining the public face of decision-making. A group may also exercise power through its ability to prevent a policy option being considered - a process often called 'agenda setting'. This preventative option is the second dimension of power and is frequently called non-decision-making. Luke criticise the pluralist theory for being to 1 dimensional. The second face of power is managing the agenda and critics of the pluralist view argue that simply studying decision-making ignores a second dimension of power – the ability to control the agenda. Luke’s third face of power is manipulating the views of others. He argues that although the second view of power represents a step forward, it still ignores a third dimension. This view sees power as the ability to shape the wishes and desires of others.
Quite recently there has been the development of pressure groups, these groups seek to put pressure on decision makers in order to favour their views on policy issues. There are Insider and Outsider groups. Insider Groups are pressure groups, which have been invited into the decision-making by the government such as Friends of the Earth and can actively and civilly debate/negotiate an agreement. Insider groups tend to take a more political approach to getting things done, whilst Outsider Groups such as Greenpeace and Peta are use more extreme methods to support their campaign. Greenpeace has chosen to be an outsider group, as they believe that rational negotiations are pointless as they don’t want to compromise their ideas they just want to get what they want and while they waste energy debating inside they could be putting it to better use outside. Outsider groups would use methods such as protests, marches and more radical approaches to gain influence and are usually found outside where the meetings are being held.
Pressure groups allow anyone to join and can gain influence by the use of adverts, websites and purely word of mouth.
Many pressure Groups can gain influence by starting a website. This is an easy way to reach a great number of people and its very quick and simple to do, also they can organise marches and sell merchandise. Another way to gain influence is to offer people something if they join. Trade Unions are a wide known interest group as they help people to get equal and fair treatment.
Marxist see pressure groups are ‘like rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic’, meaning that its pointless trying to change anything as its already ruined and that pressure groups are a waste of time.
From 1945 to 1970 most voters in Britain saw themselves as Labour or Conservative and voted accordingly, this is known as partisan Alignment. When Labour first came into power it was because there was a vast majority or working class people and because Labour was considered the party for the working class they were voted in. However this has now changed and although they still claim to be the party of the working classes they have started moving towards the centre right. This is because it has been established that the average voter is positioned at centre right and because of this it has left many left-winged voters feeling unrepresentative. With both parties moving to the centre, many people feel that both labour and Conservative parties are pretty much the same and so they feel there’s little point actually voting instead many feel that joining a pressure group is much more influential as its instant gratification. You protest and something gets done about it there and then.
In conclusion it seems as though No theory has all the truth but each seem to contain an element of it. Certainly, it would seem that both classic pluralism and Marxism are inappropriate for analysing contemporary Britain. Voting and lobbying can have some effect on some areas of state activity, but not the central importance that pluralism gives it. Classical Marxism suggests the government is merely the agent of the ruling class, whereas it is clear that the British government is certainly not simply the creature of a ruling class consistently taking decisions which forward its interests.
Although less people tend to be voting there are many reason for this especially in the post-modern society we live in. Many people can no longer be bothered to vote and would rather just get on with their lives.
People may also no-longer feel the need to vote as both parties are so much alike as even the left-wing party is now moving to the right. People join pressure groups in the hope to change a certain aspect of society that they don’t like or if it’s just to get better treatment of money at work. There’s a pressure group for everyone and on almost ever issue and with the development of the Internet finding and joining one has never been easier. Voting seems to be a very poor way of getting what you want and the government doesn’t always listen anyway, or according to Luke they pretend to listen when infact there mind is already made up. Pressure groups such as Greenpeace and Trade Unions seem to get results if it’s in preventing pollution or just getting extra money or more holidays at work.
However is protesting and direct action really the best method of getting what you want, sure it gets results but if the state has already decided what’s it going to do?