Weber defined 3 types of authority: Charismatic Authority (The type of authority based on charisma), Traditional Authority (The type of power based on established customs) and Rational-legal authority (The type of authority devised from impersonal rules). Weber saw rational-legal authority as the dominant form of authority in modern societies, not only armies but also political, religious and educational organisations. He believed that they were organised on bureaucratic lines with structures of authority and rational rules designed to ensure that power is used to achieve the goals of organisations. Weber’s work has been critised as the types of authority he described are ideal types. Ideal is a model of the purest type and in reality ideal types do not exists.
Political scientist Robert Dahl developed Weber’s ideas into what has become classical pluralism. Classical pluralism represents the way in which many people believe liberal democrats such as the UK and USA operate. It suggests that such political systems are truly democratic and that power is distributed throughout society. Classical pluralists except that they have very little direct involvement in political decision-making however this doesn’t mean that these societies are undemocratic. They are seen as representative democracies where citizens elect political leaders who are charged with carrying out the wishes of those who elected them.
Pluralists see political parties and pressure groups as crucial for the democratic process, as through political parties we seek to gain power by putting up candidates into elections with the aim of forming a government and through pressure groups seek to influence those in government to follow policies which individual groups favour. Robert Dahl conducted a study of local government in New Haven and found that no-one group is seen to actually dominate the decision-making; power is therefore shared among a range of groups. The idea is rejected by pluralists that democracy is possible in a one-party state, since there must be opposition parties and a range of pressure groups to represent the views of those who disagree with the governing party. Pluralists claim to have solid evidence for their view of the distribution of power from case studies of decision-making on a local level (Dahl) and at a national level (Hewitt)
There have been many criticisms of pluralism, first of all it is believed that measuring power by examining decisions ignores non-decision making. It also ignores the fact that that people may accept and even welcome decisions which are against their interests and its is shown that some groups exercise more power than others and so is an unequal representation of interests and many interests may not be represented at all. Marxists also argue that the pluralists’ focus on the decisions taken by local and national governments ignores the possibility that the real centre of power is elsewhere.
As a result of the criticisms of pluralism many classical pluralism supporters modified or changed their positions. Robert Dahl has accepted that the unequal distribution of wealth and income in the USA makes equal political influence impossible. David Marsh describes this position as elite pluralism.
Elite Pluralists accept that many political interests are under represented. However, since they constitute a significant number of voters the government will eventually be forced to take note of their interests. It is accepted that some groups have greater access to the government than others, however they point out that governments must minimise conflict by consulting with a range of interest groups.
Elite Pluralism answers some of the criticisms of classical pluralism. It acknowledges the existence of under-represented interests and accepts that power is to some degree concentrated in the hands of a few elites.
However there are also criticisms of this theory. It’s said to undermine the pluralist position that power is widely dispersed in capitalist societies. Also the assumption that elites or leaders act in the interests of their members is also open to question. Finally Elite pluralism like Classical pluralism fails to take into account the third face of power the ability to shape and manipulate the desires of others.
Elite theorists reject the pluralist view that power in liberal democracies is widely dispersed. They argue that power is concentrated in the hands of a small minority called the elite. The elite theory was originally developed as a response to Marxism, which claimed that democracy was only possible under communism. They asserted that rule by elites was inevitable in all societies, even communist ones. However not all views of elite theory are so pessimistic. Many modern elite theorists argue that rule by elites results from the way in which societies are organised, rather than being n inevitable feature of human society.
Vilfredo Pareto and Gaetano Mosca rejected the idea that real democracy was possible in either liberal democracies or under communism. They argue that in all societies and elite, a minority of individuals with superior personal qualities, would monopolise power.
While Pareto and Mosca saw the elite as an inevitable thing Wright Mills saw the elite rule as a result of the structure of society which allowed a disproportionate amount of power to be held by a few individuals who occupied what he called the command posts. These individuals are called the power elite. He identified 3 key institutions as the centres of power, The Federal government, the major corporations and the military. Mills believed that these 3 elites are closely related because of their similar origins, education and kinship and because there interests are in twined.
Critics of Mills argue that he only showed that the elites in the USA have potential for control, he failed to show that they had actual hold control. In addition pluralist disagree with this theory and argue that there are many other elites such as pressure group leaders, religious, trade unions and so on, who can provide a counterbalance to these more powerful elites. Marxists also reject the notion of a power elite, arguing that real power in capitalist societies derives not from positions in institutions but from ownership and control of the means of production.
In conclusion it seems as though there are many different approaches to the view on power in society, whether the people are in power because they were democratically elected or whether there, there because they were born into it. However many of the views tend to ignore the problems with black people and women. Why are there only 25% of women in parliament and why are there only 6 black MP’s?
Although functionalist believe we live in a fair merocratic society it’s becoming fairly obvious that we don’t. Though many views have may have some truth behind them it extremely hard say that one person’s opinion of power in society is wrong. It really depends if you believe in the power of the people or not.
