Matrix Between Pluralist and Elitist Perspectives

Pluralistic and Elitist Perspectives Pluralism promotes the idea that it would be possible for two or more forms of authority to coexist. This is a very general concept and can be considered in a wide range of topics with the purpose of demonstrating the way that these respective systems function. The pluralist perspective can be considered as something meant to emphasize the organization as being composed out of a series of sub-groups.

In contrast to pluralism, elitism relates to the idea of a situation in which an elitist group is in charge of matters. This group needs to be able to adopt a series of controlling attitudes in order to make sure that it still holds power. In the pluralist perspective, managers focus more on coordinating the overall affairs in the organization rather than on employing controlling attitudes toward their subordinates.

This way power is being distributed among several individuals and the group as a whole plays an important role in overseeing the way the system works. Political power in this system is likely to be fragmented and divided between individuals and groups in order for everyone to feel that their ideas have an influence on the group as a whole.

In a pluralist system there can be several classes and political parties and public policy is typically the result of these respective groups interacting with each-other and somehow attempting to force their opinions on the others. The fact that there is no group that actually dominates affairs means that all groups are to a certain degree equal and they are even probable to have groups that promote ideas in contrast to their thinking.

Even with the fact that power is not concentrated in a single group in pluralism, groups typically become more powerful when they grow. The fact that a group has more members also means that it has more authority as a result of its numbers. As previously mentioned, policies are the consequence of groups coming together and projecting their ideas on each-other in hope that they are going to be accepted.

In this way, most policies are usually moderate and fair to everyone in the group, regardless of their involvement in voting them. In a pluralist community the state is essentially a force that mediates affairs between groups and that makes sure that all policies are ultimately created to benefit society as a whole rather than a one group in particular. Even with this, less influential groups are likely to be ignored and their interests are probable to be in disagreement with the general interests of the population.

The fact that they are outsider groups further contributes to the way they interact with the system. The general population typically perceives these groups as communities that need to be accepted as part of society but that have little to no power to actually change society in order for it to be more similar to their thinking. As fair as a pluralist state might seem, in many cases things are not necessarily fair as a consequence of individuals from privileged environments holding the power.

The upper classes have been reported to control communities in situations when these were supportive with regard to a pluralist way of ruling. These respective groups held power in societies that emphasized fairness but were too powerless in conditions when particular groups became too influential. Elitism is strongly connected to the way that power is concentrated within a small group in a system. Most societies and organizations that deal with politics are likely to have smaller classes and communities that are inclined to only concentrate on ruling.

The group that is in charge is almost similar to an aristocracy, as it is usually drawn from privileged circles -- communities where individuals have come across positive experiences and developed strong relationships with others in power. As different as elitism might seem from pluralism, there are cases when the two can be considered similar. Democratic elitism involves contemporary elections aimed at having the masses involved in the system of leadership with the purpose of expressing their personal views. In these situations people might see elitist groups competing with each-other.