Pluralistic vs. Elitist Perspectives on Power and Governance

Introduction to Pluralism and Elitism

Pluralism promotes the idea that two or more forms of authority can coexist. This is a broad concept applicable across a wide range of topics, and it is useful for demonstrating how different systems of governance function. The pluralist perspective emphasizes the organization as being composed of a series of sub-groups, each with its own interests and influence. In contrast, elitism relates to a situation in which a small, privileged group holds authority over others. This ruling group must adopt a series of controlling attitudes in order to maintain its power.

How Pluralism Distributes Power

In the pluralist perspective, managers and leaders focus more on coordinating overall affairs within an organization rather than on exercising direct control over subordinates. In this way, power is distributed among several individuals, and the group as a whole plays an important role in overseeing how the system operates. Political power in this system tends to be fragmented and divided among individuals and groups, so that everyone feels their ideas have some influence on collective outcomes.

In a pluralist system there can be several classes and political parties, and public policy is typically the result of these groups interacting with one another and attempting to advance their respective positions. Because no single group actually dominates, all groups are to a certain degree equal, and they may even foster counter-groups that challenge their thinking.

Even though power is not concentrated in a single group under pluralism, groups generally become more powerful as they grow. A group with more members carries more authority by virtue of its size. As noted above, policies are the consequence of groups coming together and projecting their ideas onto one another in the hope of gaining acceptance. As a result, most policies tend to be moderate and broadly fair, regardless of any individual member's level of involvement in the voting process.

Limits and Inequalities Within Pluralist Systems

In a pluralist community, the state essentially serves as a mediating force between groups, ensuring that all policies are ultimately created to benefit society as a whole rather than any one group in particular. Even so, less influential groups are likely to be overlooked, and their interests may conflict with the general interests of the broader population. Their status as outsider groups further shapes how they interact with the system. The general population typically perceives these groups as communities that deserve acceptance but that possess little real power to reshape society according to their own values.

As fair as a pluralist state might appear, outcomes are not always equitable, because individuals from privileged environments often retain significant power. Upper classes have been observed to control communities even within systems that emphasize pluralist principles of fairness. These privileged groups held power in societies that nominally championed fairness, yet became less effective at countering inequality when particular groups grew too influential.

Works Cited

Janoski, T. The Handbook of Political Sociology: States, Civil Societies, and Globalization. Cambridge University Press, 2003.

Porta, D. D., and Keating, M. Approaches and Methodologies in the Social Sciences: A Pluralist Perspective. Cambridge University Press, 2008.