This paper examines two competing models of political power — the pluralist model and the power-elite model — and applies them to the contemporary United States. The pluralist model holds that power is widely dispersed across society and that interest groups, elections, and constitutional structures prevent any single group from dominating governance. The power-elite model, by contrast, argues that a small, interconnected class controls major institutions including corporations, the military, and government. The paper evaluates both frameworks, acknowledging the pluralistic design of U.S. institutions while arguing that those who actually operate those institutions constitute a self-perpetuating power elite.
Two competing models attempt to explain how political power is distributed in modern societies: the pluralist model and the power-elite model. Each offers a distinct account of who governs, how decisions are made, and whose interests are ultimately served.
According to the pluralist model of politics, power is diffused throughout society rather than concentrated in the hands of a single group. "What matters to pluralists about the distribution of power in society is not that it is uneven, but that it is widely dispersed rather than concentrated into the hands of the few," and no single group can dominate the government (Pluralism, 2009, History Learning). Widespread political enfranchisement and participation ensures that the state will respond to the needs of the community, while the ability of interest groups to articulate their points of view ensures that minority rights will be protected.
The U.S. system of government is founded upon such pluralistic principles. For example, the Founding Fathers created the House of Representatives to be directly elected by the people on a district-by-district basis, but its influence is counterweighted by the more deliberative body of the Senate, which can more carefully consider minority rights. Lobbyists and citizens have the constitutional right to act as advocates for more specialized interests to Representatives and Senators, regardless of where they live.
However, many have argued that the U.S., even though its institutions are not technically oligarchic, still functions as a power elite. The United States, although it is a republic, clearly has certain types of power concentrated in the hands of some citizens as opposed to others, as wealth and professional or political positions give particular individuals added influence over how policies are made. The American power elite sends its children to the best schools, makes connections with other powerful people, and assumes command of the major corporations, the military, and the government (The power elite, 2009, Afrostaff). Even though some outsiders may make inroads into this elite as a result of their talent, this only occurs if they do not threaten the elite's core values — or if the power elite pressures these few upstarts to uphold the status quo.
The U.S. may have institutions that seem to be pluralistic in design, but fundamentally the individuals who run these institutions constitute a power elite, because of their disproportionate access to and influence within those institutions. A sociological perspective informed by C. Wright Mills would suggest that formal democratic structures and elite dominance are not mutually exclusive — they can, and in the American case arguably do, coexist.
Pluralism. (2009). History Learning Website. Retrieved March 3, 2009, from http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/pluralism.htm
The power elite. (2009). Afrostaff. Afromerica. Retrieved March 3, 2009, from
"Elite control within pluralistic institutional structures"
You’re 94% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.