Power, Elites and Classes

The most prominent elite theorists are Weber's contemporary, Vilfredo Pareto (1848-1923) and Robert Michels (1876-1936).Gaetano Mosca (1858-1941)

They argued that only a small number of people in any organization can hold authority and that their occupation of these position automatically places them at adds with those subjected to it. They also suggested that elites who are in control generally share a common culture, and they are organized- not necessarily formally, but in the sense that they act together to defend their position, as well as using it to their own individual advantage. Elite theory explicitly presents the argument that people's self-interest and the intrinsically unequal nature of power make conflict both inevitable and permanent.

Robert Michel raised the Law of oligarchy, the proposition that small groups in authority come to run politically parties essentially for their own ends.

Mosca concerns the conflict between power holders and those whom they dominate.Like Marx, he identified political positions as the source of domination in all other spheres including the economic.

Pareto, on the other hand, recognized the existence of other nonpolitical elites, but he emphasized the governing elites who rule a society and the existence of ruling and subject classes who face each other like alien nations.

C Wright Mills had the similar social critiques.

Thorstein Veblen (1857-1929) studied the root of power and conflict in a broad historical context. He analyzed society in terms of the conflicting interests of different social groups. C Wright Mills, continued his study in his discussion of status struggles.

Veblen, like Marx believed that modern society is characterized by the conflict between opposing economic groups.Broadly, he categories the society into industrial class (who make goods) and pecuniary class (who are involved in finance and sales).

The two perspective of social reseach

From "Contemporary Social Theory" by Ruth A Wallace

There are basically two perspectives that social scientists conduct the social research:Function Theory and Conflict Theory.

Functionalists, represented by Parson, look at societies and social institutions as systems in which all the parts depend on each other and work together to create equilibrium. They do not deny the existence of conflict, but they believe society develops ways to control it.

Conflict theorist's perceptions of society could hardly be more different. Where functionalists see interdependence and unity in society, conflict theorists see an arena in which groups is able, temporarily, to suppress its rivals. Functionalists see the civil law, for example, as a way of increasing social integration, whereas conflict theorists see civil law as a way of defining and upholding a particular order that benefits some groups at the expense of others.

The general conflict orientation incorporates three central and connected assumptions:

1). People have a number of basic interests, things they want and attempt to acquire that are not defined by societies but rather are common to them all.

2). Power is the core of social relationships that is scarce and unequally divided. That is often the source of conflict, but also as essentially coercive. That leads to a concern with the distribution of the resources that give people more or less power.

3). Value and ideas are seen as weapons used by different groups to advance their own ends rather than as the means of defining a whole society's identity and goals. Ideology is regarded by Conflict theorists the means to legitimate the "ruling party"s benefits.

Even within Conflict theorists, there are several distinguishably different groups:

The first group of theorists believes social scientists have a moral obligation to critique society. It refuses to separate the analysis from judgment or fact from value, they even doubt whether it ever can be. Theorists in this group also often believe that it is possible, in principle, for a society to be conflict free.

The famous figures in the first group are Karl Marx,modern Marxism, Neo-Marxism, the Frankfurt School, C Wright Mills, and Pierre Bourdieu.

The second groups, by contrast, considering conflict to be an inevitable and permanent aspect of social life, it also rejects the idea that social science's conclusions are necessarily value-laden. They are interested in establishing a social science with the same canon of objectivity as in natural science.

Max Weber, Ralf Dahredorf, Lewis Coser, and Randall Collines belong the second group.

As a social science researcher, I confess I incline to be the conflict theorists in second group, and the same time, I strive to promote the sound system and institutions which functionalists hope for. However, judging by current development, I am not a bit optimistic.

I know that many of you might not agree with me, but I have to say that there is not so much hope for human society as whole. Individuals are yet to seek for their own the eternal ending.

Parson's Theory of Action

From Ruth A Wallace "contemporary Sociological Theory" sixth edition

Parson's action theory includes role players, either individuals or collective group. The role players are the ones who have motivation to reach certain goal, they must have means, with time and condition of their environment, applying normative standard or passing standard requirement, their actions will enable them to reach final goal.

According to him, a purposive actors who were oriented to gals but had to fulfill certain conditions, themselves defined by normative expectation, before they could be gratified. Parson wanted to show that actors' situation is not entirely unstructured and uncertain, he formulated the patten variables, which categorize expectations and the structure of relationships.

Parson's this part of work is based on Ferdinand Toennies's (1855-1936) gemeinschaft-gesellschaft typology. Toennies was interested in contrasting primitive communities (gemeinschaft) with modern industrial (gesellschaft) societies.

Gemeinschaft community is characterized by a predominance of close personal bonds or kinship relations; Gesellschaft by more impersonal, business type relations. Parson labeled the relationships in traditional societies, which are mainly personal and informal, expressive, and relationships in modern society, which are mainly impersonal, formal, instrumental.

In modern society, both relationships exist and are needed. Parson argued that the instrumental leadership role must be accorded to the husband-father, on whom the reputation and income of the family depend. Likewise because of the occupational responsibilities of the father, the mother must take on the expressive role-leadership in the socialization of children.

This idea was strongly criticized by Feminists who argued that Parson's statement regarding the positive functions of this expressive/instrumental division of labor in the family was attempt to justify the status quo. They criticized his theory of gender socialization as oppressive for both gender, but particular for women.

Facing such criticism, Parson expanded his twofold typology into the five-fold patten variables:

Expressive(Gemeinschaft)	Instrumental (Gesellscaft)
Ascription	Achievement
Diffuseness	Specificity
Affectivity	Neutrality
Particularism	Universalism
Collective	Self

Parson's definition of patten variable is " a dichotomy, one side of which must be chosen by an actor before the meaning of a situation is determine for him, and thus before he can act with respect to the situation."

The first choice actors must make is between ascription and achievement, i.e.what they are or what they can.

for example, the employers are expected to choose the employee based on what they can do in the past, not based on what they are, according to their color, age, gender, and sexual oriental etc. But bear in mind, there remains situation in which the recruitment or hiring choice is expected to be at least partly ascriptive, eg age requirement. Appropriate choice between these two variable is not arbitrary, and subject to normative expectation.

Second, diffuseness and specificity, here refers to the range of demands in the relationship. Diffuse relationship often refers to close personal ones when one can freely and deeply share personal affairs; while Specific relationship often refers to doctors and patients, involving specific profession and skill and within certain range.

Parson argued that in modern societies that appropriate choice generally involves specifically defined behavior, while traditional societies, more relationships are diffuse.

Third, Affectivity or affective neutrality, Here refers to whether the actor can expect emotional gratification in the relationship. An engaged couple certainly expect to relate to each other with affectivity; while, teacher and student are expect to opt for neutrality.

The fourth pattern variable is particularism or universalism. Here the choice is between reacting on the basis of a general norm or reacting on the particular group. Because teacher is expected to treat all the student equally, it is difficult for parents to have their own children as students.

The fifth pattern variable, the collectivity-self orientation, involves the dilemma of whether private interests can be gratified, or collective obligation or duty must be fulfilled. Self interest is highly institutionalized in the business world, while civil servants are expected to carry their duties for the best interests of public.
....