Malavika G NairAIR 45 · CSE 2024 · 414 wordsTheir whole copy
Opening
The Rule of Elite Theory in power is based on the concept that a ruling minority holds power in society and exercises the same on unorganized majority. It assumes conflict perspective as assumed by Weber.
Difference in Mills Approach v/s Mosca and Pareto
Body · points
(1) Characteristics of Elite: Both Mosca and Pareto believed in superior attributes of elite which made them fit to rule. Mosca says elite may have better talent, intelligence etc. Pareto borrows Machiavellian concept of Lion and Foxes and uses Residue of Combination and Residue of Persistance of Aggregates to hold power.
Mills believe that rather than any
superior attributes, it is the key post of military, federal government and businesses in America occupied by a circulating elite due to social background eg: WASPs, same Ivy leage college backgrounds etc.
(2) Mosca's and Pareto's approach is more theoretical while mills bases his observations in the American society.
(3) The key positions occupied by elite and how they circulate is explained by both as Mills approach but Mosca and Pareto assumes power equivalent to political power.
(4) Inner circulation of elite and elite self recruitment is explained by Mills's theories but superior attributes of ruling maybe possened by any citizen but they cannot come to power is unexplained by mosca and Pareto.
(5) The individual social mobility in power structure is explained by Mosca and Pareto but not by Mills approach.
eg: Due to superior talent, Kautilya and Chandragupta overthrew Nandas.
(6) The status quoist bias of Mills theory does not explain violent social change whereas Mosca and Pareto's approach account for it.
eg: Coups after coups in Africa and Latin America due to circulation of Lion and Fox.
Similarities:
(1) Conflict view of Power (Weber) where power is a constant sum game.
(2) An organized minority rules over an uncoordinated amorphous minority.
(3) Power of all forms is believed to be concentrated with the same elite.
- countered by Elite Pluralism of Peter Saunders study.
(4) Power does not benefit always to those who hold it -> Westergaard and Resler eg: Crony capitalist pushing state agenda.
(5) Ignores dimension of power of non decision making, ideological power etc - Steven Lukes.
(6) Counter power or power with masses which has revolutionary potential Mccabe is ignored.
Close · a summary
Thus, The elite theory has many drawbacks and does not explain empirically all aspects of power eg: Parsons view of community's power.
However they still portray the existence of power differential in society which is near universal.