Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of elite theory.
Answer both of these questions deeply and detailed in essay form (2 pages):
1. Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of elite theory. In your essay be sure to discuss the work of Mosca and Michels. You should also discuss any relevant material found in the lectures. Feel free to supplement your discussion with your own observations of politics and society. (However, be sure to demonstrate you knowledge of the material that we have studied.) Finally, remember that elite theory can be empirical and/or normative (*Learning Resources: Readings in text by Mosca and Michels. Lectures included in the module on elite theories*)
2. Describe and evaluate the approaches of Weber and Strauss to the study of politics (*Learning Resources: Readings in text by Weber and Strauss. Lectures on Weber and Strauss. Other materials provided in the first and second modules could be helpful*)
Rubric:
23-25 points (highest score): Superior work. The essay demonstrates a sophisticated understanding of major concepts. Knowledge of the material is thorough detailed and illustrated with specific examples drawn from the reading and class discussions. Ideas are very well organized and clearly presented. Insight and creativity are apparent.
**DEMONSTRATE KNOWLADGE
Requirements: 2 pages
Max Weber 1864-1920
Weber is a key Þgure in the development of sociological theory
Perhaps we should think of Weber as a sociologist whose work has signiÞcant implications for political theory
In his writings he examined various aspects of society: legal, political, economic and cultural
The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism
Obviously this is a study of the relationship between Protestantism and capitalism. Religion and economics
The work is often characterized as a critique of Marx
Marx, of course, had argued that religion is part of the ÒsuperstructureÓ which is determined by the economic base. Thus, for Marx, Protestantism was a consequence of capitalism
Capitalism was an economic system based on individualism, thus it required the political individualism of classic liberalism and the religious individualism of Protestantism. (you donÕt have to agree with this)
Weber turns this around and argues that the Protestant Ethic was a key factor in the development of capitalism
Well, just what is this Protestant Ethic?
Sometimes called the work ethic
(I think I rebelled against it when I was a young hippie)
How could that ethic encourage capitalism?
Martin Luther had stressed individual salvation
John Calvin had stressed predestination
Early Protestantism stressed a certain asceticism
Work hard, and save
Think of those Puritan values: thrift, industriousness
Material success-but not extravagance-could be a sign that one was saved
These religious beliefs could provide a spiritual motivation for the proÞt seeking behavior that was essential to capitalism
The key point is that for Weber, ideas, values and beliefs are not mere reßections of material interests(or psych needs)
He is suggesting that ideas, values and beliefs have a major impact on society . That cultural change, economic change and political change are closely intertwined
Social Science
Weber was very inßuential in the theoretical development of social science
He argued for a value free social science
science cannot resolve questions of value
Science can tell us what is, and why it is, but not what ought to be. Science can describe and explain but it cannot make value judgements
ScientiÞc inquiry-and this includes the social sciences-must be value free. Empirical not normative
This does not mean that the social scientist has no values, but that they have no illusion that their values have any scientiÞc basis
To be true to the vocation of science, one must put their values on hold while conducting research
(you will see that Strauss makes a very different argument)
Weber did see a place for values in social science
While social science cannot tell us what our values should be, it can help us achieve them. Give this some thought.
Ideal Types
To understand certain aspects of society we must develop ideal types(or models)
His most famous use of ideal types was in his study of bureaucracy. By observing bureaucratic organization we could identify the essential elements of bureaucracy.
Hierarchy
Specialization
Formal rules and procedures
This does not mean that every bureaucracy in the real world matches this model, but that the model(or ideal type) helps us understand why bureaucratic organizations work the way that they do.
Give this some thought. What are your experiences with bureaucracy. Does WeberÕs model make sense?
Power and Authority
Weber sees bureaucracy as a type of rule, a kind of authority
He distinguishes authority from power
Power is the Òchance of a man, or a group of men to realized their own will..even if against the resistance of othersÓ
Authority refers to the legitimacy of that power
Weber describes three kinds of authority
Traditional Authority. In traditional societies this usually meant hereditary authority. But in a more general sense
we could say that traditional authority is justiÞed and limited by the customary norms and obligations
Perhaps you can think of some examples.
Charismatic Authority is based on the personality, or the message of the leader. Who they are, what they say, how they say it. Leaders that inspire their followers
For Weber charisma is an empirical value neutral term
Charismatic leaders can be good or bad
Think of examples
Rational Legal Authority is based on rationally established norms, by law. One has authority because they hold an office, and the power and authority of that office is established by law. Indeed the means of obtaining the office are established by law
Think of real world examples of leaders perhaps combining aspects of all three types of authority
Donald Trump
Rational -legal.
Constitutional presidential powers
How has he used these powers?
Has he overstepped the legal limits?
Has he stayed within the legal limits?
Has he damaged those powers?
Charismatic
His message, his style.
Why do some Þnd it inspirational?
Why do some Þnd it disgusting?
How effective is his charisma?
Traditional
How has he used traditional presidential authority?
Has he expanded such authority?
Has he weakened traditional presidential authority?
Here is a list of leaders generally considered charismatic.
Martin Luther King
Franklin Delano Roosevelt
John F. Kennedy
Ghandi
Fidel Castro
Winston Churchill
Adolph Hitler
Are there contemporary political Þgures you would describe as charismatic? Who? Why?
Leo Strauss What is Political Philosophy I actually remember reading this article back in 1970 when I was studying for my masters exam
Context. Strauss wrote during the heyday of behavioralism, which was an effort to make the social sciences more like the natural sciences. The behavioralists argued for an empirical value free political science. Strauss strongly disagreed. You will want to compare and contrast his approach with WeberÕs
So what is political philosophy?
To answer that question we must understand
The subject: the political
And
The approach: philosophy
He says that all political action is guided by some thought of better or worse. The thought of better implies thought of the good
Ultimately this requires knowledge of the political good
The public good, the good society, justice, etc.
Political knowledge must be knowledge of the political good
Pursuit of such knowledge is called political philosophy
Political philosophy is a branch of philosophy
What then is philosophy?
Philosophy is the quest for wisdom
A search for the universal good
Is pol philosophy the same as public opinion?
No pol philosophy is the attempt to replace pol opinion with political truth
Does Strauss agree with Weber that the study of politics can be value free?
No! But why not?
Strauss says that political things are by their nature subject to approval or disapproval. To approve or disapprove of something implies a standard of judgment
Political philosophy is the search for such standards
What About Political Science?
Strauss acknowledges(somewhat condescendingly) that there are people called political scientists who gather information about politics. He even admits that some of this information is useful.
But why does he disdain the efforts of pol scientists?
Strauss thinks that a science of politics is impossible
Pol sci can provide useful facts but only pol philosophy can provide political knowledge(knowledge of pol good)
Pol Sci is doomed by its misguided attempts to be value free. Unless you embrace normative issues you will never gain political knowledge.
He argues that it is impossible to study social phenomena without making value judgements
If we cannot evaluate something our knowledge is incomplete
(and this is important) The value judgments which are forbidden to enter pol sci through the from door, come in through the back door. What does he mean by this?
See if you can think of some examples
Oh, I thought of one. Suppose that I refer to the United Kingdom as a relatively stable democracy. Is that not a value judgment? Can stable or unstable be purely empirical terms? What would Weber say?
Strauss goes on to argue that science itself(like any other activity) rests on a value judgment.
If you engage in science you value truth. Even if truth is your only value, it is still a value.
But many have argued that value judgment cannot be true or false. But if that is the case, how can we justify science?
How can a Òvalue freeÓ political scientist justify pol. sci. ?
Conclusion
So are you convinced by LeoÕs argument?
Can one follow both Weber and Strauss?
Or are they mutually exclusive?
What do you think?
Can one put on their empirical political scientist hat and be value free while they are observing politics. Then take it off and put on their normative political philosopher hat when they are judging politics?
Elite Theory Obviously this means theory about elites
But what do we mean by elite?
Sometimes elite means special
Kobe was an elite basketball player
Harvard is an elite university
Notice that can be taken in at least two ways
Harvard is an excellent university
Harvard is a university for the elites
Do we mean
The best students?
Or
Members of the elite class
Or
A Harvard degree enables one to become a
Member of the elite class
Elites can be thought of as those who have more
Talent, wealth, status, power, fame, etc
Of course we need to distinguish between kinds of elites
Intellectual elites
Social elites
Economic elites
Political elites
Political elites are those who rule. Those with power.
This gets to two age old questions of political theory
Who rules and why do they rule?
Who should rule and why should they rule?
It seems that the Þrst question is empirical and that the
Second question is normative
Perhaps Plato got the ball rolling when he tried to answer the second question. In The Republic he argued that philosophers should rule.
Aristotle, the founder of political science, tried to answer both questions. Hence his famous typology
Who Rules. In whose interest?
The Good of All. Their own good
One Monarchy. Tyranny
Few Aristocracy Oligarchy
Many Polity Democracy
Thus there are six forms of government
Three good: monarchy, aristocracy and polity
Three bad: tyranny, oligarchy and democracy
Later Cicero argued for mixed government. The best government would combine elements of all three good forms:
Monarchy, aristocracy and polity
Marx also had an answer to these questions
Simply put, the dominant economic class ruled
Mosca, and Michels are founders of classic elite theory
They seem to be answering both questions in the affirmative
Elites do rule.
And
Elites should rule
For classic elite theory elite rule is inevitable and desirable
Writing in the early 20th century they are responding to Marx
But also to the democratic trends of their time
Much of Europe and North America now consisted of representative democracies. What our theorists argued was that these governments were not really democratic at all. That the people did not govern, not even indirectly
Classic elite theory was also a response to Marx
They agreed with Marx that elites did rule
So how did they disagree?
In two key ways
Yes, societies have always been ruled by elites. But those
Elites are not necessarily the economic elites. That political
Power was not always based on economic power
They also disagreed with Marx regarding the future. How so?
Marx was naive to think that there could be a future classless society, that elite rule could ever be abolished
If one elite were overthrown, they would simply be replaced by another elite. Not by the people
Mosca
His classic work is the Ruling Class (1893, rev. 1923
His central thesis is as follows: in all societies, two classes appear. A class that rules and class that is ruled. The Þrst class, always the less numerous, performs all political functions and enjoys the advantages of power. Whereas the second, more numbers class is directed and controlled by the Þrst Mosca is not talking about rule by one
He is talking about a ruling class
Even if one person appears to rule, they still need the support of the ruling class.
How does a ruling class gain power? How does it rule?
Are these just talented people who are good at governing?
Mosca argues that every ruling class possesses a key resource that is esteemed or inßuential in that particular society. The ruling class uses that resource(s) to expand its power
This resource is often economic power, as Marx argued, but it could just as easily be something else
What are some of the resources he mentions in the reading?
Wealth, land, military force, priestly status, expertise,
For example
If a particular religion is dominant in a society
The religious elite would be the pol elite.
In society where military values are dominant, the military class may be the ruling class, even if the need for the military is not what it once was.
What are the key resources in our society that would enable a class to rule?
But canÕt the masses overthrow the elites? CanÕt the majority overthrow the minority?
Back in my activist days, I would sometimes say Òhistory is the struggle between the masses of people and the ruling class, who will Þght us every step of the way. But there is more of us, then there are of them and weÕre going to winÓ
Mosca would Þnd such a statement pathetically naive
Precisely because the ruling class is a minority, it is cohesive and united in defending it interests.
I remember the night we won rent control in Santa Monica. I was in a union hall Þlled with activists and we were chanting Òthe people united will never be defeatedÓ
Mosca might reply ÒSteve, the people will never be unitedÓ
Precisely because they so numerous, the masses will never be united. The will never have the cohesion of the ruling class. Do you agree?
Does the ruling class rule by force?
Sometimes but not always.
They can also rule through the manipulation of public opinion
This is where ideology and culture comes in
As Mosca writes ÒEvery governing class tends to justify its actual exercise of power by resting it on some universal moral principleÓ p 520 1st ed, 500 2nd ed.
He mentions some examples. We can probably think of others. Think about it. how do elites persuade the masses that their power is indeed justiÞed? How do rulers convince the ruled that they(the rulers] should rule?
Again, Marx said something very similar but the key difference is that for Mosca, the Econ is elite is not always the political elite.
Ruling Class Decline
But while Mosca argues for the inevitability of elite rule, it is not inevitable that a particular elite will continue to rule.
Mosca writes Ò Ruling classes decline, when they cease to Þnd scope for the capacities through which they rose to powerÉ.when they can no longer render the services which they once rendered, or when their talents ..lose importance .
P 523 1st ed , 500 2nd ed
For a ruling class to stay in power it must adapt to social change, assimilate new social forces, recruit new members adopt new ideas, policies and strategies.
If it fails to make these adaptations, it will be replaced
But not by the masses, by a new ruling class
Hm. Have there been different ruling classes over the course of American history?
Ok but how does this square with the fact that even in his time many nations were becoming democratic? Is he against that trend?
Some may argue that the whole theory is one big truism:
Rulers rule. Leaders lead. What else is new?
Mosca would argue that these governments are not really democratic. The people do not really govern.
But what about elections? What about legislatures?
Mosca would say that elections and other representative institutions are not really mechanisms through which the masses can gain power and govern. These institutions are mechanisms through which the masses can be manipulated.
Elections and legislatures also provide an arena for competing elites
A ruling class could use the democratic institutions to maintain its power. Or an emerging elite could use those institutions to gain power.
Either way elite rule, according to Mosca, is inevitable and ultimately desirable.
Michels Political Parties 1911
Michels is best known for a single concept
What is it ?
ThatÕs right The Iron Law of Oligarchy
Which states that rule by the few is inevitable
Well thatÕs what Mosca said. WhatÕs the big deal?
Mosca focused on government
Michels focused on organizations, like political parties
Now he is writing before Lenin. His focus is on democratic socialist parties. Working class organizations committed to democracy.
Yet even these organizations are inevitably ruled by a few
Wow. He seems to be saying that no organization can be democratic. Many grassroots organizers would disagree.
Michels argues that complex organizations require specialization and expertise. Hence the need for leaders
Also, the rank and Þle members have a need to follow
I was once involved in a local Democratic club. We had about two hundred members. Decisions were made by majority rule. About forty of our members-at most-came to meetings. About ten -twelve members were activists who walked precincts, registered voters, made phone calls,
helped to organize events and raise money. About six officers made all of the decisions. Two or three of us had the most inßuence. While the officers were elected by those members who came to the meetings. They were usually chosen by me.
Now in that particular group, the reason why a few of us had most of the powers, is because we did most of the work. At the time in my life, being a political activist was my ÒjobÓ. Our little clique could have been easily outvoted but that never happened.
Well this gives us some food for thought
Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers
Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.
Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS
Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?
Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.
We write plagiarism Free Content
Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.
Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.
