Partial preview of the text
Download Major Theoretical Perspectives in Political Sociology | LAWS 131 and more Study notes Criminal Justice in PDF only on Docsity!
12 Major Theoretical Perspectives in Political Sociology novements among the masses. Such movements stand little likelihood of success even if they do uaterialize since the elite has all the power cards stacked in its favor: nformation which the masses do pot have, control of the flow of that nformation, credibility and prestige which automatically accrue to in- ‘uumbent office-holders, and, perhaps most important, cohesive organiza- ion. This last point, it will be recalled, was also fundamental in Mosca’s sxplanation of elite power. Through all of these power resources the fominant leadership is able to monitor carefully the selection of new lites, ‘ooptation. In addition, there is a coopting process which tends ta lessen he challenge of new leaders who may emerge from the masses. In a ense, political opponents are bought off by being brought into the folds € power. ‘Thus challenge from below is met nat with total resistance but vith the skillful use of organizational resources, Challengers are ustially ot immune to the allure of power, privilege, and prestige which can be fered by the established leadership. In describing the relations of labor nian leaders to the rank-and-file, for example, Michels states that the afluence exercised by leaders and the financial security of their position become more and more fascinating to the masses, stimulating the ambi- on of all the more talented elements to enter the privileged bureau- racy of the labor movement” (1962:170). The cooptation process is vite evident in the United States where, as in most societies, the politi. .” calling for change, often accuse the political “ins” of enjo umptuous life-styles at tax-payers’ expense but seem to take on similar fe-styles when they become the “ins.” The same kind of transformation, f course, occurs among neophyte officials of any organization, public or rivate, he conservative nature of elites. ‘The demands of retaining power make Wl teadership groups conservative na matter how radical their causes ray initially be: As soon as-the new leaders have attained their ends, as soon as they have succeeded (in the name of the injured rights of the anony- mous masses) in overthrowing the odious tyranny of their predeces sors and in attaining to power in their turn, we see them undergo a transformation which renders them in every respect similar to the dethroned tyrants... The revolutionaries of today become the reactionaries of tomorrow (Michels, 1962:187). art of this conversion, Michels explains, is psychological, the result of dividuals responding 10 the acquisition of power and its various per- ‘The Elite Model 73 tes. But the greater part of such change is the result of the tactical needs of the organization itself. So long as leaders are necessary —and u imply basic to any large collective batly—over a period of time they will become more professionalized and will turn into a stable, well- entrenched group. Their expertise, professionalism, and power lead to increasing separation from the organization's general membership, and they begin to pursue policies which stabilize or enhance their own Power, nat the collective interests of the organization. Michels, then, poims out not only the inevitability of oligarchy but also the abuse of power which accompanies leadership in organizations, The interests of the elite become predominant over those of the masses they supposedly are serving. This occurs whether ur not their original intentions are honorable. Weber and Bureaucracy The great German sociologist Max Weber (1464-1920) is not generally grouped with the elitists, but his theary of bureaucracy certainly dovetails with Michels’ iron law of oligarchy in its implications for polit. cal society. Michels and Weber were contemporaries, and no doubt their ideas were mutually influential In essence Weber and Michels offer very similar explanations of political rule in modern societies. Weber, like Michels, sces the fact of modern social organization as the most significant force which compels the formation of ruling groups. But Weber's explanation stresses the nature of bureaucracy and haw this uniquely modern organizational form creates elite power, With the modernization of society and the movement toward legal rational authority, there arises an increasing professionalization of lead- ership. Rulers come to he more and more dependent on skilled bodies of specialists and experts—bureaucracies—to advise and ultimately carry out critical decisions. Greater and greater power comes ta be concen. trated in bureaucracies which maintain control over vast human, mate. rial, and intellectual resources, Political bureaucracies, both public and Private, thus become additional societal power groups, in some ways exercising dominance even over elected officials in democratic societies or self-appointed leaders in authoritarian systems. In turn, control over bureaucracies constitutes an immense power resource. The nature of bureaucracy. Weber saw the historical development of societies as a movement toward rational forms of organization —that i organized not on the basis of the authority of personalities and witions but on the basis of specific functions to perform or abjectives Blo meet (that » legal-rational authority), In modern industrial societies 
