Classical pluralism is the view that
politics and decision making are located
mostly in the framework of government,
but that many non-governmental groups
use their resources to exert influence.
The central question for classical
pluralism is how power and influence are
distributed in a political process.
Groups of individuals try to maximize
their interests. Lines of conflict are
multiple and shifting as power is a
continuous bargaining process between
competing groups. There may be
inequalities but they tend to be
distributed and evened out by the
various forms and distributions of
resources throughout a population. Any
change under this view will be slow and
incremental, as groups have different
interests and may act as "veto groups"
to destroy legislation that they do not
agree with.
The existence of diverse and competing
interests is the basis for a democratic
equilibrium, and is crucial for the
obtaining of goals by individuals. A
polyarchy – a situation of open
competition for electoral support within
a significant part of the adult
population − ensures competition of
group interests and relative equality.
Pluralists stress civil rights, such as
freedom of expression and organization,
and an electoral system with at least
two parties. On the other hand, since
the participants in this process
constitute only a tiny fraction of the
populace, the public acts mainly as
bystanders. This is not necessarily
undesirable for two reasons: it may be
representative of a population content
with the political happenings, or
political issues require continuous and
expert attention, which the average
citizen may not have.
Important theorists of pluralism include
Robert A. Dahl and Seymour Martin
Lipset.
Pluralist conception of power
The list of possibilities is virtually
endless: legal authority, money,
prestige, skill, knowledge, charisma,
legitimacy, free time, and experience.
Pluralists also stress the differences
between potential and actual power as it
stands. Actual power means the ability
to compel someone to do something and is
the view of power as a causation. Dahl
describes power as a "realistic
relationship, such as A's capacity for
acting in such a manner as to control
B's responses" [A preface to Democratic
Theory]. Potential power refers to the
possibility of turning resources into
actual power. Cash, one of many
resources, is only a stack of bills
until it is put to work. Malcolm X, for
example, was certainly not a rich
person. But by using resources such as
his forceful personality, organizational
skills, he had a greater impact on
American politics than most wealthy
people. A particular resource like money
cannot automatically be equated with
power because the resource can be used
skillfully or clumsily, fully or
partially, or not at all.
The pluralist approach to the study of
power, states that nothing categorical
about power can be assumed in any
community. The question then is not who
runs a community, but if any group in
fact does. To determine this, pluralists
study specific outcomes. The reason for
this is that they believe human behavior
is governed in large part by inertia.
That said, actual involvement in overt
activity is a more valid marker of
leadership than simply a reputation.
Pluralists also believe that there is no
one particular issue or point in time at
which any group must assert itself to
stay true to its own expressed values,
but rather that there are a variety of
issues and points at which this is
possible. There are also costs involved
in taking action at all − not only
losing, but expenditure of time and
effort. While a structuralist may argue
that power distributions have a rather
permanent nature, this rationale says
that power may in fact be tied to
issues, which vary widely in duration.
Also, instead of focusing on actors
within a system, the emphasis is on the
leadership roles itself. By studying
these, it can be determined to what
extent there is a power structure
present in a society.
Three of the major tenets of the
pluralist school are resources and hence
potential power are widely scattered
throughout society; at least some
resources are available to nearly
everyone; and at any time the amount of
potential power exceeds the amount of
actual power.
Finally, and perhaps most important, no
one is all-powerful unless proven so
through empirical observation. An
individual or group that is influential
in one realm may be weak in another.
Large military contractors certainly
throw their weight around on defense
matters, but how much sway do they have
on agricultural or health policies? A
measure of power, therefore, is its
scope, or the range of areas where it is
successfully applied as observed by a
researcher. Pluralists believe that with
few exceptions power holders usually
have a relatively limited scope of
influence. Pluralism does leave room for
an elitist situation- Should a group A
continuously exert power over multiple
groups. For a pluralist to accept this
notion, it must be empirically observed
and not assumed so by definition.
For all these reasons power cannot be
taken for granted. One has to observe it
empirically in order to know who really
governs. The best way to do this,
pluralists believe, is to examine a wide
range of specific decisions, noting who
took which side and who ultimately won
and lost. Only by keeping score on a
variety of controversies can one begin
to identify actual power holders.
Pluralism was associated with
behavioralism
A contradiction to pluralist power is
often cited from the origin of one's
power. Although certain groups may share
power, people within those groups set
agendas, decide issues, and take on
leadership roles through their own
qualities. Some theorists argue that
these qualities cannot be transferred,
thus creating a system where elitism
still exists. What this theory fails to
take into account is the prospect of
overcoming these qualities by garnering
support from other groups. By
aggregating power with other
organizations, interest groups can
over-power these non-transferable
qualities. In this sense, political
pluralism still applies to these
aspects.
Elite pluralism
Elite pluralists agree with classical
pluralists that there is “plurality” of
power, however this plurality is not
“pure” as some people and groups have
more power than others. For example,some
people have more money than others, so
they can pay to have their opinion put
across better than the working class
can. This inequality is because society
has “elites”; people who have more
power, perhaps through money,
inheritance or social tradition than
others
Neo-pluralism
While Pluralism as a political theory of
the state and policy formation gained
its most traction during the 1950s and
1960s in America, some scholars argued
that the theory was too simplistic The
Challenge to Pluralist Theory) - leading
to the formulation of neo-pluralism.
Views differed about the division of
power in democratic society. Although
neo-pluralism sees multiple pressure
groups competing over political
influence, the political agenda is
biased towards corporate power.
Neo-pluralism no longer sees the state
as an umpire mediating and adjudicating
between the demands of different
interest groups, but as a relatively
autonomous actor that forges and looks
after its own interests. Constitutional
rules, which in pluralism are embedded
in a supportive political culture,
should be seen in the context of a
diverse, and not necessarily supportive,
political culture and a system of
radically uneven economic sources. This
diverse culture exists because of an
uneven distribution of socioeconomic
power. This creates possibilities for
some groups - while limiting others - in
their political options. In the
international realm, order is distorted
by powerful multinational interests and
dominant states, while in classical
pluralism emphasis is put on stability
by a framework of pluralist rules and
free market society.
There are two significant theoretical
critiques on pluralism: Corporatism and
Neo-Marxism.
= Charles Lindblom=
Charles E. Lindblom, who is seen as
positing a strong neo-pluralist
argument, still attributed primacy to
the competition between interest groups
in the policy process but recognized the
disproportionate influence business
interests have in the policy process.
= Corporatism=
Classical pluralism was criticized as it
did not seem to apply to
Westminster-style democracies or the
European context. This led to the
development of corporatist theories.
Corporatism is the idea that a few
select interest groups are actually
involved in the policy formulation
process, to the exclusion of the myriad
other 'interest groups'. For example,
trade unions and major sectoral business
associations are often consulted about
specific policies.
These policies often concern tripartite
relations between workers, employers and
the state, with a coordinating role for
the latter. The state constructs a
framework in which it can address the
political and economic issues with these
organized and centralized groups. In
this view, parliament and party politics
lose influence in the policy forming
process.
Pluralism in foreign policy
From the political aspect, ‘pluralism’
has a huge effect on the process and
decision-making in formulating policy.
In international security, during the
policy making process, different parties
may have a chance to take part in
decision making. The one who has more
power, the more opportunity that it
gains and the higher possibility to get
what it wants. According to M. Frances,
“decision making appears to be a maze of
influence and power.”
See also
Distributism
Elite theory
New institutionalism
Marxism
Legitimation Crisis
Agonism
Salad Bowl
Decision-making
Foreign Policy
International relations
Notes
^ Held, David, Models of Democracy
^ Pluralism
^ Schattschneider, E.E. 1960. The
Semi-Sovereign People. New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston, p. 35.
References
Socialstudieshelp.com, Pluralism.
Accessed 13 February 2007.
Elmer Eric Schattschneider The
Semi-Sovereign People. New York: Holt,
Rinehart and Winston.
Gad Barzilai Communities and Law:
Politics and Cultures of Legal
Identities. Ann Arbor: University of
Michigan Press.
Polsby, Nelson W. How to Study Community
Power: The Pluralist Alternative. The
Journal of Politics,3, 474-484
William E. Connolly: The Ethos of
Pluralization. University of Minnesota
Press, 1995.
C. Alden. Foreign policy analysis.
London: University of London.
M. Frances Klein. The Politics of
Curriculum Decision-Making: Issues in
Centralizing the Curriculum. New York:
SUNY Press.
