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.