Who rules the U.S. according to the structural-functional and conflict perspectives? Include in your discussion the power elite theory and elite pluralism in your response. Include one criticism of each perspective.

Question

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

Correct answers vary but should include the structural-functional position in which the question "Who rules the U.S.?" is answered with pluralism. This is the view that the U.S. is characterized by a number of powerful competing interest groups, and no one of them is in control all the time, in a stable society kept stable by the balance of interests. There are two major strands of thought: Group pluralism focuses on society's many different interest groups and organizations and how they compete for access to political power; elite pluralism focuses specifically on how political elites form similar interest groups and organizations that vie for power. Competition for votes ensures that no one group retains political power indefinitely. Pluralism is often juxtaposed to a theory produced by conflict/critical theorists: C. Wright Mills' (1956; Maclean, Harvey, and Chia 2010) power elite theory. This theory holds that power is not dispersed throughout a stable society. Rather, power is concentrated among a small number of people who control the major institutions of the state, the corporate economy, and the military. To power elite theorists, the state is not some neutral institution existing in a stable society where everyone has an equal chance of having their interests met. Rather, the state is an institution controlled by the elites. The pluralist idea that latent interests influence politicians cannot be verified empirically. The assumption that society is stable is also problematic. It avoids issues such as for whom society might be stable and in which contexts. Finally, pluralism assumes that the state is a neutral institution rather than an institution with its own interests and one that tends to be controlled by wealthy elites. Power elite theory also has various problems. For example, it assumes that elites share a common worldview and common interests to an extent that may not match reality. Indeed, can we assume that the power elite is monolithic and has little diversity of thought? Further, is the power elite untouchable by the masses of people? Does it control society to the extent that power elite theorists would have us believe, or are there avenues for changing society from below that those theorists are ignoring? And if the members of the power elite all but control our society, how is it that legislation that benefits some sections of society at their expense is passed?