Browsing by Author "Kerbo, Harold R."

Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
  • Thumbnail Image
    Paradigms of social stratification: the contemporary power elite debate
    Kerbo, Harold R. (Virginia Polytechnic Institute, 1975)
    The purpose of this study has been to investigate the current theoretical debate in sociology and political science over the distribution of power on a national level (i.e., the Power Elite controversy), from a sociology of knowledge perspective. Three general theoretical positions were identified and analyzed in detail. The first of these is the pluralist or “multi-influence hypothesis” of authors such as Robert Dahl and Arnold Rose which argues that many groups, none being dominant, compete for power in the American political system. A second position, that held by Marxists or economic elite theorists such as T. B. Bottomore, Ralph Miliband, and G. William Domhoff, maintains that while there are many groups competing, those who control the economic sector of our society are dominant. A third position, the structural-functionalist, espoused by E. Digby Baltzell and Suzanne Keller, acknowledges the existence of groups (or a group) which have dominant power in American society. Though there is some disagreement among structural-functionalists as to the identity of the dominant, the main argument is that the functional prerequisites of a complex, industrial society necessitates the existence of dominant elites. Further, the structural-functionalist's belief is that this elite dominance results in the "common good", thus countering the Marxist view of exploitation by elites. The major task of the present study has been to demonstrate that these three theoretical positions are separated by differences with respect to a set of paradigmatic assumptions dealing with such issues as the inevitability of inequalities and the nature of man and society. However, in opposition to current literature, this study has shown that rather than involving only value or normative assumptions (i.e., radical and conservative), these theories are separated also by model assumptions (an order model of society versus a conflict model of society). Of the four possible combinations of normative and model assumptions, it was found that the pluralists share conservative value assumptions and conflict model assumptions, the economic elite theorists share radical value assumptions and conflict model assumptions. With respect to the fourth possible theoretical position, no theorist was found currently working under a set of radical-order paradigmatic assumptions. Finally, a detailed examination of the theoretical statements of these three positions revealed that while a theorist may stress the existence of a ruling class, power elite, pluralistic system, or functional strategic elites, concessions are made to theoretical opponents which substantially dilute the original, ideal-typical position. Thus, in the final analysis, this “power elite" debate is shown to be overwhelmingly a debate over conflicting assumptions rather than over differences in empirical findings. It is argued that the present conceptual confusion in this area of sociological investigation, along with the accompanying disagreements which are more apparent than real, stem principally from the fact that the paradigmatic assumptions stressed by each theorist results in a selective focus. In conclusion it is argued that theorists must be constantly aware of their ever present paradigmatic assumptions when making theoretical statements about social reality. At the same time, the study has shown how the theorist must learn to construct theories in variable rather than categorical terms, (i.e., a power elite or pluralist system) which facilitate badly needed empirical research.