Power: Interpersonal, Organizational, and Global Dimensions Wednesday, 19 September 2005 TOPIC: How do power differential arise? From social organization. ROBERT MICHELS (1876-1936) – born in Cologne – French/German/Belgian background – 1st of our authors who was an actual academic scholar – studied problems of democracies and revolution, class conflict, trade unionism, mass society (large urban societies of highly mobilized populations), nationalism, role of intellectuals and elites – his major work: Political Parties – recognized for his work in formulating the problem of oligarchy (concentrations of power) democracy, oligarchy, aristocracy – We use these terms, but what do they mean? – denote differences in the participation in governing – how many participate and where do they come from? – de Tocqueville’s dilemma: even when there is a preference/aspiration/value for democracy, we may nonetheless get oligarchy, or oligarchy could turn into aristocracy (if become inherited and assessed as appropriate)  democracy – broad, full participation of the populace (becomes representative when large numbers, thus representative democracy = republic). populace determines policies  oligarchy – rule by the few, don’t know whether they are chosen or not (Michels’ point)  aristocracy – inherited elite = few There is an important distinction between the description of observable phenomena vs. evaluation/preferences. At heart of dilemma is the question, can we describe phenomena without evaluating them? We try, work to make explicit the constraints on description, and role of evaluation. In many nations in the world, the people have “the right to vote/elect” = formal, representative democracies. The leaders should be expected to be voted in/voted out. Oligarchy implies not only that it is a few people in power but that those few are not easily controlled by the people. US: between 1/3 and 40% of eligible voters actually vote, more in a presidential, less in local elections. Why so low? Attitudinal influences: – outcome is predetermined – insufficient choice in candidates/ policies – people don’t think they can make a difference - any particular vote/voter – people don’t think they would ultimately be affected by the choices/policies offered 10/19/05, page 1 of 7– Organizational/mechanical influences: – double hurdle for voting (register to vote, vote) – held on a workday during business hours – media predictions of outcomes In Europe, up to 80-90% vote. Some places it is mandatory. Britain doesn’t allow for media advertising or poll results during the last weeks before voting. All of Europe has parliamentary systems – the leader of the nation is the leader of the party that has the most people in the parliament (thus minor groups get represented in the legislature and sometimes in coalition governments). Representation – has to do with structure of government, how we put people in positions. Access to power derives from the structure (methods) created for filling the positions. The number of people who participate in voting or determining the government is going to distinguish the type of government. You get a different form of participation in the elections because you have a different form of organization of government. For example, in some nations, you vote for the parties and then you fill the seats – you don’t vote for a district. There are all sorts of little rules that end up producing a different picture. Madison and others in the Constitutional Convention designed the American government to prevent majority rule – it was designed to keep fragmenting power to thwart the “excesses of democracy.” (Federalist #10) Michels looked inside political parties: How come these organizations themselves become oligarchic even when they may genuinely seek broad participation?  His starting point for his study of political parties is his hypothesis: Even in organizations committed to broad participation and democratic values, there inevitably arises strong oligarchic tendencies that present a serious if not insuperable threat to the realization of democracy. (oligarchy here means concentrations of power in a small group) “It is the organization which gives birth to the domination of the elected over the electors, delegates over delegators. Who says organization says oligarchy – this is the iron law of oligarchy.” Michels had been dissatisfied with psychological explanations, arguing that the concentration of power was not due to a desire of power by the leaders, nor to the subservience of the people – emphasized material/behavioral constraints that come from different structures of organization (organization = arrangement of roles and responsibilities over time and how they are coordinated) – as organizations develop and as they try to fulfill their functions/purposes, they need to make rapid decisions – they have difficulty with communicating with all members as they grow – as the tasks they take on become more complex and the division of labor becomes more 10/19/05, page 2 of 7detailed, there becomes a need for full-time activity and all of this means that power will flow to fewer people – from the knowledge and skill that comes from doing the job regularly, leadership develops and this leadership ends up being deferred to and aware of its own capacities – that’s how we get oligarchy. e.g. 1970s – many memoirs and journalism addressed how organizations of civil rights, women’s movement, anti-war movement, etc. became oligarchic despite their advocacy and energy in promoting “democratic values.” In many ways similar to De Tocqueville's analysis. e.g. Sarah Davidson worked with women’s consciousness raising groups – women would talk about their lives/experiences and realize that despite their differences, different situations, cultures, occupations, races, etc., they all shared certain experiences of subordination, despite what seemed to be different settings. – After a while those with college educations as well as writers came to dominate over the group. Those who had these skills became the voices for those who did not – so women were subordinated even within these women’s groups. – Those with skills that are valued become the overseers of those who lack the skills. e.g. China’s Cultural