Page 27 - Contemporary Political Sociology Globalization Politics and Power

Changing Definitions of Politics and Power 13

of its members are the contingent product of particular historical develop-
ments. Marxists, of course, explain the unity of the elite in terms of the
interests of capitalism (Bottomore, 1964 : 34). However, a comparison of
Miliband ’ s and Mills ’ s studies clearly reveals the convergence of Weberians
and Marxists on the issue of the relative autonomy of the state. For
Miliband, like other neo - Marxists, the state must be able to separate itself
from the immediate interests of ruling - class factions if it is to be effective
in ensuring the interests of capitalism in the long run (Held, 1987 : 207).
For Mills, as for other Weberians, however much it is conditioned by elite
decisions taken elsewhere, the political elite of the state has its own
effectivity.
Elite theory has tended to approach studies of democratic processes
from a conservative perspective, radical and Marxist elite theorists not-
withstanding. Schumpeter ’ s work has not only focused attention on elec-
toral politics as if they were politics tout court , it has also led to “ actually
existing ” democracy being taken as a more or less perfect instrument of
rule, with scope for only minor, technical improvements (Bottomore,
1993 : 28). In effect, for empirical political sociologists – the charge is less
valid in the case of more conceptual and normative work (Held, 1987 :
178 – 85) – a limited view of what politics involves has been strongly linked
to a limited view of what democracy must be if it is to be practicable and
to allow for stable government. The state - centric view of power and poli-
tics held by elite theorists is linked to their understanding of mass society
consisting of a passive, ignorant, and apathetic population: technically
incompetent to participate fully in politics, according to competitive elit-
ists; and continually deceived as to its real interests, according to more
critical versions. Once politics is seen as a matter of everyday life, however,
the emphasis changes completely. Contemporary political sociologists see
society itself as cut across with inequities of power, any of which may be
politicized and, therefore, become the focus of contestation. Far from
being passive, social agents are seen as engaged in remaking their own
identities and the institutions of their everyday lives.

Pluralism

Unlike elite theory, theorists of pluralism do tend to see citizens as actively
4
involved in politics. As pluralists see it, politics is a matter of competing
interest groups, none of which can dominate completely over any of the
others since all have access to resources of different kinds. Furthermore,
they see the state itself as a set of competing and confl icting institutions,
rather than a monolithic entity which exerts its power over the rest of