Main trends of research in the social and human ... - unesdoc - Unesco

zoo W. J. M. Mackenzie
There are greater difficulties in securing consensus when we move (as does
Aristotle) from the State which ‘lives’ to that which ‘lives well’: a sub-set of the
set of all States. The notion of ‘well’ involves appraisal, and there may be no
agreement about criteria of appraisal. Indeed, Marxist doctrine in its strictest
form (and various anarchist doctrines also) would insist that the State never
can be more than an instrument of coercion; at best, it is a necessary evil, and
under communism it will wither away: the only State which is good (except in-
strumentally) is a dead State. As will be seen later, the Western doctrine of the
‘approved‘ or ‘good‘ State involves many paradoxes : however, these paradoxes
demonstrably have roots in the economic and social structure of Western socie-
ty, and they are represented by living forms of political life.
To anticipate the argument of the next section, the ‘approved’ Western State
may be described as ‘democratic’, or as ‘advanced’, or as ‘constitutional’. The
third of these terms is chosen as the basis of exposition.
2. Empirical studies of power
Before considering the instruments of authority it is necessary to allude briefly
to the theoretical problems involved. It has been said for many years by those
who wish to study politics empirically that a key concept is necessary, and that
the appropriate concept is that of power. This view, expressed in these terms,
finds a motley assembly of defenders : Machiavelli, Hobbes, perhaps Marx,
Engels and Lenin, Pareto, Mosca, perhaps Michels, Catlin, Merriam, Bertrand
Russell, de Jouvenel, Burnham, perhaps Wright Mills. No two of their defini-
tions are the same: but this approach purports to be seeking a basis for empiri-
cal study, and at least an operational definition is necessary, so that there can
be an inter-personal standard for the recognition of power and at least some
weak ordering of different cases. This is easy enough in broad terms: it proves
to be very difficult when one is faced with precise test cases in practice.
The work of the late C. Wright Mills on The Power Elite (1956) illustrated in
detail the careers and r6les of men (and a few women) who held the top positions
in the structure of politics, business and defence in the United States of America.
From it, there followed the conclusion that these men ruled America, and that
they did it in concert. Floyd Huntefl* had drawn similar conclusions in 1953
about the government of Atlanta, a southern city of about half a million people.
These were displeasing conclusions, in that they contradicted the established
myth that America is individualist in business, pluralistic in political and social
structure; and it was right that they should be challenged. The debate which
followed was fruitful in the elucidation of concepts, inconclusive in substance.
The facts were not in dispute so far as they went; but the critics offered new
facts and challenged methods of demonstration. Mills and Hunter had used two
methods of establishing who holds power: who hold the highest positions, who
have the strongest reputations as powerful men. The critics added a third meth-
od: the observation of men in operation politically - how are decisions in fact
taken? The best known studies are those of Professor Dahl of Yale and Pro-
fessor Banfield, then of Chicago, now of Harvard. Both scholars contributed
extremely vivid and careful studies of American political life, and both (but in