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

Political science 201
different terms conceptually) reached the conclusion that American politics was
pluralistic in structure, not oligarchic. In two senses, there was no power elite;
first, that all power was in chains, secondly, that those who held limited power
were not allied to form an oligarchy.
In answer, critics of the critics have suggested that (in this case) a legitimate
method, faithfully pursued, nevertheless reaches conclusions which were built
into the method; and empirical study has now gone one stage further, to attempt
to build an extensive knowledge of American communities in depth, over sub-
stantial periods, using reasonably stable definitions.
This is an enterprise worth pursuing for its own sake, as a record of human
experience; but it is by no means certain that it can pin down the sources and
operation of political power. It should benoted (in particular) that such research
is a study of imperfectly integrated sub-systems within a greater system which
constitutes their environment; and that study of local communities developed
partly because it was extremely hard to obtain access to the decision-making
process in the greater system. This is not an accident but part of the problem;
a political scientist who lives within a system cannot hope to step outside its
rules and to break through the systems’s rules of power, which include rules
of access and of publication.
As a frontal attack on the problem of power in American government, the
movement has failed; and one is inclined to think that such problems are too
big even for ‘big’ political science. But it is a definite gain that ‘power’ can no
longer be treated as a simple and self-evident concept such as might form the
basis of a discipline, standing alone. It is in fact a very complex matter, and
different scholars use different word in different senses in an effort to unravel
these complexities. Hence the multiple title of this section - power, force,
authority, influence; ‘sovereignty’ supervenes : and to these one should perhaps
add ‘dominance’ (or ‘charisma’) and ‘manipulation’. It is not possible to go into
these questions here; but one wonders if the time is not ripe for an attempt at
definition of terms by a small group of scholars, on a multilingual basis?
3. Functional specialization
The next level of argument presents fewer conceptual difficulties, and there
might be a considerable measure of agreement about the institutionalization of
power in advanced societies. This is not a question of the origins of power, but
of its instruments; and there are three obvious claimants.
I. The military, regarded as controllers of organized force, concerned with
excluding other authorities from the State territory and with repressing resistance
within it.
2. The bureaucracy, regarded as a source of information, purposive planning,
and action under command.
3. The custodians and propagators of ideology and myth; in some circumstan-
ces a priesthood, in others a ‘clerisy’ of intellectuals, in yet others the appropri-
ate organs of a ruling party.
Some would add political police: but this is perhaps a specialized sort of
military combined with a specialized sort of bureaucracy. Others would main-