For elitists, power is generally thought of as an attribute of institutions rather than of people. Some theorists, like Hunter (1953) and Fanelli (1956), attempt to locate the "real" power-holders by asking strategically-located citizens for their opinions on questions like, "Who are the most powerful individuals in their community?" Others, like Mills (1956), Pellegrin and Coates (1957), and Schulze and Blumberg (1957), operationalize the "power structure" variable as being comprised of those individuals with a potential for power because of their institutional status or position.
Pluralists, like Nelson Polsby (1960), insist it is inappropriate "to entertain any presumptions whatsoever about the distribution of power in any community." Like other pluralists, he argues that this distribution results from specific interpersonal relationships not from institutional positions or reputations (Dahl, 1956, 1961; Polsby, 1960; Wolfinger, 1974). Because of their stronger attachment to empiricism, pluralists tend to argue that research based solely on either of these (i.e., reputations or positions) is inadequate for studying community power. In other words, pluralists recognize the institutional level as being more general, and argue that it tends towards subjective bias and poor scholarship. What pluralists seem to mean, however, is that elitists are more willing to compromise the behavioral approach to social science research a willingness which, for pluralists, suggests their research is less valid.
Yet, critics of pluralism often differ with their methods, conclusions, and even their basic presumptions. Many pluralists admit that whatever "power" is it seems to be distributed unevenly throughout society. They would still have us believe that this distribution does not prevent democracy from working. Many would attack them for assuming, without really proving that:
(a) the public possesses enough indirect influence to effectively constrain decision-makers;
(b) genuine opportunities exist for individual and organizational access into the political process;
(c) elections are viable instruments of mass participation;
(d) the amount of political influence available to minorities and women is often overemphasized (Lipsky, 1972; Parenti, 1970); and,
(e) the extent to which national policy is determined by complex, interorganizational policy networks which is often underemphasized.
However, these claims presume the very questions that community power scholars like Hunter (1953) initially sought to unravel.
Author: Steven A. Maclin, Ph. D.
About the Author: Dr. Maclin has been a university professor of public administration and policy since 1994. Recently, from 1998 - 2004, he lived and worked with American military troops in Japan, Okinawa, and South Korea. He has previously edited and published dozens of articles in professional administrative journals and recently, in his ‘spare time,’ he’s been building websites for distributing materials to his graduate students. Hes now stateside, teaching graduate students online, writing articles and developing a small online business (see
http://buyfromart.com); he can be reached at info@buyfromart.com.