Transcript Week 9 Lecturesx

PART IV:
DEMOCRACY
Political Stratification
Discrimination and Exclusion
Stratification
• Stratification, broadly, refers to the hierarchy
of society – the “pyramid” of privilege based
on property, power and prestige.
 Political stratification is the kind of stratification
that relates particularly to power, authority and
coercive “clout” or “leverage.” Very difficult to
disentangle from economic stratification.
Main Debate This Week
Elitist Theorists
(also called “pluralists” or
“functionalists”)
 Mosca, Parsons.
vs.
Conflict Theorists
(also called “power theorists”)
Mills, Domhoff.
Ft. DJ Giddens as referee.
Democracy in Theory vs. in Practice
Democracy Historically Associated with a
Class Stratification System
• Slavery system: people owning people. (e.g. Ancient
Egypt)
• Caste system: status determined by birth, hereditary
and lifelong privilege (e.g. India)
• Estate system: nobility, clergy and peasants (feudal
Europe);
 Class system – primarily based on money and
material possessions (e.g. our societies).
One of the key questions that should concern you in
this week’s readings is: to what extent and how is
democracy in tension with the class system, and to
what extent is it naturally compatible?
Literal, direct democracy has traditionally been crushed by
force: consider the Paris Commune (1870s)
• Among the temporary
accomplishments of the Paris
Commune were:
– the abolition of night work for
bakers,
– the remitting of rent payments,
– the election of foreigners to the
Commune because "the flag of
the Commune is the flag of the
World Republic,“
– the inclusion of women equally in
public affairs,
– elimination of privilege by equal
wages to Commune officials as to
average worker.
Above all: there was an
unprecedented explosion of
participation in public life and
culture  direct democracy
flourished, hierarchy was abolished.
The threat (and tragedy) of democracy is best illustrated by the Paris Commune. We have the
commune martyrs to thank for modernity’s distaste for indiscriminate massacring of civilians.
Formal indirect democracy, though, goes a long way
towards limiting arbitrary and despotic power
“One might say, indeed, that the whole history of civilized mankind comes down to a conflict
between the tendency of dominant elements to monopolize political power and transmit it
by inheritance, and the tendency toward a dislocation of old forces and an insurgence of new
forces; and this conflict produces an unending ferment of endosmosis and exosmosis
between the upper classes and certain portions of the lower” (Mosca, p.274)
Mosca (1939): The Ruling Class
Mosca's enduring contribution to political
science is the observation that all but the most
primitive societies are ruled in fact, if not in
theory, by a numerical minority. He named this
minority the political class (p.268).
Far from being incompatible with democracy,
then, political hierarchy is inherent to it.
Org. Skills Determine Stratification
Mosca defined modern elites in term of their
superior organisational skills. These organisational
skills were especially useful in gaining political
power in modern bureaucratic society.
 Contrary to much confusion, in Mosca's
conception elites are not hereditary in nature and
peoples from all classes of society can in principle
become "elites." He also adhered to the concept of
"the circulation of elites," which is a dialectical
theory of constant competition between elites, with
one elite group replacing another repeatedly over
time.
In this vision, politics is a GAME – the political
analogy to the market in the economic sphere.
Hierarchy is Natural, Inevitable
Society is divided into the rulers and the ruled. It is
inevitable that the domination of an organized minority,
obeying a single impulse, rules over the unorganized majority.
In every political organism there is one individual who is chief
among the leaders.
- The ruling minorities are distinguished from the mass
by qualities that give them a certain material, intellectual, or
even moral superiority; or else they are heirs for individuals
who possessed such qualities.
- The masses are a check to power and they can
influence the policies of the ruling class. The varying structure
of the ruling classes has importance in determining the
political type, and level of civilization, of different people.
- Resource along which stratification is done can be
military valor, land, wealth, knowledge… so long as the
political order is such that it rewards power to those who have
the resource in question, then to be X is to become powerful.
Closure Protects Power Centers
A structural model: X (military
valor, land, wealth, knowledge,
etc.)  power  political elite
who have a desire for closure.
Often ideology is
created to sustain the elite.
Therefore there are great
inertial forces: all ruling classes
tend to become hereditary in
fact if not in law.
* But, this is a dynamic
process and there is the
possibility of dislocation when
X fades in importance.
Importantly, POLITICAL SPHERE 
ECONOMIC SPHERE, SELF-SERVING
IDEOLOGY, CULTURAL NORMS, ETC.
Vivian
" . . . a very important social transformation occurs.
Wealth, rather than military valor comes to be the
characteristic feature of the dominant class" (Mosca, 271)
As soon as I read this, I automatically thought back to Tilly
and his theory's emphasis on the importance of war in the
development of states: first in helping those in power
concentrate it and then the creation of many beneficial
organizations. To a certain extent, this seems like an
extension of Tilly's war theory. Mosca mentions that
military dominance once characterized the dominant class
(Tilly's concentration of power in those who controlled
the means war); however, there was a change. This
change occurs due to the fact that people preferred
protection offered by public authority through laws,
rather than protection through the military (Tilly) and
Mosca ends with the idea that "wealth produces political
power." (271).
Consider the Samurai & the Knight
Wouldn’t you prefer
the Banker and the Rentier?
Considering pre-capitalist forms of political
stratification, as well as the dominant social types that
dominated them, wealth-determined political power is
not the worst thing, historically speaking.
 BANKSTERS are definitely better than GANGSTERS
Parsons: A Functionalist View
Punch line: Power is generated in and
through social relationships. Talking about
rulers/ruled, oppressor/oppressed, etc. is
misleading.
Political stratification is merely an
outcome of social stratification and the
relationships it produces. Some people
have more power than others because of
their position on the social hierarchy, not
vice versa.
 The existence of HIERARCHY in society is
not some cunning plot against the working
class. It is a structural necessity. Societies
with hierarchies are more functional,
efficient, likely to survive and develop.
A revealing footnote on p. 854.
“Thorstein Veblen in The Theory of the Leisure
Class called attention to some of the relevant
features of the role of women but did not relate
it in this way to the functional equilibrium of
the social structure. Moreover, what Veblen
meant by "conspicuous consumption" is only
one aspect of the feminine role and one which is
associated more with certain elements of
malintegration than with the basic structure
itself.”
Common Criteria for Stratification
• Membership in a kinship
unit;
• Personal qualities;
• Achievements;
• Possessions;
• Authority;
• Power (notice he calls it a
“residual category” –
tells you a lot about how
far Parsons is from
conflict theory).
Clara
I really appreciated Parsons' discussion of the emphasis
on the individual in our society's particular social stratification
system. He recognizes wealth as an important (but, interestingly,
not a primary) criterion of status -- and attributes the
significance of wealth to social grouping as a result of a societal
emphasis on individual achievement which in turn supports the
capitalist basis of our economic system. He also notes that
income (wealth) becomes an easy indicator of an individual's
place in other value systems (i.e. Family status)--again crediting
this special significance of wealth to our individualist, capitalist
mindset (i.e., successful businesses have high financial status; so
do "successful" individuals.)
There is thus a clear relationship between capitalism and
individualism, which makes wealth an important criterion in our
society's social stratification system: I thought this made an
interesting and convincing argument that wealth in and of itself
is not a common value system but a criterion specifically valuable
to our societal context.
Parsons’ Durkheimian emphasis on
Values and Norms
Over-socialized
conception of action
assumes that
individuals are strongly
influenced by the
sanctions of others.
They internalize social
norms and values and
act on this basis.
Andrea
"The separation of the sex roles in our society is such as, for the most part, to remove
women from the kind of occupational status which is important for the determination
of the status of a family. Where married women are employed outside the home, it is,
for the great majority, in occupations which are not in direct competition for status
with those of men of their own class" (Parsons, p. 853)
This quote may be from 1940, but I find that it still holds up today. Even with
an increasing number of women entering the workplace, the man is still largely seen
as the primary wage-earner of the family. Husbands determine the social status of the
family and wives become symbols of that status (i.e. the "trophy wife"). This idea is so
ingrained in our society that I think men are taught to be threatened by women who
are high wage-earners, an embodiment of the fear of the disruption of family solidarity
that Parsons was discussing. I believe that gradually we will shift away from this as
women continue to earn more and more, but it does raise questions concerning the
consequences for family status: how is family status determined with two wageearners in the family? Do the two parents have to be of comparable status? Do they
have to earn the same amount if in the same field? Or is it better for them to be in
different fields so that their relative success is hard to compare? If not of similar
status, does one parent always have to take the role as the wage-earner, and the other
the caretaker and the "trophy"?
Clara (contd.)
A couple of other notes on the article:
On page 853/4, Parsons notes that "the separation of the sex roles in our
society...is functionally related to maintaining family solidarity in our class
structure", because there is a lack of direct competition between husband and
wife. He notes also that this explains why "married women...employed outside
the home...[fill] occupations which are not in direct competition for status
with those of men of their own class". While at first mildly outraged by this
section, I realized the article was published in 1940--so the question becomes,
now that feminist movements have seen success, and the distinction between
male and female roles has been blurred, what has been the impact on social
stratification and, particularly, family solidarity, in the Western world? Is it
important to preserve family solidarity--or any of the elements of hierarchal
status over another? How does (not) doing so impact the economics/politics of
a society (and does influence also flow in the opposite direction)?
Additionally, on page 851, Parsons writes that "equality of
opportunity" is the opposite of the "caste system" -- he does qualify this by
saying this "equality of opportunity" does not assume any combination of or
emphasis on any of the "other five elements of hierarchal status", but does it
imply that these elements lack rigidity? More interestingly, how can we
understand the genuine commingling/influence of different hierarchical
elements -- ie, can "achievements" ever be fully separated from (or understood
outside the context of) membership in a kinship unit?
Consider the demographic/sociological
shift from grandparent babysitting to
stranger babysitting
This is an example of a shift in social stratification (though it has economic, political
causes and consequences). But is it more functional in Parsons’ sense?
 The functionalist view of political stratification basically
argues that women’s entrance into the labor force is similarly
ambivalent in its cohesive effects on society. It may very well be
harmful, Parsons argued.
Functionalists Developed a Rich Subfield…
The main idea that came out of this was "social mobility" as a general concept – the movement of
categories of people (individuals, families, classes, etc.) within or between social strata in a society. Then,
"social fluidity" was understood as a particular kind, or special case, of "social mobility."
SOCIAL FLUIDITY ∋ SOCIAL MOBILITY
“Fluidity" itself attracted a lot of attention as a general concept. Roughly, it is about the ease of having a
class destination that's different from class origin, relative to people of other class origins, and holding
constant the sizes of classes because the sizes of classes change based on the occupational distribution.
That is, much of the "social mobility“ observed in early stratification research was generated by
industrialization and the expansion of the skilled, unionized working class and simultaneous decline of the
agricultural sector. This is sometimes referred to as "structural mobility," and is contrasted to "exchange
mobility,“ which assumes a fixed number of people in a given class that is moving up or down. The concept
of "exchange mobility" is, then, akin to the concept of "social fluidity.“
SOCIAL FLUIDITY ≅ EXCHANGE MOBILITY ≠ STRUCTURAL MOBILITY
Finally, it might be worthwhile to distinguish between vertical mobility and horizontal mobility.
VERTICAL MOBILITY = ↑
HORIZONTAL MOBILITY = ↔
Now do you see why the conflict theorists hated this literature? 
In reaction, Conflict Theorists Argued:
• No evidence of general and abiding trends
toward either higher levels of total mobility or of
social fluidity.
• No evidence that mobility rates – absolute or
relative – are changing with any consistent
direction.
• No evidence of convergence over time crossnationally.
• Some evidence with absolute rates of trendless,
though often quite wide, fluctuation, but with
relative rates evidence of considerable stability.
Table 6b: Amount of stock owned by various wealth classes in the U.S., 2010
Percent of households owning stocks worth:
Wealth class
$0 (no stocks)
$1-$9,999
$10,000 or more
Top 1%
5.1%
0.6%
94.3%
95-99%
6.9%
4.0%
89.1%
90-95%
11.8%
4.8%
83.4%
80-90%
21.0%
8.5%
70.5%
60-80%
41.3%
15.6%
44.1%
40-60%
55.4%
19.9%
24.7%
20-40%
76.1%
17.4%
6.5%
Bottom 20%
79.2%
17.3%
4.5%
TOTAL
53.1%
17.5%
31.6%
Figure 9: CEOs' pay as a multiple of the average worker's pay, 1960-2007
Source: Executive Excess 2008, the 15th Annual CEO Compensation Survey from the
Institute for Policy Studies and United for a Fair Economy.
Figure 10: CEOs' average pay, production workers' average pay, the S&P 500 Index, corporate profits, and
the federal minimum wage, 1990-2005 (all figures adjusted for inflation)
Source: Executive Excess 2006, the 13th Annual CEO Compensation Survey from the Institute for Policy Studies and United for a Fair Economy.
Michael
"As the means of information and of power are centralized,
some men come to occupy positions in American society from
which they can look down upon, so to speak, and by their
decisions mightily affect, the everyday worlds of ordinary men
and women" (Mills, 3).
Obviously, much of the influence of the power elite
comes from a vast accumulation of material wealth and
inherent positions in the highest classes of society. It only
follows that these men would be acting on their "best
interests" to try to influence the political sphere as this
passage implies. It is thus easy to realize that being in the
power elite would correlate not only to a certain level of
conspicuous consumption, but also to a progressively more
oligarchical system, the type of which Bernie Sanders and
Jimmy Carter deride the United States Government as
currently being.
C.W. MILLS
Mills describes the relationship between the political,
military, and economic elite (people at the pinnacles of these
three institutions), noting that these people share a common
world view:
• the military metaphysic: a military definition of reality;
• possess class identity: recognizing themselves separate and superior
to the rest of society;
• have interchangeability: they move within and between the three
institutional structures and hold interlocking directorates;
• cooptation / socialization: socialization of prospective new members is done
based on how well they "clone" themselves socially after such elites;
• These elites in the "big three" institutional orders have an "uneasy" alliance based
upon their "community of interests" driven by the military metaphysic, which has
transformed the economy into a 'permanent war economy.’
Julia
Mills referneces Charles Erwin Wilson's quote "What is good
for the United States is good for the General Motors
Corporation and vice versa" (Wilson in Mills 285).
This reminded me of an article I recently read in the
nytimes titled "Criminals Should Get Same Leniency as
Corporations, Judge Says" (October 23, 2015). The author
explains that corporations often successfully evade the
negative consequences of their immoral or inaccurate
decisions by simply paying a fine instead of being prosecuted.
Judge Sullivan highlights the gross inconsistency in how
individuals are punished vs. powerful, dominating
corporations are punished. Similarly, Mills brings up the "highlevel lobbying" that exists.
NYT: Criminals Should Get Same
Leniency as Corporations, Judge Says
• WASHINGTON — For years, when corporations paid big
fines to escape prosecution for their misdeeds, critics
fumed. Why, they asked, shouldn’t big companies be treated
like common criminals?
• A federal judge turned that question on its head this week as
he lamented being asked to approve yet another corporate
settlement. Perhaps, he said, common criminals ought to be
treated more like big companies.
• Judge Emmet G. Sullivan, of the United States District
Court for the District of Columbia, took aim at a favorite
tool of the Obama administration for addressing corporate
Judge Emmet G.
wrongdoing: a form of probation known as a deferred
Sullivan said that
prosecution agreement. If companies behave for the length
corporations’
of the agreement, the matter is closed without any criminal
ability to pay fines
record.
to avoid criminal
prosecution was
unjust.
The “Military Mystique”
THE PERMANENT WAR ECONOMY
WHO RULES AMERICA?
• The rich coalesce into a social upper class
that has developed institutions by which
the children of its members are socialized
into an upper-class worldview; new
members are assimilated.
• The upper class controls corporations,
which have been the primary
mechanisms for generating and holding
wealth in the US for 150 years.
• There exists a network of nonprofit
organizations through which members of
the upper class and hired corporate
leaders not yet in the upper class shape
policy debates in the United States.
• Members of the upper class, with the
help of their high-level employees in
profit and nonprofit institutions, are able
to dominate the federal government in
Washington.
• The rich, and corporate leaders,
nonetheless claim to be relatively
powerless.
Kate
“The upper class at any given historical moment consists of a complex
network of overlapping social circles knit together by the members they
have in common and by the numerous signs of equal social status that
emerge from a similar lifestyle. Viewed from the standpoint of social
psychology, the upper class is made up of innumerable face-to-face small
groups that are constantly changing in their composition as people move
from one social setting to another.” –Domhoff, pg. 294
This passage reminds me a lot of the concept of a co-optable
communications network that Goodwin and Jasper established in the social
movements week. Both speak to the power of face-to-face interaction and
communication between individuals – such interaction, both authors argue,
creates solidarity and unity among members of the group, whatever that
group may be. While the upper class is not a ‘social movement’, so to speak,
the fact that it is a group of similar individuals with common backgrounds,
experiences, and points of view means that it is structured very similarly to
the prerequisites Goodwin and Jasper outline for social movements to occur.
The only thing missing is the third proposition, which is the existence of one
or more precipitants among a background of strain. I do not think that
Domhoff would say that the upper class is experiencing much strain or likely
any precipitants for social movements, given their relative social and class
privilege in society, but it is interesting to note the commonalities in the
requirements of the theories nonetheless.
Ruling Elite Consists of Institutional
(Mostly Corporate) Interlocks
• Interlocking directorates — defined as the linkages
among corporations created by individuals who sit on
two or more corporate boards — have been a source of
research attention since the Progressive Era at the turn
of the 20th century, when they were used by Supreme
Court Justice Louis Brandeis and others to claim that a
few large commercial and investment banks controlled
most major corporations.
• Today corporate interlocks are analyzed with bigger
databases and matrices that contain information on
the linkages between persons and groups. Either a
corporate/organizational network, based on common
directors, or an interpersonal/social network, based on
shared board memberships, can be derived from these
matrices.
Melvin
“The nationwide social upper class has its own
exclusive social institutions and is based in the
ownership of great wealth” (Domhoff 291).
I felt like this tied back somewhat to Marx’s
economic determinism but actually more to Lukes
and Gramsci. Particularly Gramsci believed that a
class would stay in power both through exploitation
and the use of institutions. Except here, they’re not
really using institutions to “brainwash” others to
accept the status of the wealthy as being deserved
but rather using these institutions to provide the
upper class with distinct advantages (better
education), social exclusivity (social clubs), and
organizational stability (class awareness).
Domhoff’s “Interlocking Directorates”
What’s wrong with Homophily?
Things Have Changed…
 The conclusions from the more
recent studies are very different
from those drawn 100 years ago,
probably because the interlocks
now mean something different
than they did back then. Interlocks
used to have the strategic purpose
of tying corporations together for
economic advantage for the
owners. Today they are more the
incidental by-product of recruiting
a diverse and experienced group of
individuals who have a variety of
skills and connections to bring to
the table.
• But still, many people are
uneasy…
Kirsi
“. . . the system of formal schooling is so insulated that
many upper-class students never see the inside of a
public school in all their years of education” (Domhoff
pg. 291).
Perhaps intentionally or perhaps not, Domhoff puts of
lot of attention on sharing the same spaces as people
outside of your social class. Especially in his talk of
schooling and social clubs, it is apparent that in
insulated elite class has been created in America partly
because they do not operate in a space that isn’t
heterogeneous. This only begs the questions how can
we change this system when it is already so ingrained,
or if we can’t, how can we mitigate its effects?
Is Domhoff Calling Us Out?
Ted
"The institutions that establish the owners and high-level executives of
corporations as a national upper class transcend the presence or absence of any
given person or family. Families can rise and fall in the class structure, but the
institutions of the upper class persist [...] Involvement in these institutions
usually instills a class awareness that includes feelings of superiority, pride, and
justified privilege" (Domhoff 294).
The argument for the role of institutions in class reproduction in America
illustrates both class-based structural issues as well as the micro-level effects of
a system that reproduces class standing. From going to a selected number of
private schools from the start of one's education, to the few corporations with
substantial economic and political power, the system from the start of one's
upbringing ultimately affects their trajectory in life.
This makes me think about individuals that are able to permeate this concrete
system. For example, I think about low-income students being able to, despite a
lack of similar resources and opportunities compared to more privileged
students, are able to get accepted to schools like Harvard. While this can be seen
as progress to somewhat dismantling institutional class reproduction, I wonder if
individual triumphs just works to up hold these institutions. If an essence of
"equality of opportunity" is shown through individual underdog stories, does this
work in favor of retaining class-based structures in America?
Giddens: Let’s Clarify Some Terms
• The Marxians reduced
politics to the economy;
the Elitists reduced the
economy to politics. Both
are wrong.
• Conceptual confusion has
led us nowhere. We should
begin with defining “elite
group” as “those
individuals who occupy
positions of formal
authority at the head of a
social organization or
institution” (p.286).
Two key variables are:
(1) MOBILITY; and (2)
SOLIDARITY.
Amalee
“In these terms, it can be said that a major aspect of the structuration of the
upper class concerns, first, the process of mobility into or recruitment to, elite
positions and, second, the degree of social ‘solidarity’ within and between
elite groups.” (Giddiness 286)
“A ‘uniform elite’ is one which shares the attributes of having a restricted
pattern of recruitment and of forming a relatively tightly-knit unity” (Giddens
287)
This explanation of the upper class seemed useful to me. I think his
basic point here is that the underpinnings of the upper class’s structure is how
easy/difficult it is to enter into the upper class, and how connected as an
integrated group the elite classes are with each other. To give myself an
example of these definitions, I thought of the presence of Final Clubs on
Harvard’s campus. In terms of social life, the clubs might be like a ‘uniform
elite’ because they have restricted recruitment (you have to be punched, and
the members choose who they want) and high integration within a club and
between clubs (they have similar structures, they know each other, etc.). This
example might be an off example of an ‘elite’ group in terms of political power,
but I think it fits in terms of characterizing the structure of the group. So, a
question arising from that is - does Giddens’ paradigm only apply to the
categorization of the upper class? Or can it be used to describe any
class/group?
“Elite formation” typology
“Effective Power” Typology
PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER
 We get a much more nuanced set of analytic tools for
categorizing, comparing and evaluating different elite groupings.