POL 3910:
HONORS SEMINAR: AMERICAN POLITICS:
THE ELITIST-PLURALIST DEBATE
Fall 2003

Reading:
Floyd Hunter (1953).  Community Power Structure

Floyd Hunter (1912-1992)

Hunter was a social worker, community activist, professor and author. His most famous book, Community Power Structure, derived from his doctoral dissertation and introduced the concept of the power structure. While it did not overtly identify the business elite of Atlanta, it was based on them. Hunter wrote other books and articles and taught at several universities. The collection includes correspondence, writings (both published and unpublished), notes, source materials, speeches, lectures and working papers.  [Biography from the special collections web site of the Emory University Libraries.]

Orienting Questions to Guide You As You Read

Theory

• How does Hunter conceptualize (define) power?  Specifically, is it a relationship or a quantity?  (The title of Chapter 2 implies it’s a quantity, but see the first ¶ after the list of names in Ch. 2.  Also see pp.6-7.)  Must it be visible, or can it be invisible?  Or might it be part of an overall structure of relationships?  (See pp.6-7.)  What is its relationship to the normative issues of power.  (Note discussion on p.2.)
• Despite Hunter's many assumptions about power, this is nevertheless an empirical effort.  How does Hunter actually operationalize (measure) power in Atlanta?  Is his operationalization consistent with his conceptualization?

Results

• How does Hunter know there is a power structure?  (See pp.1 & 2.)
• What did Hunter find the structure of power to be in Atlanta?
• What does it mean, exactly, to say that Hunter “found an elite” in Regional City?  What is the nature of this “elite”?
  • What are the elite's sources of power?
  • In what sense are they an elite?  Do its members consult with each other on all decisions?  If not, in what sense are they an elite, which carries with it the connotation of a unified group or even cabal?
  • Do they make all the decisions? make all the important decisions? make a disproportionate number of decisions? have a disproportionate influence over decisions?  Do they agree with each other on every issue? on all the important issues? on most important issues?
  • And anyway, what is really so terrible about a group of knowledgeable, active people making decisions? — isn't that true of every group?  Some people don’t want to participate, right? They are glad to leave decisions to others, as long as the decisions are generally o.k. Why is this situation so awful?  As they say in sports, "no harm, no foul."  For example, does the fact that all of the elite are white men mean that people simply want white men to lead, or is there some other force at work?  If the latter, what is its nature?
  • To what extent are the elites independent of followers, i.e., have power without having any followers or without having to pay attention to what their followers want?
  • Doesn't Hunter’s “reputational method” (a.k.a. “cobweb sampling method”) guarantee finding an elite? To put this another way, suppose you had a city that had no elite;  wouldn't you still expect to wind up with a group of unusually-highly nominated people?
• Hunter distinguishes among several types of elite members. What are they?
• We have to beware of a general sense of negativity and disempowerment.   First, is power always negative, always hierarchical, always exploitative?  Think of forms of power that are positive, or cooperative, or beneficial.  How can collectively binding decisions get made without the exercise of some form of power? If we believe that such decisions are (or can be) useful, then surely the process of reaching them must be good also?  Second, are we inevitably disempowered? What can be done?
• What implications do these findings have for Atlanta being a democracy?  Is it bad to have an elite?  What are its advantages and disadvantages?  Hunter's data show that there are separate "crowds", each with its own power hierarchy, so we still have to ask whether there is any identity of interest among the elites of the different "crowds".  If there is not, then we have competing elites and a fair claim to pluralism.  Hunter does show some overlap of the groups in Chapter 4:  the "interlocking directorates of corporations" chart (Fig. 6, p.77);  the "interlocking club memberships" chart (Fig. 7, p.87).  On the other hand, he also shows a variety of "crowds" in Fig. 8, p.91:  economic institutions, government institutions, religious institutions, educational institutions, professional associations, civic associations, cultural associations.  Still, these data do not show in any definite way a unity of elite interests.  The different elites might conflict.  On the other hand, it is possible that there is a hierarchy of interests.   Hunter addresses this to some extent on p.105, where he notes that the basic interest is in making money.  But so what?  Aren't we all interested in making money?  Whose interests, if any, are excluded from consideration by the elite? What interests are they?
• If there are common interests, how do the elites discern and communicate them to each other.  (See p.105.)
• What does Hunter suggest, either directly or implicitly, that we might do about elite dominance?
• How does Hunter's work bear on Truman's?  I list below aspects of Truman's argument;  for each, say how Hunter's study confirms, contradicts, or does not bear on this aspect.
  • Potential groups:  Truman's idea: "People can come to interact on the basis of a shared characteristic or interest if their interests are violated enough. This provides a restraint on the power of other, organized groups."  [Possible reply:  "Elites may be fearful, but this is as likely to result in repression rather than openness."]
  • Multiple group memberships:  Truman's idea: "People are members of many actual groups (and many other potential groups). The interests of these groups can conflict with one another. This also acts as a restraint on the formally organized, since the members of a group will be moderate in their claims on other groups (to which they may also belong)."  [Possible reply:  "The power elite has a shared interest."]
  • Access:  Truman's idea:  "Most of our political work is group work: groups have access to legislators and the legislative process; supporting candidates, raising money, analyzing issues, testifying, writing letters, etc. Very little is done by individuals."  [Possible reply:  "This may be true of the day-to-day process and administration of government, but it is not true for the large issues central to the power elite's interests."]
  • Rules of the game (or, "the democratic mold"):  Truman's idea:  "Access is guaranteed to all groups, because everyone agrees to fair play, free speech, free assembly, the right to petition, the right to vote. Some positions (judges, congressional leaders, the president) even hold themselves as having a special mandate to uphold the rules. Any group that consistently violates the rules of the game will find themselves punished by everyone else."  [Possible reply:  "They won't be punished if they have enough power either to resist punishment or to disguise their actions."]
  • Equilibrium:  Truman's idea:  "A society has to maintain an equilibrium among competing groups. The rules of the game, and the formation of new groups, mean that equilibrium can be preserved through peaceful struggle."  [Possible reply:  "Yes, but equilibrium could also include (or derive from) repression."]
  • The public interest:  Truman's idea: "Is the public interest served by this arrangement? According to Truman (and many liberal philosophers), there is no such thing, since there is no group known as the public. Or, to look at this another way, the public interest is simply the aggregation of people's interests, expressed through groups which have access to the political process and which are free to form and interact.  [Possible reply:  "This defines away the problem;  it doesn't solve it."]

Overall

• Is Hunter's method of study valid? In other words, what criticisms might you make of it?

Outline of the Book

If you didn't know already, “Regional City” is Atlanta, Georgia.   Hunter did a study of the city during a time (1950-1951) when Atlanta was just beginning its growth into the regional powerhouse that it is today.  One part of this transformation was a reputation — deserved or not — for having successfully addressed its racial problems;  this reputation was gained back during those days.  (Well, actually a little later, when Atlanta was one of the first cities in the South to elect a black mayor.)

Note that we are getting increasingly detailed in our study of power.  The proponents of naive democracy, process theory, and group theory don’t look farther than what is immediately obvious and theoretically acceptable:  people discussing politics and then voting, Congress making laws, newspapers publishing, people writing their representatives and newspapers, etc.  There is little systematic, empirical research on the exact dynamics and importance of these forms of power.  Truman’s work is better in that he directly studies interest groups (or relies on other, accurate accounts), and this allows him to see more clearly their power.  Hunter is now taking the study of power to a new level:  understanding political dynamics by looking empirically at specific people in a specific community.

The "sociological" vs. "political science" approach to power:

• "Sociological":  The assumption of the need for institutional maintenance means that power is assumed to be present, to be structured, to be persistent, and to be role-based.  Less direct observation necessary.
• "Political science":  Since institutions can be in flux and do change from time to time, nothing can be assumed about power without direct observation of its exercise;  power is assumed to be individual-based.

Hunter's work is at the local level only, but if there isn't democracy at the face-to-face level, how could there be at the national level?

Pp.2-3 provide a rather vague definition: “Power” ... describe[s] the acts of men going about the business of moving other men to act in relation to themselves or in relation to organic or inorganic things.”  The last twelve words seem all-embracing and thus irrelevant.

Three “residual categories” in discussing power:

• historical reference: old theories of power, old examples of power usage & shifts. Hunter claims these are irrelevant to this study, which is of today. [Is this accurate / possible?]
• Psychological motivation:  Hunter says this may be relevant, but not used here. [To his peril, really; see his (mis)understanding of the Black community.]
• Values, morals, ethics:  power is divided from ideology. [5/1]  [Is this possible?]

Pp.2 & 263/4:  Hunter says it is axiomatic that community life is organized life. [What about class interests?]Hunter's Method

The "reputational method".

Hunter's "Reputational Method"

• This is a slight misnomer, since many of the informants had direct experience with the power.
• Hunter identified the powerful by first securing “lists of leaders occupying positions of prominence in civic organizations, business establishments, a University bureaucracy, office holders in Village politics, and lists of persons prominent socially and of wealth status”. He then combined these into a single List and asked the people on this List to identify the powerful and/or to nominate other who for inclusion.
• Use interviews and self-selection to narrow down the list and establish who is really powerful and how their power operates.

The Power Structure Hunter Found

• Of the most powerful 40, most were financial (business, banks) [p.12]
• Of the top 10-15, almost all were in business [p.12]
• Different cliques or crowds, concerned with different issues (but all were finance-based)
• Common interest in making money and keeping property secure [p.105]
• A distinction between "men of independent decision" / "top leaders" (who set policy; who are pretty constant across issues) and the "understructure" of power (who maintain the system and carry out the upper leaders' decisions; who vary from issue to issue). [p.91]
• No radical challenge; compliance and complaisance;  repression of deviants, sometimes quite brutally.

Conclusions / Implications

• Elite rule excludes interests (blue collar workers, white collar workers, professionals, Blacks, women); elites disregard "potential groups" (and oftentimes, existing, active groups!) Thus:
  • against Schumpeter's "process" view of democracy, Hunter is arguing that local elites are not competitive.
  • against Truman's group theory, he is arguing that a plurality of groups does not mean widely shared power.
• Distinguish maintenance (administration) from change (policy)
• The political system is tied to the economic system; the rich control; they use various nonpolitical mechanisms to do so, including the withholding of contributions, withdrawal of credit, and control over jobs; there are both direct threats and implicit threats; it follows that we have to distinguish between formal / legal rights and real rights [the USSR had many protections in their constitution].
• Hunter's answer is to organize more groups. [But we have to ask whether this will work; or maybe what I mean is that we have to understand more clearly what gets in the way of them forming in the first place.]

Names

Here's a table to help us keep all the names straight.

Further notes (copied hastily from handwritten notes)

Structure of power:

• Several tiers
• Different functions of the different tiers:
  • initiation & veto & consultation
  • implementation
  • work horses
• Different "crowds", but mutual ties at the top, mutual accommodation of the top leaders
• Shared background & source of power (mostly commercial & financial;  little governmental)
• Shared interests — making money, in particular
• Shared background & worldview:  where they lived, where they drove, where they worked, limited contact with the rest of the world, where they grew up, where they went to school

Manifestations of power:

• Control of necessary resources.  (Note Clarence Stone's comment that an "electoral coalition is not a governing coalition".)
• Unity;  class consciousness
• Gatekeeping for ideas
• Gatekeeping for individuals to rise
• Punishment for deviance (making someone ineffective;  monetary pressure)

Problem for democracy:

• class dominance before public good (as seen most clearly in the area of race relations & welfare "charity");  all-White;  all-male.
• Conservatism, slowness

Theoretical problems:

• stable over time?  new regimes come & go?
• anticipated reaction / "slack power"?
• Is it bad to have a leadership capable of mobilizing resources??  Don't we need one?  After all, the Atlanta businessmen get the job done.  On the other hand, this is reminiscent of the (in)famous comment that "Mussolini may be a scoundrel, but he makes the trains run on time."

Criticisms of Hunter's Work

• Infinite regress:  Hunter argues that the real decisions are made behind the scenes by a small coterie of leaders that he was unable to observe directly. How can we/he know that such decision-makers actually exist (or that the people he names actually operate as he assumes)? Isn't he just assuming that an elite exists? Doesn't this become sort of a conspiracy theory? ("We can't see their actions directly because they operate in secret, and the fact that they operate in secret proves there's a conspiracy!")  Alternatively, perhaps the elite are themselves controlled by populist forces we know nothing of.  The power elite is always just over the horizon;   the method assumes the existence of power and a power elite, but it doesn't demonstrate it.  Isn't Hunter just assuming his conclusion?
• Reputation vs. reality:  How does Hunter know that the people who are thought to have power (or not) actually have power (or not)?  In other words, is a reputation for power the same thing as the reality of power?  Is status the same as power?  How could we test the equivalence?  Having a reputation for power may not be actual power (though of course it can be a source of it).  Status in a group may not be actual power.  How do we know that the judges / nominators were correct in their understanding either of what power is and/or who the powerful are?  This is not a merely theoretical question, either.  In his 1968 Preface, Hunter says that he was “naive” about the desirability of integrating Negroes Afro-Americans African-Americans into the power structure. Why do you think he said that?  Do you agree that his error arose from simple "naivety", or did it arise from a deeper problem in his method?
• Elite conflicts:  Cliques might come into conflict, i.e., power may depend on the issue. Thus while Hunter was essentially arguing the existence of a class system or class division, others (e.g., pluralists) argue (as we shall see) that politics is based on temporary and shifting factions.  Hunter argues that there are many leadership cliques. Did he advance sufficient evidence that these different cliques actually operated harmoniously? Is it not possible that the different elites fight with each other, creating a plural system where many interests were at work?  Do the elite have any common interests? If so, how does Hunter demonstrate it? How do they discern and communicate such commonality?
• Uncertainties of scale:  Even if Hunter has shown that there are power differences among people in Atlanta, has he shown that these are significant differences?  In other words, is the pyramid of power steep or shallow?  It's no trick to simply pick out the most powerful people;  the question is, do they differ significantly in their power from the others?  Can Hunter's reputational method answer that question?  [Hunter does talk about differences in the types of power exerted by the different levels he identifies. I don't know the exact difference between the highest and middle levels, but it is clear that the highest level can take independent action and set the agenda, while the lowest level (of the three levels--we aren't counting the completely passive masses, the fourth level) is a system-maintainer. So looking at the activities involved, there does seem to be a significant power differential.]
• Absence of a control group:  Isn't Hunter's method guaranteed to find a power elite in any society? [After all, he asks the question, "Who are the top ten leaders in the community?"]  Let's think of a theoretically contrasting society.  (This is called doing a Gedanken [thought] experiment.)  What would his method turn up in a society with no elite?
• Lack of generalizability:  What are the mechanisms by which the elite control, according to Hunter?   Is there any reason to suppose that these methods are no longer in use, or are used only in Atlanta?  (See pp.176, 190, 204, 205, 208.)

In your judgment, to what extent do these criticisms negate or otherwise qualify Hunter's conclusions?

[Ricci argues that while the first two objections above might be theoretically valid, it's unreasonable to say that people don't understand the power they are in contact with every day.  On the other hand, Ricci is talking only about manifest power;  he doesn't consider that people may be unaware of who is truly manipulating their consciousness.]

The University of Minnesota is an equal opportunity educator and employer.
Copyright © 2003 Regents of the University of Minnesota. All rights reserved.