Power in Society Marx Conflict Perspective & Elite Theory

Social Analysis
By
Karyn Krawford 08/09

Introduction

Power is present in each individual and in every relationship. It is defined as

the ability of a group to get another group to take some form of desired action,
usually by consensual power and sometimes by force (Holmes, Hughes &
Julian, 2007).

In society governments, organisations and an elite class of people make

decisions that affect the lives of a large mass of other people. A significant
amount of research shows these decisions are often made to serve their own
economic interests and values of which includes the means of production and
property ownership (Holmes et al, 2007; Walters & Crook, 1995; Haralambos
& Holborn, 1990; McGregor, 2000).

These decisions cause inequality in society and resentment from people who
are excluded from the decision making process. The unequalness of this
decision-making and power allocation enables the fortunate to enforce their
will on the less fortunate (Graetz, 2001, Walters & Crook, 1995).

This essay discusses power from two sociological views; the Conflict
perspective, predominately from Karl Marx and the Elite theory perspective.
These theories show that power is distributed unequally in society where
governments, a ruling class, media and business elites hold the majority of
power over others.

Conflict Perspective

Carl Marx, an 18th century sociologist, was one of the original theorists to
develop a conflict perspective on how society functions. Following Marx was
Ralph Dahrendorf, 19th century, post beginning of capitalism, who developed
the theory further (Holmes et al, 2007). This perspective is mostly concerned
with Marxs deep structures of unseen power within the capitalist system
(Walters & Crook, 1995).

The central areas of focus from this perspective are; (1) the classes that exist
in society, (2) inequalities of society and (3) how society functions to serve the
powerful class and disadvantage the others, thereby causing conflict (Holmes
et al, 2007; Haralambos & Holborn 1991). Examples of these conflicts include
wars, revolutions, strikes and communism (McGregor, 2000).

These classes that are in conflict are broadly broken into a ruling capitalist
class and working class of which aim to further their interests at the expense
of the other group (Walters & Crook, 1995). The working class who only
have their labour power to sell are at the disposal of employers in situations
where no unions exist and need to avoid unemployment (Holmes et al, 2007).

Bordering these two class concepts are small businesses, which Marx
referred to as petty bourgeoisie. This group are subject to ether joining the
working class or becoming part of the capitalist class if sufficient surplus is
accumulated. Social surplus contributes to conflict in societies where class

exists and is a struggle for control over profit. Thus one appropriates it and
the other produces it (Holmes et al, 2007, Walters & Crook, 1995).

Thus, Marx looked at how the working class is disadvantaged by becoming

attached to the external world of commodities and alienating themselves from
their inner world also known as externalisation, the materialistic world of
consumerism. This process advances the interests of capitalists who thereby
hold a strong interest, with help from the media, in ensuring the working class
are kept busy working by consuming the products of their labour (Holmes et
al, 2007, Hurst, 2000).

Classes cause inequality in society and Marx believed individuals hold their
own personal power, which is in harmony with each other and nature (Holmes
et al, 2007), rather than wrestling with it (Hurst, 2000). Hurst (2000)
elaborated further by stating that people become enslaved when their actions
are controlled by something outside themselves to benefit the capitalist
system that is controlling the labour division. People are no longer whole but
split into these alienated specialist divisions.

Furthermore, Marx believed it is those who own the means of material

products also own the means of intellectual production because it is their
ideas that dominate through more air time (Holmes et al, 2007; Akard, 2001).
In other words, workers unwittingly reproduce the power that rules over
them (Holmes et al, 2007, pg 37).

Marx viewed a nation state as a collective power of which political parties rule
on behalf of society by making rules and regulations in favour of the ruling
class (Holmes et al, 2007, Hurst, 2000), based on rational decisions (Walters
& Crook, 1995) and by the growing faith in science explaining reality (Hurst,
2000).

The nation state today however, is increasingly transformed through

devolution, deregulation of public policy and globalisation through the impact
of multinational corporations on government power and ability to regulate
economic activity. This has resulted in a shift of power from national
boundaries to a global level (Tanner, 1999; Gotham, 2004).

Elite Theory

Among elite theories, a distinctive theory was developed by an American

Sociologist C.Wright Mills, called critical elite perspective (Akard, 2001). It
consists of two central concepts, which are the power elite group and the
managerial class (Holmes et al, 2007). Both groups are given decisionmaking power that affects the lives of others (Walters & Crook, 1995), and are
unaccountable for their decisions (Haralambos & Holborn, 1991).

The elite is defined as a network of business, government, military and media

leaders who exchange favours, have common educational and social
backgrounds. These people consciously conspire to maintain control over the
masses (Holems et al, 2007, Walters & Crook, 1995). Akard (2001) splits this
group into two organised segments, governing elites who hold broad political
power and non-governing.

Similarly a highly paid managerial class are identified as those who produce
profits for the company, thereby given a lot of power and control over others
(Holmes et al, 2007; Haralambos & Holborn, Graetz, 2001). Consequently
power is passed down from owner to manager who is in control on a daily
basis (McGregor, 2000).

In order for the elite to maintain this control they need to be aware of their
membership to the group, act in ways to further their own interests and
exchange information between members to conspire the control (Holmes et

al, 2007) and to close the access for others making them exclusive (Akard,
2001). For example in Australia there is believed to be an increasing interlock
of relationships particularly in the media, sport and education sectors which
can be observed by the number of executives each sitting on each the boards
of these organisations (Holmes et al, 2007).

A number of elite theorists have written about the networking and interlocking
of this group (Holmes et al, 2007), also known as mobility (Holmes et al, 2007,
Walters & Crook, 1995). For example Australia used to be known as the
Welfare State in which it served to support mostly men but also women,
supporting the role family plays, by means of pensions, health and education.
This has changed dramatically over the past two decades as the Howard
government continued to privatise many government and state welfare
providers, including education institutes. At the same time corporations
profits rose dramatically (Holmes et al, 2007).

In order for this change in welfare state to occur as desired by the Elite
groups, there needed to be a cross over of board representatives in many
powerful institutions, channelling power into the hands of these exclusive
power holders (Holmes et al, 2007, Walters & Crook, 1995).

These power institutions include the three government powers that are stated
in the Australian Constitution; the legislative (two houses of parliament), the
executive (public service) and judiciary (court system) that they must be kept
separate in order for democracy to work. An example of this is when the

Howard government, along with cooperation from the media, pressured the
executive (public service) to gain election votes (Holmes et al, 2007).

Clearly the Australian Constitution requirements have not been adhered to in

numerous contexts. Holmes et al (2007) provides a list of examples of the
mobile crossover of senior political, media and business people sitting on
boards of large and powerful organisations and group memberships.

Moreover Holmes et al, (2007) and Haralambos & Holborn (1991) explain the
new economy today consists of two to three hundred privately owned giant
corporations where this mobility takes place and wealth is more concentrated.
This concentration of board crossovers, government officials and departments
that also cross over into the private sector have further embedded the
capitalist society we now live in.

Conclusion
Both perspectives discussed the unequal power from one group over another.
The research on ruling and working classes, explains how the powerful
classes dominate over the rest of the population known as mass, both
physically and mentally (Holmes et al, 2007, Hurst, 2000,).

A political elite group of people is explained and acceptable in both Marxist

and elite perspectives. This is due to the common ground regarding the
degree of mobility and the idea of the states job in sharing out wealth
produced by a working class, kept dependant of this through the privately
owned companies. This privatisation and rising of large multinational
corporations has produced an increase in the power of management.

The media plays a prominent role in portraying a materialistic world through

the idealistic interests of the upper classes which are also materialistic to keep
profits and power concentrated in their control, while keeping the working
class focused less on internal needs and more on external means with
production and consumption.

The nation state plays a role in assimilating power in society, serving the
interests of the upper classes, however this power has reduced significantly
over the years. Despite this, there appears to be an increase in mobility of the
elite, utilising the powers of mass media, governments and multinational
organisations to meet their needs.

Finally, there is insufficient space in this paper to cover other significant

realms of power affecting society such as the impact of many smaller groups,
globalisation, charismatic leadership, the Internet and cyberspace.

10

Reference List
Akard, P. (2001), Social & Political Elites. Encyclopedia of Sociology. Vol 4,
2nd edition. Macmillan Reference. USA

Gotham, K. (2004), State. Encyclopedia of Social Theory. Ed. George Ritzer.

Vol. 2. Sage Publications inc

Graetz, B. (2001) Social Self, Global Culture: An Introduction to Sociological

Ideas. Oxford University Press. Melbourne.

Haralambos, M. & Holborn, M. (1991) Sociology; Themes & Perspectives. 3rd

edition. CollinsEducational, Hammersmith, London.

Homes, D., Hughes, K. & Julian, R. (2007), Australian Sociology. A Changing

Society. 2nd Edition. Pearson Education Australia. Frenchs Forest, NSW.

Hurst, D.E. (2000), The Janus-Faced Nature of Society. Living Theory: The
Application of Classical Social Theory to Contemporary Life. Allyn & Bacon.
Boston.

Jamrozik, A. & Nocella, L. (2002), Inequality: The Underlying Universal Issue

in Social Problems. Sociology of Social Problems. Cambridge: University
Press

11

McGregor, C. (2000) Class. Sociology: Australian Connections. 2nd Edition.

Allen & Unwin, Sydney, Australia.

12

Sydney Homeless man makes $50,000 a year begging The

Australian & The Daily Telegraph

Both newspapers coverage of this issue is exactly the same. This is

because they are both owned by News Limited.

The article highlights social issues that include amount of money

earned by beggars, tax payments, welfare and drugs consumed by
homeless people.

- The article reports a man made the above figure from begging in a
CBD location in Sydney over the period of one year.
- He earns different amounts on busier days and slower days.
- Fridays he earns at least $250 and some days stays longer if he is
earning more.
- The man is viewed earning $30 in 20 minutes
- That day he had earned $60 before the afternoon rush began
- His money is tax-free

In these highlighted points the media clearly targets how much

money the man earns, as it is the headline and is mentioned here
eight times. It suggests he shouldnt be earning this much and
people give too much money to the homeless are happily paid more
than the average worker tax-free.

13

The man didnt state his earnings over the year therefore the
journalist has calculated the figure assuming he earns this much
each week on a daily basis for the past year.

1. The article proposes he works hard, long hours, every day of the
week sitting on a crate on the corner of a busy location with his sign
up asking for money. Yet the picture of the man sitting with a sign
up and money dropped in front does not look like he is exerting
much energy.

2. The day of the interview the man took a three-hour break and had
breakfast at a takeaway. The man in the picture looks quite
overweight and possibly obese.

3. The man says he gets more money at the end of the day when
people are going home happy.

This media coverage shows power is used by the media report to

portray the man as lazy, taking advantage of people at times when
they feel happy. The homeless man does not have the power to
publish his situation in his own words.

His money is tax-free; he doesnt get sick days or superannuation.

The article compares a beggar with a worker, suggesting an
alternative way of making money and avoiding tax.

14

This comparison is unfair, as most people would not be faced with

the same issues as a homeless person such as hygiene, health,
food, clothing and shelter. Homeless people are concerned about
survival and not if they are getting superannuation when they
retire.

From a Marxist perspective the ruling class and from the Elite theory
perspective, the elite group, have invested interests in the mass
population to be kept working, more importantly however that
people invest in the consumption of available products. This
homeless mans stated medical expenses and takeaway food for
example, contributes to the cycle of consumption where his money
given by workers goes back into the system eventually.

By Karyn Krawford
09/2009

15

16