Your job is to evaluate Dahl. For a critique of him, see UCLA sociologist G. William Domhoff’s Who Really Ruled in Dahl’s New Haven?
Domhoff questions Dahl’s methodology and the narrowness of his surveys, saying that Dahl misread an oligarchical structure as pluralist. You do not need to read the whole article, but do read the introduction, skim the body and arguments, and read the conclusion.
Instructions:
1. In a series of posts and arguments, discuss Dahl’s ideas on pluralism. Feel free to use your hometown, or other political system you know about as an example to illuminate your ideas.
2. Make at least three unique posts and three replies to other students. Use “Comment” for original comment and “Reply” to respond to each other.
3. I am assuming that you will be working on this at about the same time tonight, after your CW activities.
4. Learn from each other. Argue, and adapt your ideas. Or just fight it out.
Go!
Go to town! (nicely)
See the PowerPoint page for the Dahl power and democracy paradigms, as well as other flow charts we have used in class. Let me know if there’s one missing that you’d like to see.
Looking over your Dahl Q’s, I have a couple observations:
Firstly, your Qs ROCK! We will never answer them all, but we can all learn from them. While you process this topic and engage the discussion BE SURE to look over your own and everyone else’s Qs (questions). I have added a few replies to them, but not much and not important except to highlight a few things. Just because I didn’t reply to you doesn’t mean anything: probably means that your question is brilliant and stands for itself. I did add a few clarification responses where I thought it important. Please look it over.
Okay, a few thoughts:
* “dispersed inequalities” = the idea that political inequalities are not concentrated in any one group in New Haven (such as would be the case in segregated societies, in which the segregated group has little or no political participation).
* Dahl suggests that political participation is fluid.
* Dahl suggests that rulers in New Haven respond to citizen input (internal efficacy).
* Dahl admits the relationship between wealth and the political strata, but suggest that wealth is not a condition for political participation.
* Consider Dahl’s perspective: 1960s Yale college professor. However, he did stick to these ideas throughout his career, and there are strong arguments to make in support of him based on current outcomes. One could equally point to outcomes not so supportive of his polyarchy…
* A number of you questioned Dahl’s claim that New Haven went from Oligarchy to pluralistic. That’s a general trend across U.S. history as power becomes distributed more and more widely across different groups and as those different groups blend
* Finally, some of you questioned the idea of pluralism: note that Domhoff contends that Dahl’s study mistook oligarchy for pluralism. You decide!
I agree with Dahl’s point that members of the political strata are constantly changing. This fluidity is instrumental in the dispersion of equality considering different constituents want different things. I would argue that it is very common for members of the apolitical strata to cross into the active political strata. For example, African-Americans voting participation extremely increased in the 2008 election due to the fact that the former members of the apolitical strata now had a personal incentive to participate in the election. Due to the fact that a candidate was African-American, this drew on a completely different voting group due to the political and social ties to the candidate. Simply because constituents choose not to vote or actively participate does not mean that they forever be excluded from the political strata nor have any influence. They may not be instrumental in internal efficacy, but they do have an indirect influence on the external efficacy of the government. Dahl clearly points this out in his writings about the New Haven political scene.
I agree with that completely, and I also think that the chances of both young and old citizens to join the political strata has increased and will increase since the start of the twenty first century. The spread of the internet among the general populace has made political issues not only available, but almost unavoidable to anyone with a computer. Campaigns and political news its all over the web, in both news sites as well as advertisements or side bars on completely unrelated pages. Young people use the internet so much now and are so greatly exposed to worldly issues, I expect the political strata to grow largely in the next decade.
I disagree on some levels. The apolitical strata definitely carries influence on the government, without a doubt. However, the political strata is rather rigid. Those that are thoroughly involved remained ingrained in the policies while those that exist on the fringes may move in and out. Overall, if a vacancy is left within the political strata by person A, it is much more likely that less well known person B, who is still a member of the political strata but has remained out of the spotlight, will take the role. It is difficult for an “outsider” to enter into the depths of the political strata since its criteria for acceptance is largely based on who you know.
I agree with Dahl that there is a relationship between those who have wealth and those who actively participate in politics. This has been truthful since the Founding Fathers, wealthy land owners sat down to write the Constitution. This relationship exists because wealth and status both add to the legitimacy of those who own it. They give the owner power and influence over those who are lacking and thus place them above others and adding to the belief that the wealthy have the right to decide the fate of those socioeconomically below them. Yet this does not take away from the personal investments that the majority has in politics. Though they do not have the power that is attached to wealth, they are still greater in numbers and much more likely to fight for the rights due to their anger over the inequalities they are currently facing. An example of this was Occupy Wall street. The less wealthy majority recognized their absence of influence in the institution that they assigned blame for their current situation. Though they recognized that they did not necessarily have as strong a voice in politics than the current “1%” of wealthy Americans, this did not stop them from protesting and actively participating in the political strata.
I completely agree with the connection of wealth and participation of politics. The smarter were in Yale who were for the most part usually richer than those living in the poverty around them. The richer ones are the ones with leftover time to even think about politics, while the ones living in poverty had to worry about the homicides all around them as Domhoff explained.
While Dahl accurately observed that there are the political group of society and the apolitical, he does not fully support the notion that a pluralist democracy can exist has he described in New Haven. There were many changes in socio-economic status for different groups, however he does not account for the theory of there being a net amount of power, and when one group rises the other is lowered.
Another thing that Dahl missed in his end society was the effect a certain group of people have on elections and DETERMINING what the people want through money. Seeing this, although his society may seem pluralist at the end, it is in fact oligarchial with the disproportionate influence the RICH political strata have on election campaigns.
Dahl also overestimates the amount of attention the elected officials pay to their constituencies. In an ideal world yes, but a large percentage of their time is spent campaigning to raise money for elections, and so to even have the means to be a candidate the either have to be from the political elite or their canidacies are shaped by them.
In Dahl’s idealistic society, he fails to acknowledge social clubs and relationships. On the contrary, Domhoff recognizes the social clubs and status among families. If Dahl is striving for equality among society, does this mean that within social relationships, they have to be structured a certain way in his idealistic society? Will people have to be treated a certain way to reach the point of “equality”?
People do have distinct perspective on what “equality” is and means to them. Therefore I don’t think it would work to treat all people a certain way to reach equality because it would create an unbalance system that would also limit freedom.
Dahl exaggerates on how the lower/middle class ran for office in government, leaving the entrepreneurs with less influence on its citizens. This effect transitions from an oligarchy to a system of dispersed inequalities. How does this impact those within the political stratum? Does it pull the social structure even farther away from an idealistic idea of equality within society?
Would it not be leaving the wealthy with less of an absolute power over the citizens? Giving the lower/middle class a voice would be necessary if you’re striving for absolute equality. What is idealistic?
I agree and understand your point. It makes sense that the lower/middle class has a voice, balancing it out with the heavy power to the upper class. Maybe this would eventually lead to equality, or at least in terms of having a voice heard by the government.
By idealistic, I mean that Dahl is working towards this structured society that he wants, but Domhoff doesn’t think it is possible. I can make the connection that Dahl wants the society to be his idea of a utopia. However, this form of society is probably impossible to attain.
I believe no society can be a utopia and i believe he knew that too. There is to much corruption and crime.
I agree with Carter. A utopia is not a realistic goal whatsoever. In this case, Dahl was not looking to create a utopia. He was being idealistic to an extent, sure, but not to that extreme. Perhaps he was even being more optimistic than idealistic, simply hoping that equality could be reached through his solution.
No democratic, equal, or fair government could ever become a utopia. I personally am of the opinion that a utopia could exist, but that it would not come under the means of any unstable (electable/changeable) political system. Instead, I believe a utopia could come about from a succession or dynasty of people who are given select knowledge and are able to control the population to keep them happy thus creating a utopia. This may not be a utopia in the sense that there are rainbows and peach trees everywhere, but a society that would be extremely stable and would most likely thrive. Think somewhere in the realm of The Giver when I say control. If the people are ignorantly happy, thriving, and successful, does the lack of their knowledge prohibit them from living within a utopia?
But would their ignorance mean that the utopia was in fact an illusion and thus not possible in the first place?
Carter’s points are absolutely valid because it is highly unlikely that a society can reach a level of such perfection and consensus and actually reach that stage of being a utopia. In order to appeal to everyone’s needs and wants in a utopia, someone (a leader) would have to have an immense amount of knowledge and wisdom on how to appeal to everyone’s interests or a utopia would have to be gained over a long period of time, going through leader after leader so that each leader learns from the mistakes the previous leader made.
And even still, you can never please everyone. It just isn’t possible.
In Dahl’s idealistic society he doesn’t account for the role Yale plays in the tax system in New Haven. Becuase Yale does not pay taxes to the government it hurts New Havens economical welfare, and therefore increaes crime rates. By providing information on the crime rates in New Haven is Domhoff suggesting that Yale doesn’t care about Dahl’s system of equality or is Domhoff simply making this point to show how a system of equality is idealistic based on New Haven’s current social standings?
I agree with this, Yale either paying or not paying taxes affects the system and political strata no matter what. I don’t think Domhoff is suggesting that Yale does not care about Dahl’s system of equality, he is suggesting that Dahl’s study of the school system is not evidence for pluralism.
What do you mean by Dahl’s study of the school system? What studies specifically?
Dahl says that the New Haven society transitioned from a society governed by the wealthy few to a pluralist system. From what Domhoff described of New Haven, with its abnormally high crime rate and slowly deteriorating facade, one would assume that the larger part of the community is/was closer to the apolitical stratum. The higher class seemed to be mostly tied with Yale, and therefore allegedly more knowledgeable and wealthy than the general population. As the city became worse and worse through the decades as Domhoff wrote, the gap between the political strata and the apolitical strata would increase. Under this logic, isn’t it more viable to assume that the society became more oligarchical as the poverty and crime among the bourgeois increased and the knowledge and wealth of the Yalie’s separated them more from the community?
I agree with you completely. With the separation of the rich and poor, the rich would then begin the more oligarchical society.
Dahl’s idea of America’s political system being a pluralist society is mislabeled. The political system functions as more of an oligarchy, in that the few influential people within Dahl’s political strata control everything rather than there being two groups that split their role in politics.
But wouldn’t you agree that America’s current political system is indeed two groups splitting a role in the decisions of the government. Is that not the basis of the two party system? This may not be entirely pluralistic considering that is only two groups who are active members in the political strata, but I would also argue that it is not complete oligarchy.
You are right, it is not definitive either way. But what ever is in politics?
I have to agree with you and Karis on this one. Although it may vary on our definitions of the word “many” but our current government is not divided within “many” groups of people, so it is simply not pluralistic. But like Karis said it is also not oligarchy, the US government power does not lie only within a small family of royals or such.
The relationship between leaders and constituents in a pluralist society is reciprocal, as Dahl states. Leaders influence the community, who in turn influence the decisions of the leaders. The community follows and supports the leader, who then listens to the community and gives them what they want to an extent in order to maintain their support.
I agree with you! This political efficacy, in which internal efficacy and external efficacy are reciprocals, is the relationship between leaders and the constituents, or the people and the government. Also, I think that in a more ideal society, leaders would pay attention to constituents in order to represent them, not just to maintain their support.
But do the leaders listen to the community in order to maintain their support? On paper what Dahl says makes sense, and it should. But when politicians are able to take donations from outside sources or larger interests, does this idea not fade?
Leaders listen to keep them happy, in my opinion any way. You please the people who will keep you in power, though in a democracy it becomes more complex, which is why the citizens also get what they want to a certain extent.
Although in Dahl’s pluralist democracy the “disciples” of the leaders feed the community with information. The information giving to the constituents in the community can lead the citizens to believe they want things a certain way. This is a problem because when leaders can control their constituents this way, the constituents can be totally blind to the fact they are just really backing what a leader wants, but not what is in their best interest. This would give the leaders absolute power to run the government.
The political stratum is not fluid, as Dahl expresses, but is rather static. Instead of the idea that members from the apolitical strata will step up to fill the vacant roles in the political strata seems unrealistic. It is more likely that other members of the political strata will fill those roles, keeping the unit isolated and contributing to the idea of an oligarchy.
So does this mean that the political and apolitical strata will always be distant from each other? That just puts an increasing gap between the two groups, but I definitely agree that the isolation contributes to uphold an oligarchical system.
I don’t know if distant is the right word. They won’t be continents away, they’ll just live a couple streets over. The apolitical stratum will occasionally cross through the outskirts of the political stratum neighborhood in order to reach their destination, but it would be a challenge for them to purchase a residence on the same street. Not impossible, just difficult.
I think the political strata will always include the wealthy and advantaged, and it takes the success of a citizen in the apolitical strata before the majority would get involved. On the contrary, I believe the political strata will increase as political information becomes more available to the general public through computers, phones, news, etc.
Maybe it’s not so much that the apolitical strata is excluded from gaining access, but rather that they just have to fight so much harder to gain any credibility and legitimacy among the political strata? But I do agree that as resources become more accessible, a shift will occur.
I strongly disagree. News has always been available and continues to be through the same form it has been (owned by a select few owners). The news read will only reflect the agenda of the owners, most often seen through Fox News (Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes).
Independent forms of media will pop up and make people aware (salon, the young turks, etc.), but not enough to turn the tide between those who watch corporate media and those who do not.
I do agree that it will remain an oligarchy in the hand of the wealthy unless something changes. But leaving it to the political stratum and calling it a norm will do nothing to reform the system.
You make a very good point. There are individuals who will never change, for lack of a better word, no matter how many resources are made available to them. And the shift does not have to be sudden or large or anything like that; it is far more likely to be very gradual if it occurs at all.
I agree with you in the sense that the political strata is not always fluid; but I believe that in no circumstance will an available political position fall into the hands of an uniformed political bystander, I see it as not only unrealistic but virtually impossible.
How exactly would you define bystander? Does a bystander necessarily have to be uninformed and shut out of the loop? I do understand what you’re saying, though.
I believe OP is referring to a bystander as an apolitical person. It would seem odd to assume that someone who is virtually uninvolved would randomly be thrown into the heart of political discourse.
Exactly, which is why the political strata is static in this sense. When apolitical members to cross over, it probably wouldn’t be on any major issue or play a huge role.
I think that Dahl misses the pre-set conditions which may cause someone to be in the political or apolitical strata. However in a society which encourages participation that system can also be influenced by fluidity. Otherwise it would contribute to inequalities.
I do agree with one point that Dahl makes, that wealth is not a condition for political participation. There is a relationship between wealth and the political strata, but it is not a causation. There are probably correlations between wealth and which issues specifically people are concerned about. Also, even if people from higher socio-economic backgrounds make up more of the political strata, it is still not a condition.
Forgot to add! An example of this is the Occupy movement. I live in the Seattle area and there were many protests on the UW campus during the time my sister went there. The movement was huge and all over the news. It was and still is a controversial issue. It’s an example that I’ve seen of people of lower socio-economic backgrounds joining the political strata.
I believe that Dahl is wrong and that the society was more of a oligarchy than a pluralist, were the rich lead and the poor sit back. The political strata controlled most of everything.
I agree because his support towards the political strata is much more obvious. He has negative connotations towards the apolitical strata, making it seem like the political strata are the only educated ones in society. However, I think the structure is more pluralist because the society is made of two differing groups. The main difference is just that one is more politically active than the other but I don’t know if that would really be considered as a direct rule over the apolitical strata,
However don’t they still get their power from the people? and is the political strata always necessarily the most wealthy? For it to be an oligarchy we must look to see whether the members of the elite upper class are always in political power, and whether there is a causal relationship.
I stand in affirmation to Dahl’s point about cumulative inequality. After spending my life in a place full of garish wealth surrounded by poverty, it is clear that the fortunate have the advantage on every domain. Having plenty of one resource such as money, knowledge, or connection seems to quickly lead an individual to every other resource. It is so much harder for someone who has grown up in poverty or ignorance to attain not just the resource they lack, but any other compared to those who have the advantage from the start.
I understand and agree with you completely! I feel like a large part of success in general should be contributed to luck. Whether it is the privilege of your circumstances, or you happened to get angry at the right point in time and have the right idea to fix it, luck and connections play a huge role. As much as we hate to admit it, hard work does not always equal success, and some of us have to work a lot harder to even have a chance to compete for the top spot.
I also agree that while the “American Dream” is drilled into us daily, it is still hard to change the circumstances that we are born into. The rich have power because those who are less fortunate view them as the epitomes of success and therefore legitimize their right to decide others fates. Furthermore we continue to idolize those whose wealth was obtained through quick means because it allows us to believe that we ourselves could instantly change our circumstances with the right luck. “The rich get richer and the poor get the picture” so simply states the perpetual socioeconomic struggle Americans face. We understand that not everyone can be rich, but does not excuse the ever-growing gap between the rich and the poor. Wealth should not determine our belief in our self-worth.
Dahl says that Yale did not have any power, but Domhoff proves otherwise. I agree with Domhoff; Yale was largely influential in many ways, although their influence was more indirect. For example, Yale had connections to companies and central organizations. Also, Yale was connected to the network through two of the most prestigious law firms.
I would tend to agree with that. Since Yale is made up of some of the most well-learned professors and students in the nation, it is without a doubt a highly educated group. Dahl says himself that those with political education lead the political stratum, so that would put Yale in a place of high influence.
Yale also had a big influence on the economic aspect of New Haven because they didn’t pay taxes. Because they didn’t have to pay taxes they gained more money, thus granting them more power to connect with more companies and central organizations. Yale most likely disagrees with Dahl’s claims for a system of equality because they like the economic power they have over the system of government in New Haven, and they would prefer to keep it that way. Do you think Yale doesn’t want to recognize Dahl’s ideas because they already have so much power?
I definitely agree. Yale attracts a lot of elite, club-based influences. And so We must also ask if there is enough fluidity between the strata. What if there are members of the apolitical who wish to become more involved? While they still hold the power of a vote, a vote is not as powerful as involvement in the elections or government themselves, where the jobs usually get obtained through connections.
Dahl writes about the multiple skill sets held in a society, such as intellect, artistic, literary, and scientific. He claims that if one of those divisions such as intellect, were to disappear from the community the rest would be reduced to poverty. Although he has a point, I would have to disagree. All of the skills previously listed are skills that we have figured out and attained on our own. It would no doubt be a struggle if we lost a core group, but I believe humanity would relearn that specific skill or find a way to compensate before the political stratum was destroyed.
I agree that loosing a socially intellectual skill would be harmful, but the claim you make regarding the stratum being destroyed without re-learning is a stretch. If a group within the government looses a skill I believe Dahl sees it as a manner of a government loosing its legitimacy.
In Dahl’s involvement in the “Three Issue Areas”: nominations for office by political parties, public education, and urban renewal he specifically discusses why he was involved in the politics of the public education system because it was the largest item in the city budget. He made different decisions to invest in the public school system and found that participants in these decisions were officially and publically involved in the school systems, however the majority of economic and social notables did not take part in this decision making. Does this not go against Dahl’s ideas of internal efficacy to serve the public? Furthermore, many people in New Haven do not use the public school systems and instead send their children to private schools. These groups of people are most likely part of the political stratum which in turn creates even less equality in New Haven.
Regarding the planning of urban renewal, Domhoff contradicts “Dahl’s claims about the lack of interest and energy on the part of business leaders” of new plans for the city. Domhoff continues to support his argument with evidence on the citizens’ interest within the city. This is just one example of why Domhoff’s arguments seem more strong and credible; he consistently supports his claims with statistics and evidence unlike Dahl’s who simply compares the differences between the political and apolitical stratas based on his opinions. I think that this shows the bias within Dahl’s ideas, and his greater support for the political strata is blatantly obvious.
I agree that Dahl’s ideas are not supported by factual evidence and statistics and his ideas and opinions seem to emphasize the political strata verses the apolitical strata. Dahl’s idea and ideology strongly support the political strata and contradict his system of equality. i believe that Dahl is unsure of what he wants for New Haven and society in general. Many of Dahl’s ideas seem to contradict one another and his opinions do not support his claims for a system of equality
I disagree. I don’t think that Dahl was arguing that for the most part, inhabitants of New Haven belong to the apolitical strata, but rather there is no one group that seems to have all the qualities to truly monopolize political influence in New Haven. He was trying to point out that because the power is so distributed between different groups, the local government is able to function more efficiently by increasing the sensitivity of leaders to the wishes of the different groups. Dahl isn’t claiming that the system lacks inequality but rather a dominating power.
I agree with you in that Dahl is so plain with his reasonings which makes his work not as reliable as Domhoff who does support his work with everything he has.
I do believe with Dahl that in order to gain legitimacy, leaders need to surround themselves in democratic rituals and norms.
This whole paragraph reminded me of The Prince so much. Machiavelli’s idea that a leader at least needs to keep up appearances in order to please the people, even if he does not necessarily believe in those practices or actions himself. If it is expected of you by your constituents and within reason, you deliver.
I agree, when leaders surround themselves with these rituals and norms that society accepts, it makes constituents more likely to support them. This relates to the reciprocal relationship in which the government gives constituents what they want in order to gain support.
I would disagree with that. I think that a leader would be able to gain legitimacy by making correct decisions and showing skills that demonstrated good values of what were good or bad policies, as well as making decisions that were not normal, but still beneficial to the American people by side effects that they would not realize were part of the decision to make a law, and instead consider unintended.
Well, the American creed democracy of course requires some sort of legitmacy, but Dahl states, “…leaders frequently surround their covert behavior with the democratic rituals.”, meaning that the legitmacy is fake. There are no grounds for the American creed democracy to truly be an effective form of government.
I agree with Dahl on several levels; his evaluation of the political and apolitical strata I think is excellent, he illustrates the apolitical as disadvantaged on nearly every level, and those in the political strata as informed, involved and at the fore-front of the political battleground. Dahl recognizes that government agencies, groups and politicians often only cater to those outside of there strata, out of the demand for the votes they could potentially cast. But in his work “Who Governs” I see a major shortcoming. I believe that for a scholar of his importance he should have looked beyond the town of New Haven Connecticut, whose population is only 130,741. Obviously Dahl thoroughly understands how the government interacts with the people ( Political Efficacy) but I see his work rather limited as he primarily focuses on an isolated location. In his study he observes the shift from Oligarchy to a Pluralistic government, but I believe that this was largely due to the nature of the nineteen sixties and the spreading of urban sprawl. Ultimately Dahl sees pluralism in such a way that a multitude of groups, not the people as a whole, govern the United States. Dahl sees these groups in a host of ways, but on average, it is advantageous for a government to have a pluralistic system over a direct democracy. Dahl sees representatives and pluralistic groups as an advantage and as a median for achieving the best outcome for the country, compared to a scenario where every citizen votes on every minute issue.
My post includes all three of my observations!
Enjoy
I agree with Lane. Dahl is a wonderful ideologist but he should not have limited himself to the community of New Haven when America has become such a diverse place.
1. Dahl wrote about how all groups of people are supposedly best represented in a pluralist democracy. Although if a leader can rely on a group of people who make up the majority of the voters to believe a certain way on issues, why would he or she represent the minorities he or she would also be represnting? Assuming that the minorities are not represented, there would not be equality between all the groups of people. So in this situation a pluralist democracy would not produce equality for all citizens.
Completely agree, which is why I can’t take Dahl’s ideals too seriously. Disregarding human nature and the present (and past) to create a “perfect” government for people to falsely put faith into seems reckless.
Domhoff argues that New Haven did not transform from an oligarchy to a pluralistic society, but rather fell into decay as the only source of true power and wealth in the community, Yale University, continued to profit from tax-free investments as New Haven slipped into poverty and underdevelopment. Domhoff points out that amongst all disarray Yale has managed to profit due to underpaid employees, tax-free endowments and investments all leading to the steady decline of New Haven and increased crime and unemployment rate. Yet Dahl made sure to point out that yes while Yale was a financial giant in the city of New Haven, it remained predominantly out of local politics choosing instead to focus on increasing its own wealth rather than interfering in the lives of the New Haven residents. This in turn allowed for the dispersion of inequality. No one group had a significant advantage over the other, and in time New Haven began to transition into a pluralistic society. If New Have were not a pluralistic society, would not have both Dahl and Domhoff have found an influential body that was politically responsible in New Haven at the time? Just because Dahl and Domhoff disagree on how large the circle of economic and social accountables were does not detract from the fact that their was no main governing group thus supporting Dahl’s conclusion of New Haven as a pluralistic society.
I agree with Karis. I also believe that it is irresponsible of Yale to benefit financially from New Haven but not help the locals by getting involved in local politics.
Dahl talks about politicians being able to set forth legislation and that money or big business was not a proponent in legislation. However, what is to say that the big business does not pay off the politician to then put forth the legislation? Dahl seems to believe that politicians will act in the interests of the people in exchange to be re-elected. However, what if the politician could be re-elected and paid off by big corporations in a rigged system?
Money and large corporations are most definitely a proponent in legislation. In most cases,legislation is only elected because of the money invested in them from big companies and corporations. Without the economic support of big paying companies, much of the legislation would not be what it is. Legislation may or may not care about the interest of the people in exchange to be re-elected, but the most important aspect of getting re-elected into legislation is the money coming in from large companies to support their campaign. If this is the case, large companies may make up a majority or the political strata and Dahl’s claim would be completely incorrect.
I believe Dahl is assuming there will be no corruption, when he wrote “Who Governs?”.
Which is why I stated in an earlier post that it looks good on paper. However, how would you go about such a change in the current political system? How would you get your voice heard over Johnson&Johnson with a bag full of money? You can’t. It’s just not possible.
Iceland. The citizens of Iceland took over their government during the financial crises a few years ago. They threw all of their governement officals and bankers, that they felt were responsible in jail. Afterward they kept the same government and offices, but they just elected new leaders to fill those spots. Although it was an exteme case, it was effective.
Dahl states that in a pluralistic society, it is easy for one to enter the poitical stratum, but I don’t think this was entirely true. Domhoff argued that the rich are more prone to taking part in the political stratum, the “rich” does not mean everyone and anyone. Although, everyone and anyone may have been free to enter the political stratum, it was not the norm for the non rich to do so, and probabaly would not have been as easy for these people to enter a stratum consisting of mainly rich, educated people.
I think it is wrong that when Dahl says” a political issue can hardly be said to exist unless and until it commands the attention of a significant segment of the political stratum.” Its pretty much saying, nobody cares until something happens. Its exactly the story Bromley told the class about his town not wanting to put a stop sign on a intersection until someone dies there. Why dont you prevent the problem from happening in the first place?
I love this analogy, and that Dahl recognizes that governments often act only after a disaster has struck.
People do not want to prevent a problem from happening in the first place, because people are sometimes to unwilling to admit that they have a problem in the first place. Important political issues are often diverted from the American people, who are instead fed minor issues and told that they are big ones. Because they are not told by the media, and by everyone else, that there is a problem with the intersection, then there will be no problem with the intersection. They are instead told that speed bumps are needed to fit the government’s agenda. A larger example of this is the recent NSA spying leaks. Instead of the general people worrying about the NSA having every single detail of every single thing they have done online, the general public is worried where the “traitor” Edward Snowden is, or where he is going to be. By diverting the attention from the main issue, which is the public safety, or the NSA spying, we are told that things like speed bumps or Edward Snowden are important. By doing this the government is able to make more speeding laws and make the people worry about going to fast, instead of just driving safely, or making the people worry about where a man is hiding in an airport, instead of fearing their own security.
I agree with Ethan. I hope that he listens to his first statement and do not be like other people and admit he has a problem.
I completely agree with Dahl too. And we can see this trend in much of or own politics seeing that the approval rating of our president tends to increase when the country is in a time of need and the president has set an action in course. But to answer your question with another question, there are some situations we can not prevent such as terrorist attacks, so my question would be not why don’t we prevent events from occurring, but why don’t we generally care beforehand?
I appreciate your comment and like your ending question. I think that in politics it is inevitable to degree. Therefore there will always be conflict because everyone is satisfied differently thus you can’t prevent the problem. However you can control the “response”. And in many cases people tend to wait a (long) time in order to realize any ongoing atrocity. So what really matter is the response and the responsibility of political stratum that exists that can give a solution to the problem.
The $1.5 million salary that Yale’s president receives is a condition that is an example of the great gap that exists among the different level of economic levels. It would be ignorant to not recognize the injustice “no equality” that is taking place in this situation. It is obvious that financial status does influence enlightenment within political stratum. Is the people’s “fault” that they are not politically involved or is it the government’s responsibility? Considering America’s government and foreign ones? Who is responsible for the extent at which American citizenry practices political stratum?
In Dahl’s pluralist democracy the majority of citizens may not get what is best for them. Dahl wrote that there are three groups working in this system. First are the leaders who make the laws. Second are the “disciples” or subleaders who spread information about one or mulitiple leaders, informing the third group. The third group are the constituents who vote for the leaders. If the “disciples” of the leaders spread bias information to the constituents of the leaders, in favor of specific leaders, then wouldn’t the leaders be able to lead the majority of citizens into siding with them. Also in this system there are a relatively small amount of people informing the people and making the laws. So if these people were to always lead the constituents to vote in favor of what they want, then there would be inequality between different groups. This could lead to the miniorty in the government acquiring indirect absolute control over the area.
I think Dahl contradicts himself on pages 70-71. He states that pluralistic democracy is percieved to be “all head and no body: to others it is all body and no head.” But soon after he then states that there is a relation if between the ruler and the ruled, or the leader and the led, so there is a distinction on the rulers and leaders how can this democracy be percieved as only one part of a two?
Domhoff contends that Dahl mistook oligarchy for pluralism. Perhaps Dahl truly did believe that the idea of pluralism was prevalent in New Haven. Dahl and Domhoff looked at the same data and drew different conclusions. While Domhoff saw the decline and separation between apolitical strata and political stratum, perhaps Dahl saw the change and therefore thought it was fluid. Did Domhoff disagree with the accuracy of Dahl’s observations, or did he draw different conclusions from these observations?
I completely agree with the notion that 2 different ideas will come from 2 different people when discussing the same topic. But the reasons for Dahl’s and Domhoff conclusions are different. Dahl thought that pluralistic socities were already possible and existent because of the fact that Yale was free from paying taxes while Domhoff thought that because of the ruling elite classes, who eventually became the majority because of their power, New Haven was actually an oligarchy.
Dahl assumes that the people within their political systems will be active and therefore they will be represented. For arguments sake, if this were true, would it not then be only those who get their voices heard who reap the rewards? What of those who cannot, or would not know how? The apolitical who don’t choose to be because they have no choice. Those who are not educated or not wealthy enough to have time to become political? Does Dahl expect these people be weeded out over time and replaced by super-beings who will be able to balance these responsibilities and disadvantages better than before?
Dahls’s idea of pluralism is a misconception that New Haven had slowly become from an oligarchy to pluralism; when in reality things have change from pluralism to oligarchy. This is seen when New Haven starts to change and as a result Yale is left with the majority rule because New Haven through time becomes a poor city as stated. Dahl’s idea that of pluralism is that power was distributed unequally in New Haven, it was also dispersed among a number of groups in competition with each other, rather than monopolized by a single elite group. When in matter of fact, Yale and the wealthy were the ones who rule, setting conditions for the rest to set apart from the political strata.
Was New Haven ever a pluralistic society? The wealthy, educated, land owning elite are the same group of people as the educated people coming out of Yale and contributing to New Haven’s society. Out of New Haven’s population, the political activists are still going to be a small percent of educated wealthy men and women who have enough resources and knowledge to make an impact in the field. New Haven never had what Dahl described as a pluralistic society, so New Haven never had political equality.
Dahl says it would be unwise to underestimate the extent to which voters can replace leaders through elections. This is simply a fallacy, due to the fact that there is no way the population as it stands grown by the system of government could possibly begin to change the way they elect and vote for certain types of people. The two party system (I do not support a three party system either, in fact I believe that would be even more detrimental), wealth disparity, disenfranchised minorities, those who are deprived of an education, and all the others within society who are “too weak” to become political in this system seem to have no place in Dahl’s ideal society. And while it would be great to have a society where voters truly influence who they may vote for, need we only look back at the election of 2000 for ourselves to be knocked back into reality.
As Hofstadter mentions, the common people often assume that liberty and democracy are the same thing, or they assume that democracy is necessary to liberty. This thought shows up frequently in Dahl’s thinking, when he shows how pluralism leads to democracy and liberty, however, there are cases where liberty can be achieved without democracy, as well as cases where democracy hinders the liberty of the people. In a Monocracy, if there is a just king, and a system set in place that allows people to have freedom, then they have liberty but not democracy. In the 1700s and 1800s, where slavery was legal, people in a democracy would work to keep slavery, giving a large portion of the population no liberty.
In many cases of areas with democratic rule, a large portion of the population was apolitical, and the apolitical people are not the people who are going to be successful in running a government. Dahl seems to say the opposite, where he says that giving equal power through dispersed inequalities will lead to liberty and a better America, just like it did in New Haven.
Dahl talks about equality stemming from pluralism, however, pluralism by definition does not support equality. If pluralism is based of of the idea of dispersed inequalities, then everyone is going to be different, and no one is going to be equal. Some groups of people are going to have more flaws than others, while others are going to have more severe flaws, that might make it difficult for them to hold a political standpoint that is appropriate, or socially acceptable enough that it isn’t considered insane. By definition, dispersed inequalities can not mean equality.
Dahl mentions a hypothetical situation where the political strata disappears completely, and the apolitical strata has to fill in. He mentions that society will function once the apolitical strata fills in and steps into roles that were previously taken by the political strata. He doesn’t take into consideration the possibility that a completely new way of government comes into place, one that fits the need of the people of the apolitical strata. It might function in a way completely different from the previous government, but would still get society to function based on how the apolitical strata understands politics.
In Dahl’s eyes, an ideal society includes impossible tasks and aspirations such as effective participation, voting equality, control of speech, which is so absurd, and etc. These were his thoughts when he was in New Haven, the city of Yale. But what Dahl fails to mention is that Yale was not requred to pay the taxes of using the streets and property Yale resides on. So Yale avoids billions of dollars and they say that there are so many benefits of this. But the situation is that because Dahl was in New Haven while realizing that an ideal democracy is composed of impossible factors, he truly believes that a society that has the 6 vital factors of an ideal society is capable of reaching.
I strongly disagree with Dahl’s claim that business leaders do not have an impact. Without business leaders and people who can invest money, politics would not be where it is today. There would be a significant drop in political scandals, media publicizing politics, and support of legislation, government, Congress, etc. Through circulation of money from business to politics, businesses have a foothold in the government because of the power they can hold over the government. For example, if a large corporation business were to support a particular legislator and they invested enough money to win over the majority; the business has automatically entered itself into the political strata because they are politically active through their business. Businesses, who invest in this way, make the political strata even stronger and the apolitical strata even weaker. Why? Because the apolitical strata which is most likely the minority in this case has no voice and the majority is convinced by large companies to support whoever the large company chooses because they have veto power. In this way, businesses almost become a part of the government that makes public opinion unimportant.
I have to completely agree with Dahl and his views on the leader and the followers. I think he is really able to sum up the dimensions of what could be a well functioning relationship between a worker and a boss. But I am confused as to how this situation would play out in a pluralistic democracy.
A number of Dahl’s conlusions could be wrong because the ways he used to arrive at those conclusions are flawed. In William Domhoff’s article it is pointed out that Dahl used how many people were notable in both the social and economic life of New Haven to show that different groups of people were equal in the city. Although in New Haven groups can best be defined by which social clubs they belong to. In William Domhoff’s study he observed that the social notables were in a network of connected social circles. So New Haven did not have many different groups become equal through democracy, but it could be viewed that they were equal because of social connections they had with each other.
In addition, Domhoff describes how the larger part of the community starts to minimize when it comes to the political strata. This points out that because Yale starts getting majority rule because of their wealth and intelligence they do as they want in a way. For example, Yale as stated by professor Bromley, because they are a private institution they decide whether they want to pay taxes for the land being used. Since they are the wealthy and intellectuals they prefer to only pay 10% because they have the majority who take part of in the political strata. In relationship to Dahls view on pluralism, different groups wanted power but apparently Yale accordingly gains power because of wealth and knowledge. This leads to an internal efficacy because since Yale becomes the one in power the government has to give them what they ask for since they remain in the political strata.
Land in addition to wealth and knowledge also plays an important role in Yale’s power. Do you think Yale as it gains power drives more citizens into the apolitical strata or helps bring more of the constituents into the political stratum?
I believe at this point it may be bringing more constituents into political stratum. Because people are aware of things that do not satisfy them. It alerts them of their citizenship position and also of the unfair policies occurring.
How is that through the fundamentals of “economic notables” and “social notables” members of the local upper class and the local business community did overlap with the entities of power structure? Was it that since at the time Jews and many Italian Americans were not allowed into social clubs, social notables were “anti-Semitic” However this controversial argument is not to its best fulfillment thus another factor (many minor property owners were not part of the business community) brings about exclusionism through practices. How is this perceived in New Haven? And what role does political stratum and apolitical stratum play in these circumstances?
In response to Ethan’s question, New Haven was not pluristical society because at the end Yale and the wealthy left after the city became poor only one group had power making it an oligarch society. In addition, Domhoff shares different views about New Haven not being a pluralistic society but a oligarchy.
In order to have a functioning form of government, legitimacy is must because without legitimacy, no one is going to acquiesce or have a reason to accept into whatever the form of government may be. For example, kings were chosen by divine right: God chose them to carry out his messages to his people. There is no disputing that ultimate decision. But Dahl states, “…leaders frequently surround their covert behavior with democratic rituals.”, meaning that the legitimacy is fake. Therefore, American democracies have no legitimacy to go off of. Therefore, pluralistic societies are more efficient more reliable, as stated by Dahl.
Dispersed inequalities through Dahl’s theory signified that every group/interest was missing at least one key resource to carrying out full power; not one group had all the resources as Dahl states, “that could be utilized to exercise power.” In effect every group had an inequality that would require one or more group(s) to work together if they were to exercise power, under Dahl’s theory.
I disagree with Dahl as he categorizes the citizens of New Haven suspicious and also that they have a weak political position. First of all every citizens should and has the right to be suspicious of anything concerning their protection and constitutional rights. I don’t think that the political position is weak, but rather it is sensitive to the unsanitary environment that it is evidently exposed to. These conditions do effect the socioeconomics of the wealthy and the poor and perhaps only bring about unjust regulations in one area of New Haven, which in this case is not Yale but everything else.
I agree partially with Dahl’s idea of the political and apolitical strata. Dahl exemplifies that the apolitical stratum is a disadvantaged because they seem to be apart from making decisions compare to those in the political strata. The political strata explains how those who are intellectuals can also become the group with power.
When it comes to the political strata, the larger section of the society begins to be undermined while the ruling elites, or the wealthy, even though they are the smaller part of the society, are actually the majority now because of the fact that they have financial resources other don’t. And because they are wealthy, they are more financially involved, but that doesn’t mean that the individuals that aren’t as financially capable don’t have a say in politics or don’t have a right to participate in politics. Its just that they wont be as involved because that’s just the nature of people who have more than others.
In response to Mile’s question, as Yale gains power it drives more citizens into the apolitical strata because their power increases and they start pushing away others. For example, in the case of New Haven, as the transition occurred from a “pluralistic society” to an oligarchy, Yale gained power setting conditions for the citizens making it hard for them to maintain stability in the political strata.
It is important to note that, while wealth seems to Dahl as a rather indirect and only somewhat an influence on the political strata, it is one of, in not the most important factor in determining who is able to have say in the government. While wealth may not be an absolute necessity for government participation, it is noticeably harder to have laws or issues that pertain to a small, poorly endowed group without large movements. So, even though it is not a condition, wealth is a key factor in determining the playing field.
It is hard to say that rulers of New Haven respond to internal efficacy and can serve as an example of efficacy for other towns, as Domhoff astutely points out that the populace of New Haven is represented by a small stratum of people and ethicnic/cultural backgrounds. This makes it so that the case study of any average town in the US cannot be related to the case study of New Haven, as most towns contain various people from different socioeconomic and ethnic backgrounds. Since New Haven is comprised of mostly WASPs, and the political scene is dominated by highly educated elites, it does not serves as a prime instance of internal efficacy.
Dahl makes the point that New Haven has become an idealistic pluralistic society from an Oligarchy. However, being from the New England area, I can attest that in many ways, prestige and family history and background serve as primary elements of the political stratum. Clearly, it is much less of a government run by the rich, but still it is partially true that the government on a small, New England scale is very close to an Oligarchy. The correct definition would be an pluralistic society with unbalanced power; and as a oligarchy, favoring those of more advantageous backgrounds.
I agree with Dahl’s statement that nearly every adult may vote but where knowledge, wealth, social position, access to officials, and other resources are unequally distributed, who actually governs? I think that the people govern and Dahl has a point when he says in a way that America is diverse and if it has so many different citizens. If the citizens are unequal how can the power in the government be distributed equally. I really like the question he said “How does a ‘democratic’ system work amid inequality of resources” because really and truly how does it. I think America is the closest to a working democratic system that Dahl may find considering that Athens which started one of the first and most successful democratic systems did not last and succeed as well as America. I disagree with the fact that Dahl basically based is overall study of America on New Haven alone. I think that he should have stayed in each state for atleast two weeks in order to actually determine America’s governmental and political system. It also seems to me as if he is indecisive of how he feels about the American political system because he tend to use contradicting statement or words to describe the same political system. It also feels as if he undermines how well of a working government America has made.
My 3pts are in there hopefully they aren’t to difficult to find considering I didn’t divide it into paragraphs.
Sorry.