The Dominance and the Pluralist Theory of Business Power - Literature review Example

The dominance and the pluralist theory of business power Place A concept of power Power was always treated as a quality that individuals, groups or large social structures possess and as an indicator that points to the measure of interrelation between those individuals or collectives. In addition, it is also used to physical processes and phenomena. In the recent years, power has become even more far- ranging meaning in social and political theories, because of the claims of certain researchers that power is contested concept, which mean that people having different values and beliefs will disagree with its nature eventually. Power is not the peculiar normative concept either, because different political parties as well as the ethnic nationalists and religious believers that dispute endlessly about whom should have power and to what extent, how should it be organized and directed. Power is what people use to associate with the influence, control, rule and domination with different shades of these notions (Wrong 2002). As the basic concept of physics, power is the certain force required to move objects, measurement of then in specific and standard terms. In political science, power focuses on connection with the society or relation between the parties taken from the causes of movement. To avoid the problem with the misconception of power, it is defined as an action made by one party to produce movement by another and it does not matter to what extend this action is exercised (Zartman 2000). Such action bears the mutual influence people tend to exercise over one another and that is the social interaction. It is important to differentiate the social control from the exercising of power, because then there will be no point in determining power relations as a single kind of social relation (Wrong 2002). Adapted, revised and ever updated to the conditions of the time, social control is a flexible and effective tool, which can be managed only with proper power, the governmental or the one established by church. In the recent times, there appeared a need for tighter and more effective social control for the complexity of the masses; otherwise, it leads to the emergence of totalitarianism. However, the existence of the total institutions proves that social control is exercised there through obeying the rules and using restrictions on individual freedom, which distinguish them from the outside. Such are the prisons, mental institutions, nursing homes, even boarding schools, colleges and universities (Bordoni 2013). The central problem in the analysis of power is why one behaves in a non- regarding way toward the receipt of signals of the other. The theorists that derive power from imbalances in social exchanges, which will be an answer to such question. This interaction comes from the attempts of individuals to satisfy needs and achieve goals by the use of resources of others. Those who desire services or resources to be provided by others only, acts in non- self- regarding ways. Power is here a result of the dependence of ego, its inability to provide exchanges (Scott 1994). To investigate the concept of power within the actions of corporations and businesses, one should take a rough typology of specific modes, which organizations and companies create. They (businesses) supply rules where none exist; shape scheme through economic and political pressure; satisfy other business purposes and adopt practices that certain rules require. These forms of business actions and decisions are connected to the power they exercise toward everyone else. Corporations with different types of decision- making structures and ownership, as well as of business orientations may take different types of decisions to reach their business purposes. To understand better the effects of corporate power, one should know the variables that influence on the way that power is exercised (Danielsen 2005). Such impact is called by the economic, political, environmental and cultural forces, which are an integral part of the modern society. While large businesses have an impact on the lives of millions of people, they feel their power and thus focus on growth and profit maximization based on the contributions of others. What is more difficult is the assessing of economic and political power and determining whether it is increasing, a commonly- accepted metric that measure corporate power. By looking at the forces that object the concentration of power in corporations, one can obtain insight into the power of corporations (Roach 2007). Dominance theory of business power On all levels of business, organizations and companies exercise their power in seven spheres, which are the economic, technological, political, legal, cultural, environmental and power over individuals. These spheres ensure domination of the certain business over the others. Businesses use economic power to gather political power in order to get laws and regulations. New technologies increase the work of the business development in global scope, however, with this new potential comes from the responsibility that refers to understanding of risks and possible influence on the environment. The power of new innovations in technologies allow mobiles software  to gather data and visualise certain trends; in IT predictive analytics translate the big data into useful statistics; in social media, the usiness power helps to gather groups of people all around the world. This is a power of dominance of a certain company, because use of such technologies to be accessible to the wide variety of groups of people (Singh, Singh & Raftree 2014). Taking into account the cultural power for achieving goals, businesses nurture normative standards for the legitimate use of power. They put the emphasis on the cultural patterns in the distribution of power. This is the cultural ower for the business as they take into account the cultural peculiarities of a certain nation and place (Torelli, Shavitt 2010). Social dominance theory Dominance theory or as it is often called the social dominance theory focuses on the individual and structural factors that bring to different forms of oppression based on group of people. Such theory views group- based discrimination, racism ethnocentrism and sexism as special cases of a general tendency for people to create and keep group- based hierarchy. Recent research has shown that social dominance theory includes consideration about the ideological, cultural, political and structural aspects of the society and differences across societies that lead to a focus on the differences and likenesses, the interaction between the social and psychological processes. It explores the processes in which every level of analysis interact with each other. Social dominance theory states that group- based oppression is led by the individual and institutional discrimination, such as schools, religions organizations and financial houses. Since institutions distribute resources on a larger area, social dominance theory recognizes the institutional discrimination as the main force that creates, keeps and recreates systems of group- based hierarchy. Social dominance theory recognizes the group discrimination that tend to be systematic as social considerations help to dovetail the actions of individuals and institutions (Sidanius, Pratto, Van Laar & Levin 2012). It is important to understand the factors that lead to the rejection or acceptance of ideologies that advance inequality. The taking of ideologies is determined by the general desire of people for the group- based dominance. It is captured by the construct known as the social dominance orientation. Such psychological orientation is vital for understanding the individual differences regarding the sociopolitical attitudes and behavior and for understanding the group distinctions in behaviors, such as group favoritism and achievement of social roles that out their impact on the degree of hierarchy. Thus, the social dominance theory views the group- based hierarchy at different levels of analysis that includes the psychological orientations, the behavior of discrimination of individuals and the social distribution of groups and institutions (Sidanius, Pratto, Van Laar & Levin 2012). It is considered that social dominance orientation is a general evaluative orientation that refers intergroup relations and reflects if one prefers such relations to be equal and not hierarchical, because the last are ordered with the superior- inferior dimension. Social dominance theory tends to favor hierarchy- increasing ideologies and policies; however, people who follow the social dominance orientation tend to favor hierarchy- attenuating ideologies and policies (Felicia, Sidanius, Stallworth, Bertram & Malle 1994). Social dominance theory has several ways that misinterpret it. These ways or misunderstandings are expressed as the claim of psychological reductionism, conceptual excessiveness, the biological determinism and the claim of hierarchy justification (Virley 2013). The claim of psychological reductionism led to the hypothesis that social dominance theory was another personality theory and a model focused barely on the role of individual- diversity variable in leading intergroup conflict. As people’s values are important for the functioning of the social institutions and the roles they possess, the social dominance theory waits certain processes to select people into compatible roles. These processes are the self- selection, the institution socialization, different reward and expenses. Social dominance theory defines if the individuals are given a choice, they will choose social roles that are compatible with the levels of their social dominance orientation. Institutions also select personnel with those values compatible with the hierarchy function of a certain institution. If institutions want to see their personnel to demonstrate the role- appropriate behavior, they should reward such behavior compatible with the social roles and to be able to punish that behavior, which is incompatible with such roles. Social dominance theory has been criticized for renaming familiar constructs with new labels. Thus, political conservatism and pseudo- patriotism were labeled the authoritarian character. They were determined so because authoritarian personality theory was the observation that people who are prejudiced against one certain group, are also prejudiced against others. Social dominance theory, like authoritarian personality theory assumes people’s orientations of ethnocentrism and sociopolitical posture are the reflections of personality and behavioral inclinations (Sidanius, Pratto, Van Laar & Levin 2012). Another criticism of social dominance theory is that it assumes that human behavior is only a function of the autonomous actions of its genes and not the cultural or environmental factors. Since these biological processes are born by the evolutionary theories, they do not represent the thinking of social dominance theory. However, the presence of biological determinism in the group- based dominance in human society calls for the evidence of the existence of the changes in human behavior, which is caused by the group dominance. In addition, as long as social dominance theory is concerned with the bounce and everywhereness of the group- based social hierarchy, some accuse it in giving moral and intellectual validity for the social inequality. However, if the processes produced and maintained by the group- based social hierarchy, they are acknowledged and well understood and moral beings make informed decisions about the possibility of modifying the processes and how to make them more consistent with their values (Felicia, Sidanius, Stallworth, Bertram & Malle 1994). The power elite A branch of the dominance theory sees evidence of corporate ascendance in the power elite. From the perspective of power elite that there have been significant changes in the nature and functioning of the corporate community, some things have not changed as many people they might be even because of the tendency to mythologize and the past. Association of Max Weber, Karl Mannheim or Karl Marx or Franz Neumann and other progressive- era researchers is undervalued in the fickleness and possibility for change within a capitalist society. This also includes a possibility of anticipation of few social scientists that a successful corporate counterattack would totally change the achievements made by organized labor (Domhoff 2006). Except for the period during the Civil War, there were no significant changes in the power system in the United States. Though they were called “revolutions”, they did not involve the expansion of an elected assembly by soldiers or the police officers. They did not either involve any ideological struggle of control masses. These changes on the contrary came from shifting in the relative positions of institutional, political, economic and military orders. That is why the American power elite has passed four epochs and is now entering into a fifth. Today the power elite lies in the political order, which should decline politics and public debate and propose instead the alternative decisions with nationally responsible and policy- connected parties, with autonomous organizations that will connect the lower and middle levels of power with the top levels. U.S. is now more a formal political democracy rather than a democratic social structure. Even the formal political mechanics are weak. During the fifth epoch, the business and the government will become more deeply involved with each other reaching a new level of clarity. It is up to the executive agencies of the state to find new approach to the process most decisively. That does not mean that the government will be enlarged as the autonomous bureaucracy, but it will mean the ascendancy of the corporation’s man to act as a political eminence (Blunden 1956). Among the well- known theorists of power elite theory in the United States there are the highest political leaders, which include the president and a handful of key cabinet members and close advisers. They are also the major corporate owners and directors and high- ranking military officers. Notwithstanding the fact that these individuals constitute a close- knit group, they do not perform their actions in order to manipulate events for their own interest. They are the part of the whole picture, which respects civil liberties, follows the established constitutional principles and operates peacefully and in an open way. Power elite does not mean a dictatorship, it does not rely on terror or a secret police. Moreover, its membership is open and many of its members had a good start in their lives by being born into the prominent families. One may ask where elite power takes its strength. It comes from control of the highest positions in the business and political hierarchy and from shared beliefs and values (The power elite, n.d.). Economic domination The only power network in the history of U.S. is the economic one, because under capitalism it created a business- owning class, a working class, small businesses, self-employed skilled craft workers and a comparatively few highly trained professionals. That is why the key reason for economic domination is in division of people who were working in the manufacturing into as free or as slaves, of different race and then into immigrant. Besides, the simple answer was that money rule the world and it was qualified somehow in these terms. However, domination does not mean total control, but an ability to establish the terms and conditions, under which others will operate. Moreover, highly trained employees, which are interested in providing customers with the best services and be environmentally friendly at the same time, are able to count their information and aware of the legislative process. Economic domination means to manage wage and salary, rule the workers and ensure free speech and the vote right. Pluralist theory of business power The most known rival theory of power structure in the U.S is the pluralism theory. Classical liberal theorists developed it. In the U.S., the liberalism- based theorists draw a conclusion about multiple centers of power, that is an explanation of the pluralism term. Pluralism theory rejects dominant class and states that there is no institutionally based elites and its followers claim that there are many inequalities in the concept of power and thus wealth. The theory stands for "polyarchy" instead of a hierarchy (Domhoff 2005). Pluralist theory is based on a free- market economy and the politicians should compete to obtain the voters support. The relationship between voters and politicians should be neutral during the disputes among groups and have no peculiar interests of its own. From this point of view, power comes up from the ground level where each member is capable to take part. Pluralist followers conduct studies that show interrelation between the mass opinion and decisions of government, which show the real validity of such analysis. According to the pluralist theory, if the government is an arena for competing to be heard by the elected officials, then business aims to provide the favorable political benefit by making impact on the formation of public policy by means of legislature and proper implementation. Lobbying or contacting and pressurizing of policymakers is the perfect way to achieve such benefit (Bernhagen 2005). Certain interest groups that are based on economic interests such as industrialists, bankers or the labor unions or the environmental, consumer and civil rights groups join in different coalitions depending on the specific issues. However, not all these groups are able to join the pluralists, as their major point to the successes is involvement of non-business interest groups. Most pluralists consider that corporate leaders are so devoted to the division of power among themselves and thus claim that such divisions of owners and managers of large corporations especially often argue among themselves (Domhoff 2005). In addition, the pluralist theory that is based on the economic theory of the market, fails to understand the cooperation between such groups. While considering that business has political resources in money, organization or its status, the followers of pluralist theory of business power argue that the existence of such resources does not necessarily mean that they are effectively used, employed or make any difference for political benefit. Same about the political power, when the elected politicians talk to just about everyone and listen to their claims, but that does not mean that they weigh all information they heard. When discovering the interest groups and their influence on the policymakers, recent researchers took three political key issues, which are urban development, public education and nomination for local office. In order to find whose preferences will prevail against what opposition, there were conducted interviews with more than fifty individuals. The results evidenced that no single interest group had any disproportionately degree of power over more than one single issue. However, group of individuals was lacking in some political resource, thus was powerless. Pluralist theory does not see need in non- overt or non- observable power and requires assumption of the absence of power relations (Bernhagen 2005). Pluralism criticism The business political power has received powerful criticism. First, it does not allow any possibility to power to be exercised by limiting the scope of political decision- making to problems that have no relevance to the power holder. Decision- making method ensures no objective criteria for determining the important issues. Thu the concept of non- decision- making as the other face of power. This means that is an individual or a group creates barriers between the public and political areas, the person or a group has power. Pluralism theory has also come under the attacks from critics. Studies of the effect of interest groups activities on the benefit of politics bear inconsistent finding. Researchers consider its complicated to explain the legislative and regulatory benefits from the interest groups, businesses or not and to the different resource availabilities of groups that are measured by their strategic positions, membership, organizational strength and the amount of money that were put into the lobbying campaign (Bernhagen 2005). In general, the pluralists want to find the out why business often does not obtain what it wants. These ideas lead to conclude that no interaction with business exist in policy that could arise concerns about the democratic legitimacy and equality in policy. Criticisms of the pluralist perspective touch the business’ ideological impact, its structural influence that come from the society’s economic assets and the resources that business can achieve by using the channels of the interest group politics (Monsma 2012). Majoritarian pluralism The history or roots of the majoritarian interest group of pluralism theory goes back to James Madison’s, who analyzed politics regarding factions, a concept that surrounds political parties and majorities. Today the voters recognize these majorities as interest groups, business and industrial sectors. Madison paid attention to the role of majorities as thy will enable politicians to struggle for the diverse of voters and listen to the representatives’ needs and interests as a whole or at least tend to include their expected issuance. Olson states a main challenge to majoritarian pluralist theories. His argument deals collective action by large, thrown around individuals with small interests tends, but which be prevented by the free rider problem. Such special circumstances as selective incentives and coercion would benefit from collective action to personal form or unite an organized group. Biased pluralism Olson also argued for the other important variant line within the pluralist tradition. The biased pluralism dealt with the struggles among an unrepresentative interest group. Theories of biased pluralism generally stated that both the thrust of interest group conflict and the public policies that result tend to become more of the wishes of the voters who were the corporations and business and professional associations (Manley 2010). Pluralism I and Pluralism 11 Historically pluralism and analysis of the class have disagreed not only that meaning of the class but its whole existence. Many of the researchers and followers of the pluralism state that since the days of the captains of industry, the class structure in U.S. has become far more complex. In place of the business, there is no ruling class as no one dominant across the society. While every knew the major concepts of the pluralists, the theory of pluralism II tried to hold in balance severe criticism of the performance of the system, it supported more major structure reforms and the distribution of wealth and income. At the same time, it supports social pluralism as necessary for the democracy. It denied the special importance of class values and wanted it to become possible to achieve the major structural reforms. Pluralism II still defends many features of the system that perpetuated the social results (Manley 2010). Conclusion Elite theory is focused on the organizationally based elites and gives it a wider canvas than either state autonomy. Pluralist theory is not necessary, however, it also emphasizes its principles on the need of freedom for the electoral possibilities in democratic capitalist countries. Moreover, it stands as a defense shield for the American system and American capitalist democracy. Pluralists say it is not perfect, but it can be if correctly understood by the mass. Since a democracy in the U.S. has freedom of an expression, pluralism fails as a theory, as it is based on a protection of the institutions and attitudes within a market system based mainly on its historical past. In the U.S, there is a class domination and here pluralism fails. It also fails because people in the United States have more electoral power that any other country in the world and these are their benefits. Moreover, it ignores wealth and income distributions, but pays attention to many political conflicts on the certain issues, highlights comparatively few cases where the society does not even know exactly what it wants. References Andy Blunden. The Power Elite, C. Wright Mills, Oxford University Press, 1956 Bernhagen, P. 2005, The political power of business: structure and information in public policymaking, Available from http://homepages.abdn.ac.uk/p.bernhagen/pages/Businesspower_web.pdf Bordoni, C. 2013. Modern Society And Social Control: A Totalising Desire, Social Europe Journal, Avaliable from http://www.social-europe.eu/2013/10/modern-society-and-social-control-a-totalising-desire/ [22 September 2014]. Danielsen, D. 2005. How Corporations Govern: Taking Corporate Power Seriously in Transnational Regulation and Governance, Harvard International Law Journal, Volume 46, Number 2, Available from http://www.harvardilj.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/HILJ_46-2_Danielsen.pdf Domhoff, G. William 2005. Alternative Theoretical Views, Contemporary Sociology  Domhoff, G. William. 2006. "Millss The Power Elite 50 Years Later." Contemporary Sociology 35:547-550. Gilens, M., Page, B. 2014. Testing Theories of American Politics:Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens, Available from https://www.princeton.edu/~mgilens/Gilens%20homepage%20materials/Gilens%20and%20Page/Gilens%20and%20Page%202014-Testing%20Theories%203-7-14.pdf Johnson, S., n.d. The Dominance Theory of Corporate Power, Houston Chronicle, Available from http://smallbusiness.chron.com/dominance-theory-corporate-power-78208.html Manley, J. 2010. Neo-Pluralism: A Class Analysis of Pluralism I and Pluralism II, The American Political Science Review, Vol. 77, No. 2, pp. 368-383 Monsma, S. 2012. Pluralism and freedom: Faith-based organizations in a democratic society. Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield. Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. & Malle, B. 1994. Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 67, no. 4: 741-763. Roach, B. 2007. Corporate Power in a Global Economy, Global Development And Environment Institute, Tufts University, Available from http://www.ase.tufts.edu/gdae/education_materials/modules/Corporate_Power_in_a_Global_Economy.pdf Scott, J. 1994. Power: Critical Concepts in Sociology, Antony Rowe Ltd, Wiltshire Sidanius, J., Pratto, F., Van Laar, C. & Levin S. 2012. Social Dominance Theory: Its Agenda and Method Political Psychology, Vol. 25, No. 6, Symposium: Social Dominance and Intergroup Singh, H., Singh, J., & Raftree, L. 2014. Technology: using power for good, The Guardian, Available from http://www.theguardian.com/global-development-professionals-network/2014/mar/13/technology-civil-society-policy Torelli, C., Shavitt, S., 2010. Culture and Concepts of Power, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 99, No. 4, 703–723, Available from http://business.illinois.edu/shavitt/Torelli%20and%20Shavitt%202010%20JPSP.pdf The power elite, n.d., http://www.udel.edu/htr/Psc105/Texts/power.html Virley, M. 2013. Social Dominance Theory: The Explanation behind Social Hierarchy and Oppression? Sociological Imagination: Western’s Undergraduate Sociology Student Journal, Volume 2 | Issue 1, Available from http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=si Wrong, D. 2002. Power: Its forms, bases, and uses (3rd ed.). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. Zartman, I. 2000. Power and negotiation. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Read More