Charles Wright Mills - Term Paper Example

Biography: Very few people have had such an enormous impact on their respective fields than John Wright Mills had on sociology. Born on the 28th of August 1916 in a white collar insurance broker’s family, Mills developed into one of the most revered sociologist of recent times. Often calling himself a ‘born troublemaker’, Mills practically analyzed and criticized many practices of the American society and was often deemed as an outsider or deviant from traditionalist viewpoints[Kat00]. Mills grew up as a recluse. His family and parents had very few friends and he had limited interaction with people. This isolation significantly hindered his social experiences and he grew up in places that lacked the very basic mediums of interaction with society, such as music and books. Mills graduated with an engineering degree from Dallas Technical School and later joined Texas Agricultural and Mechanical college, primarily on the insistence of his father. He gave signals of a rebellious attitude from his early days at college. In his first published piece, a letter to the battalion, he protested against the domination freshman faced from their seniors. He later admitted that he had relished the anger he saw on the senior officers’ faces as they read it[Kat00]. A year later mills transferred to the University of Texas at Austin in few of its fancied departments including philosophy and sociology. Mills excelled in philosophy, sociology, cultural anthropology, social psychology and economics. Philosophy led to his discovery of Peirce, Dewey, James and Mead. He was also fascinated by sociological theory, specifically Karl Max’s ideas. He got a bachelor’s degree in sociology and a master’s degree in philosophy in 1939. Mills later pursued a doctoral program in sociology with a research fellowship at the University of Wisconsin. Collaboration with Hans Gerth, who had strong research on the ideas of Karl Max and Max Weber, resulted in the completion of two books, Essays and Sociology in 1946, and Character and social structures in 1953. In his PhD dissertation, Sociology and Pragmatism, Mills focused on applying the sociology of knowledge to the development of pragmatic philosophy. Specific works included those of Charles Pierce, William James and John Dewey. Mills was later appointed as a professor of sociology at Columbia College. A highly interesting anecdote is that Eisenhower one day walked into the class of Mills unannounced and took the backseat. Mills, however, noted his presence and changed the topic of the session. He started a very realistic and pragmatic discussion on how to achieve a violent overthrow of the US government. As Mills continued to justify his assertions and make the prospect look achievable, Eisenhower became more uncomfortable and gloomy[TBB69]. Mills also occupied the position of research associated at Columbia’s Bureau of Applied Social Research. He was then criticized to align his political interests with research work too often and was seen as an anarchist even there. The negative perception his friends had about his sociological interests and inclinations did not help his social relationships. Mills however, continued to work on the sociological implications of several aspects of life on different strata of population. His subjects of focus included New Men of Power, White Collar individuals and the Power Elite. He launched three books on the above mentioned subjects in the years 1948, 1951 and 1956 respectively. Mills relationship with the Columbia college also deteriorated with the passage of time. Mills went on to work on subject matters that concerned society in those times. His significant contributions included Causes of the World War III (1958) and The Sociological Imagination (1959). Mills was fascinated by the Cuban revolution and sought it as a third option against communism of the soviets and capitalism of the Americans. After visits of Cuba and interviews with Fidel Castro, Che Guevera and others, he published his work ‘Listen Yankee’ in 1960. Throughout his life, Mills did not fit the stereotypical guise of an intellectual. He was famous for riding a motorcycle, dressing in boots and a leather jacket at a time when the academics dictated more formal attires. Mills was not only a radical intellectually, but also physically. Influences:- Many critics trace Mills’ personality and work to his individual iconoclasm and his refusal to abide by the parameters of sociologists and political henchmen of his time. Despite that, Mills’ though was very relevant and representative to his era. Mills was chronically involved with the major developments of midcentury intellectual life. He is regarded as a key contributor to modern philosophy and many of his ideas were a consequence of several trends including the growing post war prominence of social sciences, differentiated by new theoretical agendas and empirical sophistication, the postwar treatment of German social thought in the United States based on intellectual emigration from Germany and an increasing interest in Max Weber’s work. He was also influenced by the impact of cold war on intellectual life and its consequences with respect to the necessity of taking a clear stance on American foreign policy for thinkers. Some extraneous factors also influenced his ways of thinking, including the growth of popular social criticism during the 1950s and the decline of old left in the 1930s and 1940s followed by the birth of the new left in the 1950s. Mills was inspired by German sociologists including Karl Mannheim and Max Webber and American intellectuals including John Dewey and Thorstein Veblen. He kept a close eye on the sociological and philosophical development of Europe and was greatly influenced by and strongly oriented towards such developments in Europe and Latin America. Charles was an avid supporter and admirer of Max Weber; this is one of the main reasons why his work is centered on pragmatism and rationality. He is often criticized for being pessimistic, however his notions and take on the society cannot be disregarded. Major Concepts:- Rationalization, as Mills saw it, meant the practical application of knowledge to achieve a desired outcome. Its goal is to maximize efficiency while attaining total coordination and control over the social processes needed to achieve that goal. This sort of philosophy is the basic guiding principle behind bureaucracy and division of labor[Cha67]. Some of the basic assumptions that underlined Mills’ major theories and assertions are that: Humans being, he suggests, cannot be understood in isolation from their social and historical backgrounds in which they are nurtured and groomed. Human beings are primarily motivated by norms, values and prevalent belief systems in the society, however any structural change can often create confusions over the meaning and importance of the aforementioned subjects[Cha67]. He further asserts that the velocity and frequency of structural changes within societies increase as institutions grow in size, become more accepting and connect better with each other. This is a major reason why the speed of change has increased such rapidly in recent years and the changes bear far more consequences for everyone than they did before, including for those in control of these organizations and those who are subject to them. Mills asserted that the rise of the white collar work is embedded in the occupational change due to growth in bureaucracies, technological changes, and the increasing need to market goods of the industrial society[Cha02]. Key characteristics of the white collar workers of the modern era, according to Mills, are that they are unorganized and heavily reliant upon large bureaucracies for existence. As a result of this reliance, there is an underlying change in the character and feel of the American life. The transformation towards white collar work has drastically changed the way people live and that has proved to be a good indicative of the American character. He argued that as time has passed, jobs have been transformed into specific functions that are simple in nature, standards have been set to monitor performance and speed of work and wherever possible, human work is replaced by machines. This derogatory act has left the masses voiceless as people feel threatened over their livelihood by machines. Furthermore, all policy making and executive functions of relative importance are centralized and moved up the hierarchy[Cha02]. All this has further led to the situation where the number of routine jobs is increased whereas authority and job autonomy have become attributes of people at the top. There is even greater bifurcation made in terms of power, prestige and income differences. The routine worker is expected to perform like a machine day in and day out, without using his own judgment and all decisions are to abide by the strict rules and regulations laid down by the strategic managers. As a result, he underutilizes his cognitive abilities and often ends up being a burden on the society in case of leaving the job or seeking a separate prospect[Dan09]. The rise of the white collar has had an enormous impact on the education system of industrial societies with educational intelligence and talent being restricted to white collar work where job performance and promotions are based on routine work and seniority rather than performance and following rules and regulations is the order of the day regardless of any possible inefficiencies or potential areas of improvement[Dan09]. Mills argues that due to this structural transformation, the educational system of the United States has transformed towards a vocational focus where different levels of educational institutes have become training grounds for bureaucracies and industrial work. The entire focus of nurturing an American citizen changed from the 19th to the 20th century. While the 19th century nurturing focused on creating the good citizen of democracy, by mid twentieth century, the focus shifted to create a successful man in a society so inundated with specialists that something extraordinary could save geniuses from the prospects of mediocrity[Dan09]. With his book Power and Authority, mills shifted the discussion to the power corridors of the American society and sought to answer questions that often disturbed many a powerful man. Mills identified power in three forms, Coercive power, Authoritative Power and Manipulative Power. Mills argued that coercive power is rarely needed in a modern democratic society largely because of the structural strength of such systems. He suggested that while coercion underlies the other two forms of power, it is rarely used in isolation[Cha00]. Authority is the kind of power that is attached to positions, whether within any specific society, organization or country, and is often justified by the beliefs of the subjects. Manipulation, mills argue, is the most cunning form of power. Such power is used without the conscious knowledge of powerless subjects who would have to face the brunt of the decisions taken with its use. The use of such form of power is very prevalent in today’s environment, and during his time, mills asserted that although bureaucratic structures are based on authority, such authority is slowly shifting towards manipulation[Cha00]. The key success element of the power of manipulation is that it lacks the inefficient and counterproductive use of force and intimidation on its subjects. The power of manipulation is derived from more sophisticated methods of control that are a consequence of social sciences and technology. He argued that the truly efficient organization, in an environment surrounded by bureaucracies relies on manipulative power. Modern management has shifted enormously towards using manipulative power rather than coercion or authority. Such exercise of power is much more subtle and proves to be more efficient and result oriented. This shift can be partly attributed to the changes in technology and partly to the changes in managerial techniques. It must, however, be noted that such changes only facilitate the use of manipulation, the execution of the power successfully is largely reliant on the individual and organization among various other factors[TBB69]. Another major cause of the shift is the centralization of power, both on governmental and organizational levels. Any form of authority needs to have loyal believers and followers, and followers are mostly gauged by legitimating rather than coercion. Manipulation is a result of the failure to legitimize authority in front of subjects. Those who have the power feel the need to manipulate when they believe they cannot reasonably justify their authority[Cha00]. The shift from authority and coercion is comparable to a shift from the obvious to the subtle. And the process of exploitation and assertion of one’s ideas and believes is more of a psychological process rather than a coercive one. The greatest advantage of manipulative power is that it does not allow the oppressed from identifying the oppressor due to its hidden nature. It practically removes all checks and balances of reason, justice and loyalty on the oppressor[Dan09]. In a white-collar work environment, employees, as a result of manipulation of their supervisors, loose freedom of action and creativity on the job and such individuals, mills argues, seek satisfaction elsewhere. Mills argues that as a result of the aforementioned phenomenon, jobs are deprived of their intrinsic values and become mere sources of survival, in the form of money. The Power Elite and Mills Assertions about American Society: Mills openly believed that the American doctrine of balance of power was an ideal that was fading in vigor and truth. A significant contribution to the assertion is the ascent of military power in American society. The growth of military technology has led to an increase in the power of military personnel. Mills suggests that there is a power elite in modern societies who command the vast resources of bureaucratic organizations that have become dominant in industrial societies. The spread of bureaucracies has been accompanied a decline in the number of people running such organizations, while the impact of their decision making has increased enormously. According to Mills, the power elite of any society lie in three major institutions namely, The Economy, the Government and the Military. The masses of the country lie passively at the bottom of the society. Above the masses is an ineffective group of middle level politicians, professionals, educationists, and intellectuals who are alienated from the power elite. The elite of the society occupy key leadership positions within big organizations thus their power is rooted in authority, not of individuals. The power of these institutions has increased enormously and is key to understanding modern industrial societies. Mills however refuses to term this a conspiracy theory, rather he suggests that it is a consequence of a social structure that has enlarged and centralized decision making. This decision making power is then handed to men of similar social background and outlook. As a result, major national power now resides with the elite few in the economic, political and military domains of society. All other institutions have diminished in scope and power[Cha67]. Mills has always asserted that social background plays a key role in shaping individual. The fact that these elite often belong to the same social background results in significant unity and denial of the rights of the masses. Majority of the elite belong to the same income strata, the same educational grooming, are born in the same upper class, and eventually form strong ties through the course of their lives. Some of the coordination comes from the interchange of individuals and the ease with which people in the key strata of society interact with each other. Furthermore, Mills argues that increased coordination is also a result of structural integration of dominant institutions. As each of the elite domains become larger, more consequential and significant and more centralized, its coordination with other spheres of the power elite become more pronounced. In isolation, he argues that the corporate sector is the most powerful among the power elite, however the power elite is the alliance of economic, political and military power[Cha00]. Mills further identified two lower levels of power. The masses are at the bottom; they are unorganized, powerless and ill informed. They are economically dependent and politically exploited. Between the extremes of the masses and the power elite lie special opinion leaders and special interest groups. He identified the American congress and political parties at the middle level of power. Mills concluded that the masses of the world are in the hands of a very few, and that these very few have been acting irresponsibly, leading to disaster. Despite being a pessimist, he argues that this can change as the strong structural change that has made these men so powerful now makes it imperative that these power elite are held responsible for the course of events[Cha00]. The Causes of World War III: By 1958, Mills prime concern was the rise of militarism among the elite. This militarism allowed politicians to cover their lack of leadership and vision. For the corporate elites, preparations for the war and projection of military dominance often served as a guarantee of stable profits through corporate subsidiaries. The masses are often fed with militarism through schooling, manipulation, control of news and the cultivation of pseudo intellectual leaders [Cha60]. The apathy and moral insensibility of the masses has also enabled the power elite to instill manufactured militarism to dominate. Social Problems identified: Mills identified five key social problems that led to most of the problems that exist. 1) Alienation: Mills believed that the lack of proper work and grooming had left the common man alienated from the society. This problem is prevalent in the modern society due to the rise of bureaucratic structures of organizations. He believes that alienation stems from the lack of ownership of means of production and the increasing division of labor. 2) Apathy: A basic issue with the masses is that they have lost their faith in leaders and are hence very apathetic. They do not care about what goes around in politics and mills characterize this as the root of many of the modern day problems. This condition leads to moral insensitivity and acceptance of atrocities committed by leaders. They lack the courage and character to react to the actions of their leaders, even if they result in dire consequences for themselves[Dan09]. This phenomenon is aided by mass communication through the number of images aimed at the masses in which they are portrayed as helpless bystanders. Mills connects this insensibility to the process of rationalization. Our acts of cruelty and maliciousness are split from the ethics of men, both the victims and the oppressors. We perform such acts as a part of our roles in organizations and are not guided by our own conscience but by those of others. As a result, many of our acts are inhuman, not because of the level of barbarism, but because they are impersonal, efficient and performed without thought or emotion[Cha67] 3) Threats to Democracy: Mills believed that the prevalent alienation, political indifference and economic and political concentration of power act as threats to democracy. 4) Threats to Freedom and Reason: Mills showed great concern for freedom and reason and considered them key components of life. He characterizes the trends that threaten these values as being coordinated with the major trends of the contemporary society. These trends include the mass centralization and enlargement of bureaucratic organizations and the concentration of such enormous entities in the hands of a few small elite. He believes that any rational organization is an alienating organization that destroys freedom and will power. It alienates the individual from his conscious conduct of behavior, thought and emotions. The individual is then indifferent to the existence of his own conscience and is completely guided by the conscience of his peers and character put by the prescribed roles and rules of the organization. Mills warns that a society that is dominated by rational social organizations does not cater to the goodwill, reason and intelligence of all. Furthermore, it is through rational organizations that today’s cruel leaders successfully exercise their manipulation and authority. They also, eventually, deny their subjects their right to exercise their own judgments Theoretical Orientation: Mills was often criticized and ostracized by his fellow men for being radical, skeptical and pessimistic about the functionality of the system and the society in general. His ideas were greatly influenced by Karl and Max Weber and he was not an avid supporter of American capitalism. His criticism of the power elite is indicative of his rebellious nature and his ability to identify loopholes in the structure of the system that keep the common man on his toes and deprive him of his individual thoughts and independence. He was a critic of bureaucratic structural organizations and felt threatened by the increasing rise of such organization’s power and reach within several strata of the society. Furthermore, he also asserted that the society in general also played a role in its own downfall by acting as mere spectators in times of turmoil or tyranny exercised by the power elite. He was a critic of the increasing influence of military personnel on the power corridors and later, the emergence of manufactured militarism that would be used to justify acts that are not in the benefit of the masses but served the power elite significantly. He was a leftist who argued against the prevalent structure and did so successfully by identifying the underlying causes of the tyranny and often providing solutions and alternatives. This is one of the main reasons why many members of the power elite felt uncomfortable in his presence or when he argued against their notions[Dan09]. Mills was a thinker. He was a person who refused to remain silent and loose his conscience in times when people considered routine work their life and any other individual thoughts or actions were either subsided structurally or considered redundant. He was a proponent of independent thinking and a critic of the system that was a consequence of enlargement of industrial societies and increased coordination between key spheres of society that led to the formation of the power elite including corporate and economic giants, military and politicians. His contribution to the field of sociology remains a key subject of study and has vast implications to this very day. Bibliography Kat00: , (Mills & Mills, 2000), TBB69: , (Bottormore, 1969), Cha67: , (Mills & Horowitz, Power, politics, and people: the collected essays of C. Wright Mills, 1967), Cha02: , (Mills & Jacob, White Collar The American middle classes, 2002), Dan09: , (Geary, 2009), Cha00: , (Mills & Wolfe, The Power Elite, 2000), Cha60: , (Mills C. W., The Causes of World War three, 1960), Read More