Ch mills power elite summary read. Mills C.R. The ruling elite. Professional career milestones

Book author:

Description of the book

A very informative and well-reasoned book by the American liberal-bourgeois sociologist and publicist Mills is mainly devoted to proving the thesis that internal and foreign policy modern America is entirely determined by a narrow clique consisting of the bosses of the largest capitalist monopolies, military leaders and official heads of state. The author makes interesting observations; tions and facts showing the relationship between the heads of the largest corporations and the heads of the state. apparatus" and military leaders, the system of selection and training of leading administrators of capitalist monopolies, the process of militarization of the United States and the political rise of the military. The book contains rich factual material that proves the inconsistency of modern apologetic theories of "people's capitalism" and the "revolution of managers."

The book is intended for historians, economists, public law specialists, journalists, as well as a wide range of readers interested in contemporary political and social life in the United States.

The book is published with slight abbreviations: some details are omitted that are of interest only to the American reader.

Moscow State University named after M.V. Lomonosov

Abstract on the topic:

"Charles Wright Mills.

The theory of the political elite"

is done by a student # course ### , gr. ####

#################

Moscow - 2001

1. Charles Wright Mills

2. The theory of the political elite

3. List of used literature

Mills Charles Wright (28/8/1916-20/3/1962).

American sociologist and publicist. Graduated from the University of Texas (1939). Since 1965, professor of sociology at Columbia University. follower of M. Weber and K. Mannheim. He experienced a certain influence of the ideas of K. Marx, considered his method fruitful, but adhered to the view that Marxist theory was “outdated.” Mills gained popularity through his sharp criticism of the inhumane tendencies of modern American society. The concept of “ruling, dominant class” was contrasted with the concept of “power elite”, considering it as a social group consisting of the industrial, political and military elite. Mills saw the main social danger in the growing “rationality without reason,” that is, in the use by the “power elite” of rational means developed by scientists to achieve irrational goals. Mills pinned his hopes for the humanization of society on the intelligentsia, which is capable of possessing “sociological imagination” (the ability to understand the processes taking place in society); denied the revolutionary role of the working class.

Mills was a proponent of the theory mass society, a concept in sociology and philosophy that argues that modern society is characterized by industrialization and urbanization, standardization of production and mass consumption, bureaucratization of public life, and the spread of mass communication and “mass culture.” After World War II, the theory was divided into a number of directions: criticism from the positions of liberalism and romanticism of authoritarian tendencies in the development of society, alienation, conformism, which Mills joined (also E. Fromm, D. Riesman); interpretation of mass production and consumption as a condition for the establishment of social equality (D. Bell, E. Shils).

Mills called his sociological method comparative and historical, and believed necessary creation a new sociology designed to identify the historical specifics of modern sociology and explore social changes leading to overcoming alienation. Analyzing the massive social conflicts that occurred in the 50s under the influence of the results of the Second World War in many countries of Eastern Europe, Asia, Africa, developed his own concept of social conflict. He justified the existence of social conflicts by the dominance of the ruling elite, which included politicians, businessmen, and military personnel.

He criticized both the empiricism of American sociology and the abstractness of the so-called high theory of Parsons. However, Mills was unable to provide them with a positive alternative. Mills' views influenced the formation of the ideology of the so-called "new left" in the United States.

Political elite.

Over the past 150 years, the most famous contributions to the theory of the elite have been made by such scientists as Hamilton, Veblen, Michels, and Mills.

The founder of federalism, Hamilton, considered the elite from the position of objectively existing, in his opinion, differences between citizens who are equal only by birth; Veblen - as an economic and financial oligarchy of specific goals and values; Michels established the “iron law of elites”, based on the fact that the elite is an ahistorical social phenomenon; Mills introduced the concept of “elite fragmentation”, discovering that in all spheres of modern activity there are separate elites.

One can define the “political elite”. This is a certain group, a layer of society, which concentrates state power in its hands and occupies positions of power, governing society. These are mainly high-ranking professional politicians endowed with power functions and powers. These are also senior civil servants, professionally prepared to participate in the development and implementation of political programs and in the development of social development strategies.

Schopenhauer noted: “There are three types of aristocracy in the world: 1) the aristocracy of birth and rank; 2) the monetary aristocracy and 3) the aristocracy of mind and talent. The latter, in fact, is the most noble and eminent and is recognized as such, if only you give it time. Even Friedrich The Great said: "Les ames privilegiees rangent a l"egal des souveraines" - "gifted people on a par with monarchs" - when his marshal found it awkward that ministers and generals were given a place at the marshal's table, and Voltaire at the table of royalty and princes.

In the 20th century, the concept of elite firmly entered the political science lexicon, despite the objections of many representatives of socio-political thought; in particular, it does not “fit” with the ideology of Marxism. According to J. Mill, the concept of elites comes from inequality, but inequality is determined by human nature. The etymology of the term elite implies the best, most worthy representatives, which is not always true. But although these objections have grounds, the rejection of a term that reflects a certain reality, a certain social relationship does not make sense.

According to the definition of the Hungarian scientist M. Vajda, the elite of society is “a group of people standing at the top level of the hierarchy, capable of creating patterns of need and behavior.”

German sociologist P. Dreitzel: the elite consists of holders of the highest positions in a group, organization or institution, selection into it is carried out according to the principle of “productivity of knowledge.” Therefore, the elite, through their positions and roles, have the power and influence to shape the social structure of society.

“- The elite is a group structured in a certain way, which, due to its special social status, relevant political conditions, public perception, certain political traditions, unique place in the system of government institutions, ideological picture of the world accepted in a given society, has the potential for decisive influence ( cultural, economic, ideological or political) to most other groups and institutions in this society" (Sh. Sultanov)

Based on the scope of power functions, one can distinguish: the highest (immediate environment of the president, prime minister, speaker of parliament, heads of bodies state power, leading political parties), middle (parliamentarians, senators, deputies, governors, mayors, etc.) and administrative (the highest stratum of civil servants occupying senior positions in ministries, departments and other government bodies) elite.

Functions of the political elite.

In first place is strategic function. Its content is to develop a strategy and tactics for the development of society, and determine a political program of action.

Communicative the function provides for the effective representation, expression and reflection in political programs of the interests and needs of various social groups and segments of the population and their implementation in practical actions.

Organizational function. The political elite has always faced and will continue to face the need to organize the masses. Among potential political elites, the most effective will be those that are more able to secure mass support for their programs. This function provides for the implementation of the developed course in practice and the implementation of political decisions.

Integrative the function is to strengthen the stability of society, the stability of its political and economic systems, to prevent conflicts, irreconcilable antagonisms, acute contradictions, and deformation of political structures. Important substantive elements of this function are: the unity of various segments of the population, the harmonization of their social interests, the achievement of consensus, cooperation and close political interaction of all forces in society.

The mechanism of formation of the political elite.

There are two trends in the formation and reproduction of the political elite in the world.

The first is typical for states with non-democratic regimes and is characterized by closedness, a narrow social base of formation by a circle of persons carrying out the selection. Common in states with low social mobility. Closed type recruitment is historically the first and therefore prevails in conservative societies.

The second is typical for democratic states and, accordingly, it is determined by a much wider range of social base and requires a high political culture for its functioning, which is a consequence of the development political system. Although for countries with democratic principles of statehood, the range of openness may vary greatly.

The ruling elite: concept and structure. In addition to the political elite, the ruling elite also includes economic, cultural, ideological, scientific, information and military elites.

Economic elite- a social stratum that includes representatives of large capital, large owners.

Ideological, information elite- leading representatives humanities, education, media, which perform in society the function of forming worldview positions, value orientations, ideas and beliefs of people.

Military elite. The degree of its influence on public life is determined by the level of militarization of the country and the nature of the political regime.

Cultural elite includes the most authoritative and influential figures in art, education, literature, and representatives of the creative intelligentsia.

The scientific elite includes the most gifted part of the intellectual elite. Its role is determined by the degree of influence on processes such as the development of science and technology, scientific and technological progress.

Elite theories.

The founders of the modern theory of elites can be called Italian sociologists G. Mosca and V. Pareto. V. Pareto identified elites: economic, political and spiritual. He was the founder functionalist elite theory. According to the Italian Institute of Politics, any society is characterized by elitism. This is based on the fact of natural differences between people: physical, psychological, mental, moral. This elite is characterized by special political and organizational qualities. The masses recognize the elite's right to power. Elites replace each other during the struggle for power, since no one voluntarily gives up power. The fact of the existence of the elite is not refuted by practically anyone except Marxists. Although various schools of sociologists and political scientists have opposing opinions on this matter.

Value theories(W. Ropke, Ortega y Gasset). The elite is a layer of society endowed with high management abilities. The elite is the result, to a large extent, of natural selection of individuals with outstanding qualities and abilities to manage society. The formation of an elite does not contradict the principles of democracy. Social equality of people must be understood as equality of opportunity.

Totalitarian elitism. Elite nomenklatura.(M. Djilas, M. Voslensky). Over a certain period of time, a ruling layer is formed that is vitally interested in preserving the totalitarian system and has many privileges. The formation of personnel is strictly regulated on the basis of the principle of negative selection - it is almost impossible for a decent, highly moral person to pass through the sieve of nomenclature selection.

Concepts of Elite Pluralism(R. Dai, S. Keller, O. Stammer, D. Risman). the elite is plural. No single group within it is capable of exerting a decisive influence on all areas of life at the same time. In a democracy, power is distributed among various groups of elites, who influence decision-making by defending their interests. Competition prevents the formation of a coherent elite group and makes it possible for control by the masses.

The theory of elite democracy. Neoelitism(R. Aron, J. Plametats, J. Sartori, P. Bachrach) understanding of democracy as a competitive struggle of contenders for the leadership of society during election campaigns. The elite does not rule, but leads the masses with their voluntary consent, through free elections.

American historians of political science usually do not distinguish between the theories of elite pluralism and democratic elitism, although these differences exist, and they are ultimately associated with the divergence of ideological positions of their supporters, who gravitate towards the liberal (theories of elite pluralism) or conservative (neo-elitism) ideological poles - political spectrum.

Radical elitism. Left-liberal concepts(R. Michels, R. Mills). Society is governed exclusively by one ruling elite. Rule by the people is technically unfeasible: direct democracy is impossible, at least in countries with large populations, and representative democracy inevitably leads to the people losing part of their sovereignty, alienated in favor of elected representatives who, due to certain laws, turn into an elite.

The solution to the question of whether society can function without a political elite is possible both at the level of political philosophy and political sociology. Within the framework of political philosophy, which is predominantly a normative theory, we can talk about a society without an elite as the ideal of a society in which the high political culture of the population allows for maximum involvement of members of society in the management of all public affairs (i.e., raising the level of the masses to the level of the elite. In conditions of the information society, its computerization is possible efficient system direct and, most importantly, feedback between governing bodies and all members of society, allowing to directly and immediately identify and take into account the opinions of all members of society on all issues social management. It is no coincidence that a number of modern political scientists and sociologists recognize that the widespread introduction of computers (especially by future generations) can contribute to the decentralization of political decisions and the revival of direct democracy. The information society creates conditions for the implementation of the trend of expanding the participation of the masses in the management of the political life of society, for the formation of a competent informed citizen.

List of used literature

1. TSB M: “Soviet Encyclopedia”, 1974

2.Russian historical political science. Edited by S. Kislitsyn. Rostov-on-Don: Phoenix, 1998

3. Reader on the new Russian self-awareness:

Sh. Sultanov. “Karma of the elite: inhale-exhale, night-day.”

In his work “The Power Elite,” R. Mills defined the elite as “those who occupy positions of command.” Since power is in modern society institutionalized insofar as those who are at the head of social institutions occupy “command strategic positions in the social structure.” In this case, a social institution is understood as a set of roles and statuses designed to satisfy a specific social need. Among the “institutions”, the most significant for society, according to R. Mills, are political, economic and military. Those who head these “institutions” constitute the power elite. In practice, it is the triple elite represented by political leaders the first plan, corporate leaders and military leadership makes the most important political decisions.

R. Mills explained: “By the power elite we mean those political, economic and military circles that, in a complex interweaving of groupings, share the right to make decisions, least of national importance.” The power elite has group cohesion due to common interests and personal solidarity arising from common education, social origin, psychological kinship, character interpersonal relationships, lifestyle, etc.

Close relations of solidarity, mutual support and exchange are developing between the three institutions of power. This nature of relations is due to the coincidence of the objective interests of the military, political and economic departments in ensuring stability and progressive development of society as a whole. However, the social similarity and psychological community of people occupying command positions in power structures are also important. That is why they can easily move from one structure (for example, political) to another (for example, economic). But, as R. Mills noted, the power elite of politicians includes only the most influential people. And since the center of decision-making in the United States has moved from Congress to presidential structures, the most influential are not the representatives of the people (legislators), but the political “appointees” nominated by the president. Professional politicians who have gone through a large school of party work are being pushed aside by “appointees” who came from economics and other spheres. As a result, R. Mills came to the conclusion that the elite is not a dominant group formed on the basis of free elections, but is an oligarchy consisting of “appointees” of the president.

MILLS, CHARLES WRIGHT(Mills, Charles Wright) (1916–1962) - one of the founders of the radical left movement in Western sociology, specializing in problems of social structure.

Charles Mills was born on August 28, 1916 in Hueco, Texas, into a typical middle-class American family (his father was an insurance broker and his mother was a housewife). The future sociologist began his education with technical specialization (in 1934 he graduated from the Dallas Technical University high school with a specialization in architecture and civil engineering), however, the young man did not receive any satisfaction from these activities. In 1935 he transferred to the University of Texas, where he quickly became an outstanding student. His attention was drawn to the philosophy of sociology, largely based on the pragmatism of George Herbert Mead. By the end of his master's degree, Mills already had publications in fairly reputable sociological journals.

After receiving his bachelor's and master's degrees in philosophy in 1939, Mills moved to the University of Wisconsin, where he became interested in studying the theories of Max Weber and Karl Marx. In 1941, C. Mills defended his doctoral dissertation (its high level was not affected even by the fact that the obstinate applicant refused to take into account the findings reviewers' comments) dedicated to the problems of pragmatism. Even then, he was most interested in social stratification and the moral role of intellectuals, as described by Max Weber.

WITH early years The American sociologist was distinguished by a very stormy and quarrelsome character. He was simply drawn to criticize the surrounding reality - and the social system home country, and his fellow sociologists. This restlessness also affected Mills' personal life. In 1937, he married Dorothy Helen James, and in 1940 he divorced her, but in 1941 he remarried her, and... again (finally) divorced in 1947. Subsequently, Mills was married twice more, with his last marriage he joined shortly before his death; Despite his health problems, he had children from each of his marriages.

After successfully completing his doctoral studies, Mills received his first academic position at the University of Maryland. And in 1945 he began working at the Research Bureau of Columbia University (New York), which was engaged in applied social research. Work under the leadership of the famous J. Landberg was a good school of field research. The meticulous young scientist sought not only to lead empirical research, but also to visit everywhere personally. Thanks to this work, extensive sociological information has accumulated in his hands (for example, in the state of New York alone, he studied about 30 cities). The Bureau's tenure ended with Mills being fired after failing on a project assigned to him. However, he managed to stay at Columbia University itself, one of the leading universities in the United States.

In 1946, the scientist received the position of associate professor. Charles Mills was a member of the American Sociological Society and served as its vice president in 1947–1948. Despite the fact that he was able to receive the position of professor only in 1956 (most likely, such a delay was explained by the leftist views held by the scientist), Mills nevertheless ignored all proposals to change his place of work, considering New York to be the center of intellectual activity.

His difficult character has not improved over the years. Among his colleagues, he had practically no not only friends, but also simply good acquaintances. For example, a relationship with his co-author and former Wisconsin teacher, Hans Gehrt, ended with him calling Charles “a great businessman, a brazen boy, a promising young man with a desire to make money, and a Texas cowboy with a gun and a horse.”

Since C. Mills's works were devoted to criticism of American society, in the former Soviet Union he was perceived as a friend and like-minded person. In addition, Mills was a proponent of the concept of peaceful coexistence of the two systems. All this served as a reason for the American sociologist to visit the USSR. But even here there was a scandal. The toast he made at the gala banquet “To the day when full meeting the works of Leon Trotsky will be published in the Soviet Union!” was more than defiant. It should be emphasized that criticism of capitalist society has always coexisted with Mills (as well as with his followers - the “new left”) with a critical attitude towards traditional Marxism and the Soviet system.

In December 1960, the scientist was preparing for a television debate on American policy in Latin America. Overexertion resulted in a heart attack. Charles Mills died 15 months later, aged just 45, from another heart attack.

Despite the fact that Charles Mills wrote quite a lot during his not too long life scientific works- For example, New Men of Power: America's Workforce Leaders(1948) or White Collar: American Middle Class(1951) - two works written in last period his life. This Power elite(1956) and Sociological imagination(1959). Both of these works had a pronounced critical orientation: the first criticized the social system of the United States, the second - American sociology.

In progress Power elite((The Power Elite), M., 1959), Mills carried out an institutional analysis of contemporary America. As he points out, among all spheres of social life, three dominate – economic, political and military. It is here that we must look for the roots of the real elite of society. Mills concluded that America was led by a more or less permanent group of families. Representatives of this “ruling elite” have so much in common (from religion and education to membership in the same clubs) that they represent a single group that is gradually concentrating all power in their hands. Although these people belong to different parties, they have similar interests and views. As a result, this leads to the fact that the elections of the President or Congressmen are, in fact, a fiction that has no significant. Thus, the country is ruled in its own interests by a narrow ruling elite, which occupies the highest level in the power structure. The bottom level in this structure is occupied by the majority of citizens, who are supposedly the pillars of democracy, but in fact are subject to the will of the elite. The sole rule of the ruling elite, as Charles Mills argued, not only poses a threat to democracy, but can also provoke a third world war. Sharply criticizing the dominance of the elite, Charles Mills placed positive hopes on intellectuals, who, in his opinion, were to become the core that would strengthen American society, returning it to its democratic roots.

Charles Mills's second work was tantamount to a manifesto denouncing American sociology. Main objects of criticism Sociological imagination (The Sociological Imagination) are two key concepts and associated two iconic figures of American sociology of the 1950s. The main problem of the direction that was called the empirical industry (its leader was P. Lazarsfeld), according to Mills, was that it replaced the content of the issue being studied with methodology. As a result of this approach, scientists receive abstract empirics, which takes the researcher away from the reality being studied. Another by-product of mass empirical research is its bureaucratization, that is, dependence on sponsors, on reporting, on loyalty to certain groups. All this leads to a decrease in creative potential and to increased dogmatism in sociology. The second object of attack by Charles Mills is the “big theories” in sociology (primarily the theories of T. Parsons). Mills considered these theories to be overly crowded with all kinds of concepts and too abstract, and behind the highly abstract theorizing was hidden the poverty of content.

Sharply criticizing American sociology, Charles Mills proposed looking for a way out of the crisis of sociological science by returning to the traditions of classical sociology from the times of O. Comte, G. Spencer, M. Weber and others. In order not to fall into “abstract empiricism” or get carried away by “big theories” “, the scientist must study individuals taking into account the structure of society and the place that this society occupies in the general history of mankind. In other words, C. Mills advocated the unification of three approaches in sociology - the study of biographies, the study of society and its history. The combination of these three approaches is the “sociological imagination.”

IN last years During his life, C. Mills began to take an active interest in Marxism and the problems of the Third World. This is reflected in his latest works such as Listen up, Yankees: revolution in Cuba(1960) and Marxists(1962). In the first of these, Mills defended the democratic nature of the Cuban revolution, calling for a rapprochement between capitalism and socialism. In his last book, Mills, revealing the ideas of radical left ideologists, outlined the problem of the gap between Marxist ideas and their practical use in the Soviet Union and other countries of the “socialist camp”. In the early 1960s, during the era Cuban missile crisis, in the USA the attitude towards Marxism and leftist ideas in general was quite critical, so Mills’ radicalism was not popular. His support for the Cuban Revolution and criticism of American imperialism further alienated Mills from his contemporaries. In the last years of his life, Charles Mills found himself practically an outcast in American sociology.

The rise of his popularity began posthumously, in the late 1960s, when the “youth revolution” sharply radicalized the scientific community, giving rise to the “new left” movement. Mills is now considered primarily as the founder of modern elitology.

Natalia Latova