POL 310

Political Parties

 Critiques of Pluralism

1. Participatory Democracy Critique (Jack Walker, Carole Pateman)

 Classical or traditional democratic theorists who believe the major emphasis of democracy should be the creation of a “democratic community”

Said pluralism was “elitist” or, at best, apolitical, with its emphasis on democratic values shared among the elite and  no concern about the development of democratic values among the masses

Some linked pluralism to behavioralism’s emphasis on a “value-free” political science which saw apathy as a form of  democratic consent  and is contrasted  with classical democratic theory’s emphasis on the building of democratic communities.

Walker argues that pluralism’s narrow focus ignores many other forms of political participation (nontraditional ones such as social movements and other forms of discontent which elites try to suppress)  and thus pluralism is a conservative theory

Walker argues that pluralist political scientists may become sophisticated apologists for the existing political order when there is no democratic consensus or real opportunities for political participation

2.    Party Government Critique  (E.E. Schattschneider)

In two classic political works,  Party Government (1942)  and The Semisovereign People (1960), Schattschneider  argued that more than 90% of the people were excluded from participation.  In a pluralist system, pressure groups have “an upper-class bias”  He believed that only parties presented an opportunity to represent the collective interests of the society.  He particularly disputed the pluralist notion that parties are the “aggregators of interests” in a society.  He argued that parties, in order to win, had to “appeal to general interests and promote accommodations and compromises among many interests both specific and general”.

Sarah McCally Morehouse’s study of interest groups in the states (1981) discovered that states in which interest groups were strong tended to be those which were rural, sparsely populated and in which one industry predominates (IO, KY, AL, GA, LA. MS, MT, OK, SC, TX, WV, WA, NC).  This is contrasted with those states that had weak interest groups which had large diversified economies  (CT, MA, MI, MN, NJ, NY, RI, WI, CO, ND)

3. Structuralist Critique   (Charles Lindbloom)

Lindbloom was an early contributor to plural theory.  He later criticizes plural theory, especially in his book Politics and Markets (1977) that argues that in a capitalist political system it is the private sphere, not the public sphere which creates wealth, jobs and employment.   It is government’s responsibility to create the environment or structure that will encourage business to have confidence and invest in the economy.  Government will defer to business without the need for pressure.

4. False Consciousness Critique   (William Connolly, Steven Lukes)

A term originally derived from the writings of Marx but employed by both Marxists and non-Marxists which argues that pluralism severs or distorts the critical link between thought and political action.  The dominant interests define the nature of interests (economic), identifies who has and doesn’t have them (if you don’t participate you don’t have interests), controls the vehicles through which interests are shaped (the educational system, the media) and provides messages to lower and underclasses about what is in their interest (“What’s good for General Motors is what’s good for the country”). 

5. Nondecisions Critique     (Bachrach and Baratz)

Bachrach and Baratz argue that there are two faces of power.  Pluralism focuses on one face --- decisions that are “on the table”.  These are decisions made in the public arena.  They argue however, that there are decisions kept of the table or out of the public arena and these become “nondecisions”.  It is often powerful, vested interests who seek to keep many important decisions out of the public arena.

6. Community Power Critique    (The Lynds, Hunter, Judd)

This approach actually led to the development of plural theory.  Community power theorists tend to argue that one set of elites (usually economic elites) tend to dominate all of society (Hunter's Atlanta and the Lynd's Muncie). 

7.  Interest Group Liberalism Critique   (Lowi, Walker)

Argues that pluralism's notion of new interest groups having access to the policymaking process is not correct.  Lowi's notion of "iron triangles" and Griffith's notion of "policy whirlpools" suggest that a relatively small number of actors dominate in various policy arenas.  Some have characterized these groups as "subgovernments".  These "subgovernments" are conservative in nature, that is, they seek to keep things the way they are.  Change is thus "incremental"  ( a positive term to a pluralist, but not necessarily to a critic of plural theory).

8. Logic of Collective Action Critique  (Olson)

In his classic work, The Logic of Collective Action, Mancur Olson criticized pluralism's assumption that groups could arise, if so motivated (latent groups).  He argued that one should concentrate on actual groups.  He argued that the "free rider" problem for large groups made small groups more successful.