c

cc c

c

c



c
c
c

c
c
c
c
c
c
c

cc


c c

 c

c cc
 c !"#$c
Classical pluralism is the view that politics and decision making are located mostly in the framework
of government, but that many non-governmental groups use their resources to exert influence. The
central question for classical pluralism is how power and influence is distributed in a political
process. Groups of individuals try to maximize their interests. Lines of conflict are multiple and
shifting as power is a continuous bargaining process between competing groups. There may be
inequalities but they tend to be distributed and evened out by the various forms and distributions of
resources throughout a population. Any change under this view will be slow and incremental, as
groups have different interests and may act as "veto groups" to destroy legislation that they do not
agree with. The existence of diverse and competing interests is the basis for a democratic
equilibrium[1], and is crucial for the obtaining of goals by individuals. A polyarchy - a situation of
open competition for electoral support within a significant part of the adult population - ensures
competition of group interests and relative equality. Pluralists stress civil rights, such as freedom of
expression and organization, and an electoral system with at least two parties. On the other hand,
since the participants in this process constitute only a tiny fraction of the populace, the public acts
mainly as bystanders. This is not necessarily undesirable for two reasons: (1) it may be
representative of a population content with the political happenings, or (2) political issues require
continuous and expert attention, which the average citizen does not have.[citation needed]

Important theorists of pluralism are Robert A. Dahl, who wrote the seminal pluralist work, Who
Governs?, and Seymour Martin Lipset

Pluralists emphasize that power is not a physical entity that individuals either have or do not have,
but flows from a variety of different sources. Rather, people are powerful because they control
various resources. Resources are assets that can be used to force others to do what one wants.
Politicians become powerful because they command resources that people want or fear or respect.
The list of possibilities is virtually endless: legal authority, money, prestige, skill, knowledge,
charisma, legitimacy, free time, experience, celebrity, and public support.

Pluralists also stress the differences between potential and actual power as it stands. Actual power
means the ability to compel someone to do something and is the view of power as a causation. Dahl
describes power as a "realistic relationship, such as A's capacity for acting in such a manner as to
control B's responses" [A preface to Democratic Theory]. Potential power refers to the possibility of
turning resources into actual power. Cash, one of many resources, is only a stack of bills until it is put
to work. Malcolm X, for example, was certainly not a rich person. But by using resources such as his
forceful personality, organizational skills, and especially the legitimacy of his cause, he had a greater
impact on American politics than most wealthy people. A particular resource like money cannot
automatically be equated with power because the resource can be used skillfully or clumsily, fully or
partially, or not at all.
The pluralist approach to the study of power, states that nothing categorical about power can be
assumed in any community. The question then is not who runs a community, but if any group in fact
does. To determine this, pluralists study specific outcomes. The reason for this is that they believe
human behavior is governed in large part by inertia. That said, actual involvement in overt activity is
a more valid marker of leadership than simply a reputation. Pluralists also believe that there is no
one particular issue or point in time at which any group must assert itself to stay true to its own
expressed values, but rather that there are a variety of issues and points at which this is possible.
There are also costs involved in taking action at allͶnot only losing, but expenditure of time and
effort. While a structuralist may argue that power distributions have a rather permanent nature, this
rationale says that power may in fact be tied to issues, which vary widely in duration. Also, instead of
focusing on actors within a system, the emphasis is on the leadership roles itself. By studying these,
it can be determined to what extent there is a power structure present in a society.

Three of the major tenets of the pluralist school are (1) resources and hence potential power are
widely scattered throughout society; (2) at least some resources are available to nearly everyone;
and (3) at any time the amount of potential power exceeds the amount of actual power.

Finally, and perhaps most important, no one is all-powerful unless proven so through empirical
observation. An individual or group that is influential in one realm may be weak in another. Large
military contractors certainly throw their weight around on defense matters, but how much sway do
they have on agricultural or health policies? A measure of power, therefore, is its scope, or the range
of areas where it is successfully applied as observed by a researcher. Pluralists believe that with few
exceptions power holders usually have a relatively limited scope of influence. Pluralism does leave
room for an elitist situation- Should a group A continuously exert power over multiple groups. For a
pluralist to accept this notion, it must be empirically observed and not assumed so by definition.

For all these reasons power cannot be taken for granted. One has to observe it empirically in order
to know who really governs. The best way to do this, pluralists believe, is to examine a wide range of
specific decisions, noting who took which side and who ultimately won and lost. Only by keeping
score on a variety of controversies can one begin to identify actual power holders. Pluralism was
associated with behavioralism.

A contradiction to pluralist power is often cited from the origin of one's power. Although certain
groups may share power, people within those groups set agendas, decide issues, and take on
leadership roles through their own qualities. Some theorists argue that these qualities cannot be
transferred, thus creating a system where elitism still exists. What this theory fails to take into
account is the prospect of overcoming these qualities by garnering support from other groups. By
aggregating power with other organizations, interest groups can over-power these non-transferable
qualities. In this sense, political pluralism still applies to these aspects.
#%&&'"c !"#$c
Social Dominance Theory was first formulated by Psychology Professors Jim Sidanius and Felicia
Pratto. The key principles of the theory are that societies are stratified by age, sex and group. These
group divisions are based on ethnicity, religion, nationality, and so on. Human social hierarchies
consist of a hegemonic group at the top and negative reference groups at the bottom. More
powerful social roles are increasingly likely to be occupied by a hegemonic group member (for
example, an older white male). Males are more dominant than females, and they possess more
political power (the iron law of andrarchy). Most high-status positions are held by males Prejudiced
beliefs such as racism, sexism, nationalism and classism are all manifestations of this same principle
of social hierarchy. The origin of social hierarchies is given an evolutionary explanation: prehistoric
human societies organized in hierarchies were more efficient at combat than non-hierarchical
groups, giving a competitive advantage to groups disposed towards social hierarchies.

LegitimizationVarious processes of hierarchical discrimination are driven by legitimizing myths

(Sidanius, 1992), which are beliefs justifying social dominance, such as paternalistic myths
(hegemony serves society, looks after incapable minorities), reciprocal myths (suggestions that
hegemonic groups and outgroups are actually equal), and sacred myths (the divine right of kings- a
religion-approved mandate for hegemony to govern). Pratto et al. (1994) suggest the Western idea
of meritocracy and individual achievement as an example of a legitimizing myth, and argues that
meritocracy produces only an illusion of fairness. SDT draws on social identity theory, suggesting
that social comparison processes drive individual discrimination (ingroup favouritism).
Discriminatory acts (such as insulting remarks about minorities) are performed because they
increase the actors' self-esteem.

I.E. (Myths) Social myths are common knowledge based reasons for the subjugation of one particular
group or person = genocide, for a particular purpose or it can not be defined as discrimination, only
bias, which will have to be talked about at length itself if a real in-depth approach is to be taken to
this subject. The chaos involved in this discussion can be explained by saying that society first is
based on reason supported by facts and followed by acts and made up of people: Class, order,
neighborhoods, work sites, government, local state and federal, accompanied by the
mischievousness of life they all produce when they interact together as one reason to be.

"&("c&(c(#%&&'"Consistent with the assumption that males tend to be more dominant than
females, SDT predicts that males will tend to have a higher social dominance orientation (SDO). As
such, males will tend to function as hierarchy enforcers, that is, they will carry out acts of
discrimination such as the systematic terror by police officers (Sidanius, 1992) and the extreme
example of death squads and concentration camps. This is supported by evidence such as police
officers possessing measurably higher levels of SDO [2]. SDT posits that males will tend to have a
higher social dominance orientation. I.e. Mr. Marc Taylor States Let's take the year 2010 and the
eleventh month of the year and use it as a example of what the author is trying to say in this article:
What with the positioning done by the journal cites, can only express what society all really knows to
be true, by the doing of/acting out of their thought life, So if it is the thought life that has ultimate
control over the individual act then we can say that intelligence plays a part in the theorems of social
dominance as expressed by -Mr. Marc A. Taylor- D.T., A.A, T.T Nov. 2010 Wikipedia article. Because
the hierarchy of control says that the best people to have in offices of control are the most
intelligent, for reasons they will be more able to handle the unforeseen or extraneous variables then
coincide will leadership. Or be able to put out any uprisings, and somehow tame the acts of the
people. Take the Public School Systems and the arguments over jurisdictions and control of school
districts The separation of power laws then come in to play when you say one can not have ultimate
control over the utilities, Centers of education, Police powers, etc.: it is just a explanation on the
basis power structure of any civilization. Skill should then follow intelligence say modern day
theorist: so in came the evolution of the likely take to the matter of living especially for the
uneducated. There by ensuring that the populous would slow its growth in the absorption of
knowledge, thereby securing work for past generations to rule over the less educated. Then this
shows us a path of reasoning that says because these things must take place for a proper civilization
to thrive a system of education must be set up to prove who is most capable of receiving the most
attention for that proper education most recommended by the internal and external powers. The
rule over the whole of society. So the private education was made public to give civilians something
to aspire for, outside of trade skilled workers there was no other work but work to be done for that
day and that was the only work one was allowed to do because too much work could become bad
for someone else if another person had it to do. So labor laws were reformed that said this is the
required frame of reference for time in this position to perform the duties as described, proscribed,
etc. and when no more time avails itself for the one it should be given to another so that the best
possible outcome can come from work. so then work equals the amount of pay and then is
contingent upon skill and intelligence, pedigree, favor, merit, acts known about the workers life, or
employed individual. etc.

")"%#&'c)#*
#'c#%&&'"c!"#$ is a consideration of group conflict which describes

human society as consisting of oppressive group-based hierarchy structures. The key principles of
Social Dominance Theory are:

†c Individuals are stratified by age, sex and group. Group identification is based on ethnicity,
religion, nationality, and so on.
†c Human social hierarchy consists of a hegemonic group at the top and negative reference
groups at the bottom
†c As a role gets more powerful, the probability it is occupied by a hegemonic group member
increases (Law of increasing proportion)
†c Males are more dominant than females; they possess more political power (the iron law of
andrachy). Most high-power positions will be held by males.
†c Racism, Sexism, Nationalism and Classism are all manifestations of this same principle of
social hierarchy.
Group hierarchyThe reason that social hierarchies exist in human societies is that they were
necessary for survival of inter-group competition during conflict over resources. Essentially, groups
organised in hierarchies were more efficient at combat than groups who were organised in other
ways, giving a competitive advantage to groups disposed towards social hierarchies.

#'c#%&&'"c!"#$ explains the mechanisms of group hierarchy oppression using three basic
mechanisms:

†c Aggregated individual discrimination (ordinary discrimination)

†c Aggregated institutional discrimination (discrimination by governmental and business
institutions)
†c Systematic Terror (police violence, death squads, etc.)
†c Behavioural asymmetry
†c systematic outgroup favouritism or deference (minorities favour hegemony individuals)
†c asymmetric ingroup bias (as status increases, opposition to interracial mixing increases)
†c self-handicapping (low expectations of minorities are self-fulfilling prophecies)
†c ideological asymmetry (as status increases, so do discriminatory political beliefs e.g.
conservatism)

These processes are driven by legitimizing myths, which are beliefs justifying social dominance:

†c paternalistic myths (hegemony serves society, looks after incapable minorities)

†c reciprocal myths (suggestions that hegemonic and outgroups are actually equal)
†c sacred myths (Divine right of kings - religion-approved mandate for hegemony to govern)

" #''$c&(c#'c(#%&&'"It is suggested that the Western idea of meritocracy (individual

achievement) is an example of a legitimizing myth, i.e. meritocracy is false and produces only an
illusion of fairness. SDT draws on social identity theory, suggesting that social comparison processes
drive individual discrimination (ingroup favouritism). Such acts are performed because they increase
the actors self-esteem.

SDT states that an individual's level of discrimination and domination can be conceptualised, or
measured, with the social dominance orientation. This is an individual set of beliefs, sometimes
viewed as something akin to a personality-trait, which describes the actors views on social
domination and the extent to which they will aspire to gain more power and climb the social ladder.
For instance, the SDO6 scale measures social dominance orientation by agreement with statements
such as "Sometimes other groups must be kept in their place" and "It's probably a good thing that
certain groups are at the top and other groups at the bottom."
Relation toc+%SDT is influenced by Marxist and socio-biological ideas. Marx described the
oppressive hierarchy of hegemonic group(s) dominating negative reference groups, in his examples
the bourgeoisie (owning class) dominate the proletariat (working class) by controlling capital (the
means of production), not paying workers enough, and so on. However Marx thought that the
working class would eventually grasp the solution to this oppression and destroy the bourgeoisie in a
revolution. Sidanius has similar ideas of oppressive social hierarchies, albeit broadened to include
many more types of group, but is pessimistic about change; social dominance is described as a
permanent state of society caused by human nature.

Socio-biology views human psychological traits to be ultimately understandable in terms of

evolutionary fitness. SDT views group hierarchies as an evolutionary adaptation. Similarly the
androgen-mediated dominance of males is explained by reproductive strategy differences between
men and women.