Pluralists also stress the differences between potential and actual power as it stands.
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 Xfor example, was certainly not a rich person growing up, but received money from many groups after his prison term and used other resources such as his forceful personality and organizational skills. 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 powerstates 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.
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 systemthe 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.
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.
Elite pluralism[ edit ] Elite pluralists agree with classical pluralists that there is "plurality" of power; however, this plurality is not "pure" as some people and groups have more power than others.Pluralism.
Pluralism is the theory that a multitude of groups, not the people as a whole, govern the United States. These organizations, which include among others unions, trade and professional associations, environmentalists, civil rights activists, business and financial lobbies, and formal and informal coalitions of like-minded citizens, influence the making and administration of laws and.
Jul 20, · What is the definition of Pluralist Theory?
I need to find this answer and I can not find the right website to find the answer. Please I need the definition of PLURALIST THEORY not pluralism, pluralist, nothing except pluralist rutadeltambor.com: Resolved.
The percentages of average people that make up these groups are small, so in theory, the public acts as bystanders in the pluralist model of power.
The pluralists believe that: Power is dispersed. Pluralism is a theory that centers on the idea of how power is distributed. The pluralist model indicates that power is distributed among many groups.
These groups may include coalitions of like-minded people, unions, professional associations and business lobbyists. Jul 20, · Best Answer: Pluralist Theory is under pluralism which you will find out when you go to wiki Pluralist theory. But there is a site where you can go look up political terms and etc.
the site is listed below. Here is the definition from the site - Definition of Pluralist theory: The theoretical point of view Status: Resolved. Pluralist theory. The theoretical point of view held by many social scientists which holds that American politics is best understood through the generalization that power is relatively broadly (though unequally) distributed among many more or less organized interest groups in society that compete with one another to control public policy, with some groups tending to dominate in one or two.