historically three main models have been used in discussing this
issue: elite theorists who see the main political division as being
between the holders of political power and the rest; Marxists who see
political and social divisions as reflecting economic divisions, with
classes as the fundamental political entities; and pluralists who regard
the divisions between elites and masses as only one of a series of non-
coincidental lines of division within society.
This argument can be formulated in an alternative fashion: is there
a single ruling group in modern industrial societies? If so, what are its
characteristics – and is this ‘class rule’?
This being a big question – perhaps the big question – in politics, it
is worth considering carefully. Rather than seeking a definitive
conclusion now, it may be more useful to offer some guidelines on
evaluating the sort of evidence which has been put forward.
It is striking that writers supporting different models tend to
discuss different types of evidence. Thus elite theorists such as Pareto
(1976), Mosca (1939), Michels (1915) and Mills (1956) focus on who
rules. They often lay great stress on alleged universal traits of human
nature (e.g. the desire for power, status and wealth) and their
consequences for politics. They then demonstrate the existence of
hierarchies of power, wealth and status in many societies. The
strategies which individuals adopt to achieve such positions are often
considered with realism (even cynicism). It is shown that ruling elites
tend to share a privileged lifestyle. (Michel’s famous observation that
two deputies, one of whom is a socialist and one of whom is not, have
more in common than two socialists one of whom is a deputy and the
other is not is fairly typical.) Mills is interesting in seeking to
demonstrate in some detail the social, economic and educational
interrelationships and common lifestyle of a number of ‘separate’ US
elites – the businessmen, the military and top federal government
appointees. (He is also unusual amongst ‘elite’ theorists in disliking
the elite influence he portrays.) Similarly in Britain a whole literature
exists analysing such interrelationships within a British ‘Estab-
lishment’ whose members tend to have attended the same schools,
universities and clubs (e.g. Thomas, 1959; Sampson, 2004).
Marxist evidence has often concentrated on the question of in
whose interests decisions are taken. Thus, on the basis that the proof
of the pudding is in the eating, the distribution of income and of
wealth in capitalist societies is shown to be still grossly uneven,
PROCESSES 115