NOTE: Free essay sample provided on this page should be used for references or sample purposes only. The sample essay is available to anyone, so any direct quoting without mentioning the source will be considered plagiarism by schools, colleges and universities that use plagiarism detection software. To get a completely brand-new, plagiarism-free essay, please use our essay writing service.
One click instant price quote
... in the public arena; and yes, their freedom to bear arms. A fundamentalist who opposes the United Nations may be acting partly out of national pride, but he likely also fears losing his freedoms and those of his country to an international government too distant to understand his needs. In truth, a fair number of fundamentalists are closet anarchists who would prefer no government but God. Fundamentalists make no secret of the fact that they do not believe in any other.
And some of them are leery of allowing religious freedom to people who follow other religions. This can be scary, obviously, to the neo-pagans and others out there. However, few if any fundamentalists want to start the witch-fires burning. Whatever their faults, many tend to honestly believe that the "gods" of other religions are actually demons in disguise, and that those demons live for nothing but to enslave and kill -- body, mind and soul. While this may not ease the fears of the local Verbena (or real-life pagans), players and storytellers should remember that a good fund does not hate followers of other religions -- she pities them and wants to free them. Do fundamentalists really oppose understanding the world around them?
Not usually. There are individual exceptions, but typically this is the result of a misunderstanding between them and science. Prior to the 1800 's, their precursors supported science and were supported by it. Many of them even believed in life on other planets (which might or might not be fallen); some were willing to tolerate evolutionary ideas.
Bibliography: The Encyclopedia of Fundamentalism, by Brenda E. Brasher, Routledge; ISBN 0415922445, 2001 The Fundamentalism Project, ed. Martin E. Marty and R. Scott Appleby, University of Chicago 1991 Volume 1: Marty/Appleby: Fundamentalism's Observed; ISBN 0 - 226 - 50878 - 1 1993 Volume 2: Marty/Appleby: Fundamentalism's and Society; ISBN 0 - 226 - 50880 - 3 1993 Volume 3: Marty/Appleby: Fundamentalism's and the State; ISBN 0 - 226 - 50883 - 8 1994 Volume 4: Marty/Appleby: Accounting for Fundamentalism's; ISBN 0 - 226 - 50885 - 4 1995 Volume 5: Marty/Appleby: Fundamentalism's Comprehended; ISBN 0 - 226 - 50887 - 0 2002 Almond/Appleby/Sivan, Strong Religion; ISBN 0226014975 Elitist and Pluralist Theories of State The Pluralist Model 1. Classical pluralism Pluralism has changed partly as a response to theoretical criticism, and partly because it is clear that liberal democracies don't correspond very well with the pluralists rather idealistic view of their operation.
The classical pluralist position argues: 1. Power is diffuse rather than concentrated. 2. In society a large number of groups represent all the significant and different interests of the population. 3. Groups compete with each other for influence over government. 4. Competition follows the 'rules of the game'. 5. All groups accept the legitimacy of the decision making process and of its outcome. 6.
Competition between groups ensures that no one group dominates. 7. The government is a neutral arbiter between interests. The logic of this model leads to a decision taking methodology Lukes first dimension of power. In means that: 1. Inputs into the decision making process and the outputs are studied. 2. Decisions are seen as being rationally taken. 3.
That governments consider alternatives and adopt policies that meet national interests. Dahl's approach clearly illustrates the pluralist approach. In his study of New Haven in Connecticut, Who Governs (1961). He studied three major issues, and concluded that no group dominated New Haven politics. The study reflected the pluralists preference for the study of specific issues and concrete decisions.
This conclusion is echoed by Policy (1963), who argued that sociologists should study specific issues in order to determine who gets their own way. A clear problem with this approach is that it is only examining the public face of decision making. A group may also exercise power through its ability to prevent a policy option being considered- a process often called agenda setting. This preventative option is the second dimension of power and is frequently called non-decision making.
Additionally a group may exercise ideological hegemony with the dominant ideology serving the groups interest although such interests will be presented and often widely understood as being the national interest. (systems effect). This process is the third dimension of power. Of the various dimensions of power it is difficult to judge the levels of importance, but what is certain is that the decision making model adopted by pluralism is limited. Consequently this classical pluralist position is no longer regarded as an accurate description of the distribution of power in contemporary liberal democracies. Increasingly theorists are adopting what is called the elite pluralist position. 2. Elite pluralism The move towards the elite pluralist position was signalled in Dahl's, Dilemmas of Pluralist Democracy, 1982.
In this model the emphasis remains upon the existence of a number of interest groups which compete with each other for scarce resources. However, it differs from classical pluralism in two main ways: There is a recognition that not all individuals are necessarily represented by the interest group system. Among the under-represented are black people, the w / c , consumers, women, the unemployed and the old. (Note that they are all groups with little economic power) In the elite pluralist position the problem of under-representation is minimised by supposing that if the unrepresented are sufficiently threatened they will form their own interest group. So, in this view, under-representation occurs because people do not wish to be represented. Additionally, the interests of the under-represented are protected by the government because although they might not have any economic or political resources they do have a vote. So the representative electoral system acts as a check on the unrepresentative aspects of the interest group system.
It is acknowledged that groups are less open and responsive to their members than classical pluralists assumed because all organisations tend to be hierarchical. They accept Michel's argument that organisation leads to oligarchy. As a result it is accepted that some groups (and individuals) have more access to decision making than others. Generally it is argued that economic interest groups have more access than ideological (cause) groups. The elite pluralist response to this situation is to contend that the policy making process is made up of a large number of policy communities. In each policy area there will be a distinct set of interests to be represented.
The interest groups, quangos and civil servants involved in the policy area will form an actual or potential policy community. The very existence of such diversity, within a policy community, with no segment of it with a claim to a privileged position, preserves pluralism and prevents the domination of government by any particular interest. This version of pluralism presents us with innovation without change-the essential elements remain the same. Groups are still seen as competing with each other for scarce resources, with no one group dominant, and with the government retaining an independent and neutral stance. The main divergence with classical pluralism is over the process by which power is exercised and decisions taken.
For the elite pluralist, fewer groups are involved in the process of consultation and indeed this process may have certain elitist or corporatist elements. The Elitist Model Elite theories see power as concentrated in the hands of a few. There is however a difference of opinion as to the origins and characteristics of elites. Pareto emphasised the psychological basis of dominance Mosca highlighted social structural factors Michels stressed the organisational basis of elite rule Developed as a response to marxism, elite theory originally argued that elite rule is inevitable in all societies, including socialist ones. However, newer approaches argue that elite rule results from the way societies are organised rather than being an inevitable and universal feature of human society. The evidence for the existence of a cohesive elite in Britain is rather limited.
However elite theorists assert four major arguments for the existence of elites: The existence of open political conflict between groups over issues does not rule out the possibility of a single unified elite operating behind the scenes. We cannot rely on evidence from public sources since they will not report the activities of a relatively secret elite with power that is exerted informally. An elite will not want to dominate all areas / issues , some will be of little interest to it. It is a mistake to focus on issues of public concern.
Elites will be most effective in routine areas of policy where it can achieve domination without becoming involved in a power struggle. Evidence for the existence of elites has been sought in three main ways: 1. Social background 2. Reputations 3.
Patterns of benefit. The social background approach is essentially suggesting that common experience will foster a common set of values. However, the real test is not whether elites exist, they clearly do, for example a study of company chairmen by Stan worth and Giddens (1974), but whether existence is significant in determining political outcomes. The reputations approach is premised on the idea that the more powerful you are the less visible you need to be. Consequently it has been thought worthwhile to look for traces left by the actions of elites-their reputations.
However, are reputations just that, a reputation for power rather than power itself? The pattern of benefit approach was pioneered by Bachrach and Baratz during the 1960 s. They introduced the concept of non-decision making. Certain decisions never arise and thus never get made.
However, there is clearly a problem in recognising non-decisions. At present there are three variants of elite theory: corporatism; the fragmented elite model and the veto group model. The Marxist Theory of the State In marxist theory it was the 60 s and early 70 s that saw the debate focussed around the differing views of instrumentalists and structuralists. The instrumental position was associated with the early work of Ralph Miliband, and the state was seen as an agent or instrument of the ruling class. The state, argued Miliband, takes decisions which directly favour the owners and controllers of capital. This is done for three reasons: 1.
The state personnel are drawn from the same social background. Here Miliband used an empirical approach. 2. The state is capitalist, to protect itself they must encourage capital accumulation. 3. In a capitalist society the interests of capital and the national interest are often viewed as the same-economic growth and prosperity. So the state, in promoting the interests of capital, promotes the interests of the nation.
The Structuralist position, often associated with Nicos Poulantzas, emphasises the last two of the above reasons for class rule. That is that it is the very nature of economic relations and ideological domination by the ruling class, that constrain the autonomy of the state. This emphasis on structural constraints was the main element in the debate between Miliband and Poulantzas. Poulantzas offers a number of important insights: 1. He placed more emphasis than previous marxists on the divisions existing within capitalism-for example there may be conflict between banking and industrial capital over interest rates. 2. Following from the above, these divisions in capitalism, permitted the state some relative autonomy from the ruling class.
This was because in order to ensure conditions in which capital accumulation could occur: -the state needed to mediate between fractions of the ruling class ensuring that the interests of capital in general were secured -mediate between classes-offering concessions in the form of higher pay or better conditions-in order to reduce economic and political tension -intervene directly in the economy, even when opposed by some or all fractions of capital-tax incentives, grants, or subsidies 3. Following Gramsci, Poulantzas laid great stress on ideology in preserving the basic nature of economic relations, and the role of the state in preserving ideological domination. 4. He argued that a marxist theory of the state is not possible because relations between classes and the form and activities of the state would be different in different modes of production, so a general theory would be impossible. Even within capitalism there are a variety of political forms and state structures.
Free research essays on topics related to: decision making process, ruling class, marxist theory, social background, economic relations
Research essay sample on Decision Making Process Marxist Theory
