Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T20:58:50.856Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Elites and Democratic Theory: Insights From the Self-Organizing Model

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  05 August 2009

Gus diZerega
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The role of elites within liberal democracy is a perennial issue. One reason why is an inappropriate theoretical conception of democracy. They are self-organizing systems rather than instrumental organizations. As such they have more in common systemically with science and the market than with democratic organizations or undemocratic states. Examining the role of elites within science and the market sheds light on how they work within democracies. Such an examination shows them to be both necessary and dangerous. Traditional “elitist” analyses of democracy suffer from confusions which the self-organizing model clears up. It also offers improvements on traditional “pluralist” conceptions.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Review of Politics , Volume 53 , Issue 2 , Spring 1991 , pp. 340 - 372
Copyright
Copyright © University of Notre Dame 1991

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Adams, John, The Political Writings of John Adams (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1954), p. 139.Google Scholar Adams was far from the only writer of the time who struggled with the problem of how this type of inequality could be harmonized with the principle of popular sovereignty. See also Taylor, John, An Inquiry into the Principles and Policy of the Government of the united States (Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, 1969), pp. 170, 47296Google Scholar; Adams's, response and the discussions of “A Federal Farmer” in Storing, Herbert, The Anti-Federalist (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985), pp. 75–79.Google Scholar

2. Adams, , Writings, p. 202.Google Scholar

3. Polsby, Nelson, Political Innovation in America New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

4. Hayek, F. A., The Political Order of a Free People (Chicago: University of Chicago University Press, 1979)Google Scholar; Dobuzinskis, Laurent, The Self-Organizing Polity: An Epistemological Analysis of Political Life (Boulder: Westview Press, 1987)Google Scholar.

5. Hayek, F. A., Rules and Order (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973) p. 38.Google Scholar

6. Kaufman, Herbert, The Forest Ranger (Washington, D. C.: Resources fo the Future, 1960), pp. 91–200.Google Scholar

7. Polanyi, Michael, The Logic of Liberty (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951), p. 184.Google Scholar

8. Hayek, F. A., Individualism and Economic Order (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1948).Google Scholar

9. Kirzner, Israel M., Competition and Entrepreneurship (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973).Google Scholar

10. Schumpeter, Joseph, The Theory of Economic Development (New York: Oxford University Press, 1961).Google Scholar

11. Lachmann, Ludwig, The Market as an Economic Process (Oxford: Basil Black-well, 1986).Google Scholar

12. Ziman, John, Public Knowledge (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968).Google Scholar

13. Dizerega, Gus, “Citizenship and Participation: A Reformulation of Democratic Theory” (Ph.D. diss, University of California, Berkeley, 1984).Google Scholar

14. Hayek, , Rules and Order, p. 3.Google Scholar

15. Crick, Bernard, In Defense of Politics (Baltimore: Penguin, 1964), p. 22.Google Scholar

16. Ibid., pp. 23, 146, respectively.

17. Hayek, , Rules and Order, p. 43.Google Scholar

18. Tocqueville, Alexis De, Democracy in America, 2 vols. (New York: Schocken Books, 1961), 2: 89–90.Google Scholar

19. Dahl, Robert A., A Preface to Democratic Theory (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1956)Google Scholar; Pateman, Carole, Participation and Democratic Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Mansbrdige, Jane, Beyond Adversary Democracy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983).Google Scholar

19. Dahl, Robert A., A Preface to Democratic Theory (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1956)Google Scholar; Pateman, Carole, Participation and Democratic Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Mansbrdige, Jane, Beyond Adversary Democracy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983).Google Scholar

20. For example, Dye, Thomas R., Who's Running America? Institutional Leadership in the United States (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1976), p. 5.Google Scholar

21. Michels, Robert, Political Parties (New York: Free Press, 1961), p. 365.Google Scholar

22. Sartori, Giovanni, The Theory of Democracy Revisited, 2 vols. (Chatham, NJ: Chatham House, 1987), p. 149.Google Scholar

23. Lipset, Seymour Martin, Trow, Martin A., and Coleman, James S.Union Democracy (Garden City, NJ: Doubleday, 1965), p. 459.Google Scholar

24. Ibid., p. 464.

25. Ibid., p. 454.

26. Sartori, , Theory of Democracy Revisited, 1: 149.Google Scholar

27. Spretnak, Charlene and Capra, Frijof, Green Politics: The Global Picture (New York: E. P. Dutton, 1986).Google Scholar

28. Lipset, , Trow, and Coleman, , Union Democracy, p. 467.Google Scholar

29. Ibid., p. 347.

30. Heilbroner, Robert, “What Is Socialism?” Dissent (Winter 1978), p. 343.Google Scholar

31. Ibid., pp. 346–47. In fact the difference is not between morality and lack of morality, but between end-state morality where a specific result is moral or not, and procedural morality wherein morality is not found in the result, but in the means for getting there. A case for procedural morality exists when we cannot agree on specific outcomes because a situation is too complex to control, precisely the case with self-organizing social institutions. For an alternative to Heilbroner's view of bourgeois society and ethics, see Diamond, Martin, “Ethics and Politics: The American Way,” in The Moral Foundations of the American Republic, ed. Horowitz, Robert H., 3rd ed. (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 1986).Google Scholar

32. Although it is particularly appropriate to them. For an excellent case study of the incompatibility of central direction with democratic politics, see Steinmo, Sven, “Social Democracy vs. Socialism: Goal Adaptation in Social Democratic Sweden,” Politics and Society 16 (1988): 403–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Recently Heilbroner has apparently repudiated his views for he has admitted capitalism's victory over socialism. We may all be grateful that he or like-minded souls did not attain political power in 1978! See Heilbroner, Robert, “Reflections: The Triumph of Capitalism,” The New Yorker 23 01 1989, pp. 98–109.Google Scholar

33. Anonymous, The Suppressed Book About Slavery, Carleton, , reprinted (New York: Arno Press and New York Times, 1968), p. 21.Google Scholar

34. Dahl, Robert A., Dilemmas of Pluralist Democracy (Berkeley: University of California, 1982), pp. 119–20.Google Scholar

35. For an extended critique of egalitarian theories of democracy, see Dizerega, Gus, “Equality, Self-Government and Democracy: A Critique of Robert Dahl's Conception of Political Equality,” Western Political Quarterly (1988): 447–68.Google Scholar

36. Toulmin, Stephen, Human Understanding (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1972), p. 168.Google Scholar

37. In science, democracy, and the market the underlying moral principles are based upon respect for others and the need to obtain their free agreement. Respect is a procedural moral principle quite different from Heilbroner's “endstate” conception of morality. On the distinction between procedural and end-state morality, see Nozick, Robert, Anarchy, State and Utopia (New York: Basic Books, 1978)Google Scholar.

38. Sartori, , Theory of Democracy Revisited, p. 93.Google Scholar

39. Deutsch, Karl, The Analysis of International Relations (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1968), pp. 101–110.Google Scholar

40. Sartori, , Theory of Democracy Revisited, p. 99.Google Scholar

41. Derthick, Martha and Quirk, Paul, The Politics of Deregulation (Washington D. C: Brookings Institution, 1985), pp. 237–58Google Scholar; Polsby, Political Innovation; and Page, Benjamin I., Shapiro, Robert Y., and Dempsey, Glenn R., “What Moves Public Opinion?” APSR 81 (1987).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

42. Sartori, , Theory of Democracy Revisited, p. 99.Google Scholar

43. Buell, Emmett H., “Locals' and ‘Cosmopolitans’: National, Regional and State Newspaper Coverage of the New Hampshire Primary,” in Media and Momentum: The New Hampshire Primary and Nomination Politics, ed. Orren, Gary R. and Polsby, Nelson (Chatham, NJ: Chatham House, 1987).Google Scholar

44. Huckfeldt, Robert and Sprague, John, “Networks in Context: Thee Social Flow of Political Information,” APSR 18 (1987): 1197–1216CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Mills, C. Wright, Power, Politics and People: The Collected Essays of C. Wright Mills, ed. Horowitz, Irving Louis (London: Oxford University Press, 1963), pp. 577–98.Google Scholar

45. DiZerega, “Equality, Self-Government and Democracy.”

46. Polsby, Nelson, Community Power and Political Theory, 2nd ed. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1980), p. 154.Google Scholar

47. Domhoff, G. W., Who Rules America Now? A View from the 80s (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1983), p. 42.Google Scholar

48. Ibid., p. 36.

49. Lebergott, Stanley, Wealth and Want (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1975), pp. 161–75.Google Scholar

50. For an example of his organizational thinking, see Domhoff, , Who Rules America Now?, p. 77.Google Scholar

51. Ibid., p. 60.

52. White, Shelby, “Cradle to Grave: Family Offices Manage Money for the Very Rich,” Barron's (20 03 1978), p. 9.Google Scholar

53. Domhoff, , Who Rules America Now?, p. 72.Google Scholar

54. Olson, Mancur, The Rise and Decline of Nations (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1982).Google Scholar

55. Much of this analysis rests on the work of Ziman, John: Public Knowledge (1968)Google Scholar; and Reliable Knowledge (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978)Google Scholar.

56. Feyerabend, Paul, Against Method (New York: Schocken, 1975).Google Scholar

57. Polsby, Nelson, “Moving Towards Equality in Campaign Finance? Another Equivocal Encounter Between Theory and Practice,” Power, Inequality and Democratic Politics, ed. Shapiro, Ian and Reeher, Grant (Boulder: Westview Press, 1989), pp. 268–69.Google Scholar

58. Walker, Jack L., “The Origin and Maintenance of Interest Groups in America,” APSR 77(1983): 390–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

59. Domhoff, , Who Rules America Now?, p. 104.Google Scholar

60. Steinmo, “Social Democracy vs. Socialism.”

61. Bachrach, Peter and Baratz, Morton, “Two Faces of Power,” APSR 56 (1962): 947–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

62. For an extended discussion of this point, see Dizerega, Gus, “Democracy as a Spontaneous Order,” Critical Review (Winter 1989).Google Scholar

63. Domhoff, , Who Rules America Now?, p. 2.Google Scholar

64. Ibid., p. 161.

65. G. W., Domhoff, The Higher Circles (New York: Random House, 1970), p. 158.Google Scholar

66. Domhoff, , Who Rules America Now?, p. 84.Google Scholar

67. Ibid., p. 85.

68. Fox, Stephen, The American Conservation Movement: John Muir and His Legacy (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1985), pp. 292–99.Google Scholar

69. Polsby, , Community Power and Political Theory, p. 154.Google Scholar

70. But see Hough, Jerry who uses Robert Dahl's definition of pluralism to argue that it exists within pre-Gorbachev USSR! The Soviet Union and Social Science Theory (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1970).Google Scholar

71. See diZerega, “Equality, Self-Government and Democracy.”

72. Lowi, Theodore, The End of Liberalism (NewYork: W. W. Norton, 1969)Google Scholar; Reisner, Marc, Cadillac Desert: The American West and Its Disappearing Water (New York: Penguin, 1987).Google Scholar

73. DiZerega, “Citizenship and Participation.”