Summary
The notion of power elites offered by Millis can be determined with respect to their impact on society and its principal trends. Hence, these groups are the entities, which implement major changes in citizens’ lives due to the fact that they possess more extensive information and rely on centralized power instead of individual efforts (Millis, n.d.a). Their approach is impersonal since the considerations of profits or other benefits on a global scale prevail those of people’s wellbeing and active participation in the discussion of critical matters (Millis, n.d.a). In fact, these organizations control the political course of the country and exercise their capabilities to the full (Millis, n.d.a). The distinctive characteristic of individuals belonging to power elites is the ability to use their positions in order to influence the environment with little resistance from ordinary citizens.
The examples of these groups, as per Millis’ articles, are large organizations, the activity of which is linked to the task of forming opinions of others to their advantage. For instance, the most influential of them are those connected to “the economic, the political, and the military domains” (Millis, n.d.a, p. 242). Millis claims that other institutions are subordinate to them, which, more specifically, relates to religious, educational, and family entities whose alleged power is limited by the former companies’ impact (Millis, n.d.a). Thus, the authorities’ activity is aimed at shaping the preferences of people in their decisions when it comes to politics to gain their support. The present-day corporations strive to instill their ideas on tax distribution and other issues. In turn, the army leaders develop measures to increase soldiers’ motivation to participate in military operations.
Application of a Sociological Perspective to Analyzing the Power Elite
A sociological perspective and the alleged presence of numerous power elites in the United States are compatible concepts, which can beneficially complement each other in analyzing the most critical situations in society. According to Millis’ arguments, the former is an efficient tool for examining any notions regardless of the sphere to which they belong because this method helps establish collective responsibility as opposed to individual impact (Millis, n.d.a). His attention to the connections between the societal statistics demonstrating major trends and the influential organizations in the country allows concluding on the consideration of the latter by the author with regard to this approach. Therefore, the discussion of his argument should be conducted with respect to the theoretical underpinning, which was designed by the scholar in his previous works.
First, this opinion is confirmed by the fact that Millis views power elites not as a group of people with varying interests but as an organization of like-minded individuals working towards achieving their common goals. In the beginning, he rejects the idea of “solitary rulers” controlling society in favor of the existence of “levels of power,” which allow influential and wealthy citizens to combine their efforts (Millis, n.d.a, p. 241). By doing so, he emphasizes the role of unity and, consequently, society in exercising the capabilities of power elites. This condition means that the actions of these entities would be futile without such an essential link, which directs their decisions. In this way, the analysis of political, economic, and military actors in the United States is performed by highlighting the presence of community as the principal condition of their existence. This circumstance adds to their responsibility for the outcomes of their choices and determines the alignment with the above theory.
Second, the preference for a sociological standpoint in discussing power elites is confirmed by his explanation of the scope of problems, which people usually face. As per the article, they are of national importance and, therefore, can be solved only through the involvement of the government, the army, and major corporations (Millis, n.d.a). For example, the power of the National Security Council prevails over the capabilities of any college on the territory of the country, and the military establishments are more significant than the church (Millis, n.d.a). Since the model, according to which individual efforts are insufficient for making a change, is suitable for this case, its use for the mentioned objective seems reasonable (Millis, n.d.b). Subsequently, the analysis of this sphere of human life is based on society rather than separate citizens.
Finally, the consideration of the role of less significant entities, such as schools or religious institutions, contrasted by the power elites can be based only on the environment in which they operate. This factor also leads to the conclusion that Millis compares them through the lens of a sociological perspective to provide credible findings. For instance, in the section when he narrates about modern life and the need to adapt to it, the scholar claims that “governments and armies and corporations shape it” (Millis, n.d.a, p. 242). By saying so, he refers to American society as a whole rather than a combination of its parts presented by the above organizations. Thus, the ideas concerning the dominant importance of power elites are proved by their position in this realm or, in other words, the context.
References
Harris, M. (n.d.). India’s sacred cow, pp. 44-47 [PDF Document].
Millis, C. W. (n.d.). The power elite, pp. 240-245 [PDF Document].
Millis, C. W. (n.d.). The sociological imagination, pp. 1-6 [PDF Document].