Which Theoretical Perspective Of Politics Is Most Persuasive?

Which Theoretical Perspective Of Politics Is Most Persuasive?This establish will highlight that pluralism is the more(prenominal) or less compelling regimeal severalise theory as it reflects democracy and equality within the soil. I will indicate why I am persuaded al close to by pluralism by highlighting its ontological and epistemological position, pluralistic beliefs on the diffusion of condition, plurality of groups and the presence of pluralist issues, such as multiculturalism, in our current night club. This essay will go on to explain that despite being persuaded virtually by pluralism, like all(prenominal) theories, it has downfalls, for example its limited belief in faces of office. In come out to highlight weaknesses in pluralist verbalize theory I will draw on Marxism and elitism, which atomic come in 18 becoming increasingly persuasive as their presence in society escalates.Pluralists argue that there atomic number 18 essential differences of being tha t provide the foundations upon which social life is built (Marsh Furlong, 2002, p.18). This enunciatement reflects pluralists as ontologically foundational as they receipt the greatness of social interaction in order for a state to function efficiently. Elitists and Marxists, on the early(a) hand, are anti-foundational by believing nonhing is authorized as everything kindle be altered. Ontologically, pluralisms foundational belief is more persuasive as they identify that social differences in norms and belief shape our society they recognise that multifariousness show occurs at a local level but in order to maintain stability diversity must remain at the base of society.In order to explain behaviour pluralists establish causal relationships between social phenomena emphasising their positivist epistemological positioning (Marsh Furlong 200220). Positivists promote unity within a society to maximise equality and prevent power being unfairly dispersed. Realism, which inclu des Marxism and elitism, is the opposite to positivism in terms of epistemological positioning. Realists concent step on presidential term and power rather than society in order to focus on their own national interests sort of of the interests of society (Ferraro mytholyke.edu). They disregard society from political processes in order to act in the interest of the state rather than the people for example Marxism focuses on individuals who want to maximise seat of government for their own benefits. This highlights that pluralists foundational position is more persuasive as, unlike realism, it focuses on the interests of the people, as society and political science are interrelated.Pluralism is perceived as instrumentalist as it sees the state as an instrument rather than a set of structures (Hay 2002 174) meaning pluralists do not regard the state as a uniform and primary body in itself, but rather as a society of societies (McLennan 1995 33). Pluralists deliberate the states re sponsibility is to allow society to join its beliefs by placing citizens at the heart of the institution rather than a centralized state based purely on politics and governments (Stears cited in Smith 2006 24). The pluralist expression of the state is more socially inclusive than Marxist and elitist state theory as they believe groups and the diffusion of power within society provides the foundations of the state and politics (Smith 2006 23). This is juxtaposed by elitist state theory which believes power is concentrated in the state and citizens score little or no impact on policy decision (Kavanagh, Richards, Smith Geddes 2006 25). Elitism and Marxism, like pluralism, see the state as instrumentalist, however, whilst pluralists believe the state to be an instrument used by society to maintain equality and democracy, Marxism and elitism see the state as an instrument in the custody of the persuasion secern for enforcing and guaranteeing the stability of the bod structure it self (Sweezy cited in Hay 2006 61). Here the state is observed as a vital nodal point in societal function as elites hold onto power and use it to influence and imprint their wants on society. Pluralisms view of the state is the most persuasive as it grants society with the ability to gain around change instead of elites dominating society, politics and the economy.Over the years Pluralism has adapted to social changes and academic critiques in order to advance in the political arena by offering a more realistic view of society and politics (Smith 2006 37). All three pluralist models classical, reformed (elite) and neo-pluralism acknowledge the dissemination of power between a variety of institutions and interest groups, Mouffe states that a pluralist society is the articulation of a multiplicity of identities (cited in Buckler 2002 190). By allowing group plurality it come alongs the dispersion of power, preventing a superstar group or interest to get over society which i s common in elitism and Marxism (McAnulla 2002 278). Pluralists believe the dispersion of power between a variety of groups is key to a democratic state as it is the building block of politics and the state (Smith 2006 23). It allows non-governmental organisations, media and political parties to voice their beliefs in a society which appreciates the importance of an eclectic range of attitudes and beliefs. Group plurality and the interests of the citizens are key in maintaining a diverse socio-culture and preventing elitists dominating society.Reformed and neo-pluralists have identified that in plastered areas, such as the bloodline sector, power may become more concentrated as the influence businesses hold over the government increases and state policies are created in consideration of key business sectors (McLenna 1995 36). Lindblom, a neo-pluralist, saw business as not just having power through with(predicate) its lobbying ability but having morphological power (cited in Smit h 2006 28). In todays society, globalisation has led to a rise in the power and influence of businesses as governments recognise that trade and business relations assist their state as they reap the social, political and economic benefits. The acknowledgement of the concentration of power in certain areas augments pluralisms persuasive power as reformed and neo-pluralists highlight adaptations made to the classical model in order to make it more precise. This belief sways me to believe pluralism is the most persuasive theory by offering a true representation of societys attitudes and beliefs.Pluralists believe that power is located within society, however, elitists believe it originates in the political arena and Marxists in the economic arena. Pluralism provides the most appropriate and democratic arena for power as it relies on the people in society to voice their beliefs and influence politics representing national interests rather than expedience (McAnulla 2002 278). Marxism, h owever, believes politics and economics are interlinked, whilst pluralists are heraldic bearingful to separate politics and economic power as they identify that all economically powerful actors do not automatically have political power (Kavanagh, Richards, Smith Geddes 2006 24). Marxists think that economic power equals political power but this is not the case in a democratic world. This aims pluralism in a more persuasive position as it recognises that capital is not necessary in order to gain power.Pluralism is panoptical in society by the presence of multi-level governance, meaning there is not a single centre of government but many, which link together as a whole variety of actors, be they at the local, national or supranational level (Smith 2006 31). Multi-level governance allows greater, more influential social involvement with the government and politics. This reiterates pluralists belief in the dispersion of power as it prevents the concentration of political power and d ecision-making in one political arena, instead disperses it between local government constituencies (Widdicombe report cited in Wilson 2003 270). Local government is important to pluralists as they believe it is the most comprehensive method of social involvement in politics by reflecting the political beliefs of citizens in peripheral areas. Multi-level governance is present in order to represent the people, however, this is contrary to the views of elitists and Marxists who are self-interested actors and do not share similar beliefs about the dispersion of political power.In elitist theory there is a clear dichotomy between classes, Evans statesIn all societies 2 classes of people appear a class that rules and a class that is ruled. The commencement exercise class, always the less numerous, performs all political functions, monopolizes power and enjoys the advantages that power brings, whereas the second, the more numerous class, is directed and overtopled by the beginning(a). (2006 39)Elitists believe politics is characterised by elite domination individuals who do not communicate and form relationships with society, instead create legislation favourable only to elites. They see the state as consisting of us elites and them citizens without social or political standing instead of recognising that to achieve an efficient and democratic state the two classes must be inter-related. This lack of discourse between politics and society is detrimental to the existence of elitism as citizens want their voice heard in the political arena and without multi-level governance this is difficult to achieve.Self-interested Marxists too fail to recognise the importance of multi-level governance as their concern is not the public good, but increasing budgets because this increases their power, status and job security (Kavanagh, Richards, Smith Geddes 2006 28). Marxists are concerned with legislation which maximises economic returns for the government, for example income tax, rather than focusing on social or political issues. The elitist and Marxist conceptions of a governing elite and ruling class are very similar as both concepts highlight socio-economic and political inequalities between rulers and the masses (Evans 2006 39). However, both are undermined by their lack of help to the presence of politics in the social arena, they disregard citizens as both theories see them as underdogs to political and capital elites. Pluralism, on the other hand, recognises the importance of societys voice in political proceedings, justifying the existence of multi-level governance. The presence of multi-level governance, therefore, is evidence why I believe pluralism to be a persuasive theory the people come first.Pluralists encourage group plurality not only in politics but also in everyday society. Multiculturalism is based on the idea that no single set of norms or values should dominate a society, therefore, reinforcing the pluralist belief of equ ality and power dispersion (Smith 2006 35). In a multicultural society, a range of cultures, attitudes and beliefs from a variety of ethnic backgrounds become integrated within the community, producing an impartial framework without elite domination (Modood 2005 109). Over the years, Britain has been witness to a growing number of cultures in our country, welcoming and incorporated them into our own, such numbers have arrived that we can no longer state that whites are Britains elite. For example, London is one of the most cosmopolitan cities in the world as it is home to 300 languages, 50 non-indigenous communities with populations of 10,000 or morealmost a third of the citys residents were born outside England (2.2m) (guardian.co.uk 2005). Pluralism believes multiculturalism within Britain highlights the importance of social diversity and the word meaning of a different cultures and norms in order to maintain equality, thus offering concrete evidence for pluralism being the most persuasive state theory.Like all theories there are weaknesses in pluralist state theory, to highlight these I will now critique pluralism with elitism and Marxism. The most controversial issue surrounding pluralism is their view of power. determinate pluralists believe in the first face of power which states that power is witnessed by an individual, so can therefore be measured. It was the Classical pluralist, Robert Dahl who defined the first face as A had power over B to the extent that s/he can get B to do something B would not do otherwise (cited in Hay 1997 46). The first face of power is known as the decision-making process as the decision made by A because influences the actions of B. Pluralists believe that powerful actors are those whose opinion holds sway in the decision-making arena, whether a parliament, cabinet or diplomatic negotiation (Hay 2002 172).Elitists believe that there are two faces and that decision-making is not the only means of attaining power. The plur alist first face provides the foundations of elitisms second face of power. This face was created by Bachrach and Baratz who recognised that power could be gained through the process of agenda-setting, not only decision-making (Hay 1997 46). Agenda-setting occurs when A sets an agenda leaving B with a restricted number of options in the decision-making process. Bachrach and Baratz believed that the process of agenda-setting would broaden the concept of power, and with it the political as pluralisms first face restricted these (Hay 2002 175). Pluralists describe power as explicit as it can be easily observed, the elitist second face, however, is more implicit and unobservable as it depicts how power can be handled by A in an attempt to alter Bs decision.In 1971, a third face of power was created by Steven Lukes, a Marxist. His third face recognises a persons ability to manipulate a persons wants through the mechanisms of institutionalised persuasion via a process known as gustation shaping (Lukes cited in Hay 2002 179). Marxists accept that it is not always possible to observe power, so focus their ideas around the second and third faces of power. This highlights weaknesses in the pluralist view of power as they fail to consider the possibility of power being manipulated or concealed within society. This means the pluralist view of power is not the most persuasive, instead the Marxist view can be seen as most persuasive as it identifies unobservable power and acknowledges the ability to manipulate power (Hay 1997 47).Pluralism can be seen as an idealised view of the state where everyone is equal, a view which is not wholly realistic in todays world. Many believe that Marxism and elitism provide more accurate representations of the world today due to globalisation. Whilst pluralism is preferred by citizens as they feel it gives them hope for political and social equality, in reality Marxist and elitist beliefs control our society due to a select number of insti tutions and actors dominating decision-making arenas. Globalisation is vastly important for global trade and development, however, it is run by elites purely to maximise capital the wants of the people are not considered. In recent years elitism has paved the way for globalisation as we have seen the emergence of new elites at the transnational (e.g. multinational corporations), supranational (e.g. the European Union bureaucratic elite) and international (e.g. international policy-making elites associated with global financial institutions such as the International monetary Fund and the World Bank) levels (Evans 2006 40). These institutions are supervised by elites who have the power to dictate our lives from afar. A key example of elitist domination is the Lisbon Treaty lately ratified by the European Union (EU) which many believe to be undemocratic as it limits member states sovereignty. Due to the Treaty, the European Parliament, Council, Commission and the Court have the power to make decisions which member states have to abide to by EU law (Maurer 1999 3). The decision-making process here is centred around EU institutions and left in the hands of elites who dictate laws to member states the citizens lack the power or influence to instigate change.One could say that elitist globalisation requires aspects of pluralism, as in order for these institutions to operate a network must exist allowing co-operation between parties. These institutions recognise the need for a support network in order to maximise efficiency, a global elite network is thus created in order to maintain its power base in society (Evans 2006 40). It is clear to see how elites, whether political or business, can dominate global decision-making via globalisation, globalisation has aided elite domination by restricting societys hold on politics.Globalisation can be interpreted, not only through elitist beliefs, but also Marxist beliefs as globalisation is the internationalisation of capital (Jessop cited in Hay 2006 77). Globalisation centres around trade as trade generates capital accumulation which is of primary importance to capitalists. Engels stated the modern stateis essentially a capitalist machine as maximising profit was the only aspect of the state deemed important (Cited in Hay 2006 62). Marxists highlight the influence self-interested capitalists have had on the globalisation process by centralizing economic greed, rather than considering the political or social needs of the state. Marxist theory can therefore, offer an accurate analysis of globalisation as capitalists, like the elites, are working against the people in an attempt to fulfil their own needs. This highlights that Marxism and elitism, despite disadvantaging society, are more persuasive theories in reality due to the impact and influence globalisation is having on the world.Elitists believe rulers of society are engaged in an ongoing process of warring elitism (Evans 2006 40). Competitive eli tism allows elites to compete against each other in order to achieve something they other party may also want, for example politicians see the electoral arena like a market and have to attract the greatest possible number of votes (Kavanagh, Richards, Smith Geddes 2006 27). At face value, politicians want to appear to consider the wants of society in order to win votes, however, in reality they do not care as much about the people as they appear to winning the election and beating their opponent is more important. A prime example of competitive elitism occurring in society is the upcoming elections as each party is focussing on the oppositions negatives rather than what they will offer the country if they win the election. This is an attempt to spotlight their rivals campaign by highlighting negatives within their agendas, for example, the Conservative Partys campaign posters for the 2010 elections mar Gordon Browns actions whilst Prime Minister with headlines such as I doubled th e tax rate for the poor. Vote for me. And I took billions from pensions. Vote for me. (conservatives.com 2010). Actions such as these undertaken by political actors emphasise competitive elitism within politics the national interest takes second place to the wants of the political elites. Competitive elitism highlights the occurrence of elitism within society as elites are self-interested and want to maximise power, despite degrading politics and society in the process.I conclude that pluralism is the most persuasive political state theory due to its belief in the dispersion of power and group plurality enhancing equality, both socially and politically, making the state more democratic as the voices of the people are heard. However, emancipation of the people has not yet succeeded as pluralism is seen as too ideal, instead elitism and Marxism remain in control and restrict society. Globalisation is fuelling these state theories as institutions and actors are too concerned with thei r own interests to consider others. This essay concludes, therefore, that despite pluralism comprising of idealistic qualities there are aspects of it in todays society, which gives society hope for the future. An equal and democratic pluralist state is within reach providing globalisation and the actions of elites are monitored.