Rev 13: Michels

Internal
Links

Lecture Review Notes 13:
Robert Michels
1876-1936

External
Links

The Elite Theorists

Michels

The Iron Law of Oligarchy

Marx: Species Being

Michels on Human Nature

Social Change

Michels on Social Change

Factors Affecting the Iron Law of Oligarchy

The Division of Labor

Michels on the Division of Labor

Leadership

The Functions of Leadership

The Components of Leadership

Michel on Leadership

The Masses

The Embourgeoisement of the Wking Class

The Effects of Oligarchy

Michels & Fascism

Critique

Countering Oligarchy

Internal
Links

Outline on Elite Theorists

External
Links

The elite theorists include:
a. Vilfredo Pareto. 1848 - 1923
b. Gaetano Mosca. 1858 - 1941
c. Robert Michels 1876 - 1936

And while Max Weber is not considered to be an elite theorist, he is an intellectual forefather to elite theory

Gaetano Mosca's ideas were similar to those Michels had presented in Political Parties

According to Mosca, for example, the traditional (Greek) classification of constitutions into monarchy, oligarchy/aristocracy, democracy is unrealistic

For the elite theorists, there is in fact no alternative to oligarchy, though there are kinds of oligarchy

The best kind of oligarchy according to the elite theorists is one in which there is not just one elite but several, which 'circulate'

The best kind of oligarchy occurs when the elites compete & take turns in occupying positions of power, & which are 'open', continually, but not suddenly, renewing themselves by coopting new members

Internal
Links

Outline on an Intro to Michels 1876 - 1936

External
Links

- Biography & Major Works

INTRODUCTION

Robert Michels was was a social philosopher who addressed issues related to the development of democracy, socialism, bureaucracy, leadership, & fascism

Michels was a student of Weber, but studied Marx extensively thereby combining a bureaucratic & economic analysis to explain human behavior & social change

See Also: Weber

See Also: Marx

While acknowledging that the econ is fundamental in understanding soc change, for Michels other soc forces are at play which precluded the dev of democracy, & socialism as he envisioned it

Besides the econ, in the form of histl materialism, the fundamental soc forces were:
a. human nature
b. political dynamics
c. organizational dynamics

In his most famous work, Political Parties, Michels demonstrates that because of the social forces of human nature, politics & orgs, democracy leads to oligarchy, which contains an oligarchic nucleus

Michels embraces much of Marx but believes he missed the importance of leadership & oligarchy

Michels is known for his development of the 'iron law of oligarchy' which holds that even democratically oriented orgs tend to become dominated by a few, i.e. an oligarchy

See Also: The Iron Law of Oligarchy

It is Michels' belief in the inevitability of oligarchy which is the foundation for his being categorized as an elite theorist

Michels' work demonstrates the weaknesses of democracy, the strength of our tendency to be good followers, & our likelihood to have great faith in our leaders

Ultimately Michels intended his work to be a cautionary tail, demonstrating the bureaucratic mechanisms which are available to limit oligarchy in bureaucracies

MICHELS' RELATIONSHIP TO MARX

Like Weber & others, Michels wrestled w/ the ghost of Marx

And like Weber, he critiqued & elaborated Marx, & also embraced many of his ideas

Michels rejected what he called Marx's utopianism & yet retained many other elements such as his method of analysis including dialectical materialism & historical materialism

See Also: Dialectical Materialism

See Also: Historical Materialism

Michels & Marx recognized that many aspects of his econ interpretation of history had been embraced by those before them, such as the Arab philosopher Ibn Kaldun who lived in the 1300s

Michels & Marx recognized that the ideas of classes & class conflict had been embraced by those before them, such as Benjamin Disraeli (1804-1881)

Disraeli was one of the most important British political leaders of the 1800s & was prime minister of Britain in 1868 & again from 1874 to 1880

Disraeli depicted the UK as having a great chasm btwn the upper & lower classes

For Disraeli, so great was the chasm btwn the classes that the UK could be viewed as 2 nations

Disraeli declared in parliament that the recognition of the proletariat's rights to its political emancipation & the betterment of its econ conditions was the only way to close the abyss that separated the '2 nations'

But Michels gives the greatest credit to Marx & Engels for the development of class analysis because they were the first to analyze the manner in which the productive forces play in history & the struggle btwn the classes

Michels embraces Marx's histl mat, but rejects his utopianism in that he does not embrace his elements of finality or inevitable utopia of Marxist socialism

For Michels, socialism is a wishful vision of the future, but he is silent on the outcome of class struggle as traced throughout history

MICHELS' RELATIONSHIP TO PARETO

Michels & Pareto embrace Marx's historical materialism because it clarifies our understanding of moral & religious development which many inappropriately give an absolute character

Michels & Pareto embrace Marx's historical materialism because they recognized the independence of the econ & other social phenomena, while they lean in the direction of cultural Marxists, giving culture as much causative power as the econ

Michels & Pareto also parallel Marx's methodology which discredited those who want to explain facts w/ the ideas that people hold, i.e. they are all materialists, not idealists

Like Weber, Pareto, & Mosca, Michels embraces Marx, but calls for a more pluralistic approach because reality is the result of the action of several forces of dissimilar nature

Michels retains elements of Marx's method of analysis

Michels feels that Marx was largely correct but that he had committed an error of omission when he ignored the functions of, & the theoretical implications of 'the master,' i.e. leadership

Classes, class conflict, & class & false consciousness are all essential categories in Michels' analysis

Like Marx, he agrees that it is not oppressive conditions themselves but the recognition of those conditions that is the prime factor in class struggle

Michels does not intend to refute Marx's class theory, but he does attack his idea of a utopian future society as being a classless society

For Michels, the socialists might, & should conquer, but socialism as a classless society would fail as new classes emerge

FOR MICHELS, OLIGARCHY IS INEVITABLE, AN IRON LAW, WHICH DISPLACES DEMOCRACY

Any group of people who try seriously to achieve any social purpose will end up serving a complex org which becomes an end in itself

Even if the original or ostensible purpose of the org was to establish democracy, it will become less demo & more bureaucratic

See Also: Bureaucracy

A demo organization will become an oligarchy, i.e. 'rules by the few' in that bureaucracy is a kind of oligarchy

Because even those orgs dedicated to the estb of demo cannot help becoming an oligarchy, it follows that other orgs will go the same way

The assumption which Michels dispels is that an org dedicated to establishing demo is less likely than orgs w/ other purposes to be undemocratic

If it can be shown in this most unlikely case of the demo org that oligarchy is inevitable, then it is safe to generalize & say that every org must be an oligarchy

This 'iron law' refers to the inherent tendency of all complex orgs, including radical or socialist political parties & labor unions, to develop a ruling clique of leaders w/ interests in the org itself rather than in its official aims

These leaders, Michels argued, came to desire leadership & its status & rewards more than any commitment to goals

Inevitably, their influence was conservative, seeking to preserve & enhance the org & not to endanger it by any radical action

Michels came to the conclusion that the formal organization of bureaucracies inevitably leads to oligarchy, under which orgs which originally were idealistic & democratic eventually come to be dominated by a small, self serving group of people who achieved positions of power & responsibility

The transformation into a bureaucratic oligarchy can occur in large orgs because it becomes physically impossible for everyone to get together every time a decision has to be made

Because all the people cannot or do not participate, a small grp is given the responsibility of making decisions

Michels believed that the people in this group would become enthralled w/ their elite positions & more & more inclined to make decisions that protect their power rather than represent the will of the group they are supposed to serve

In effect Michels was saying that bureaucracy & democracy do not mix

Despite any protestations & promises that they would not become like all the rest, those placed in positions of responsibility & power often come to believe that they too are indispensable, & more knowledgeable than those they serve

Robert Michels

1876 - 1936
9 January 1876, Cologne, Germany — 3 May 1936, Rome, Italy

Robert Michels was born in Cologne, Germany in 1876, of mixed German and Belgian roots. His family background was Fr, It & Ger, & at various times he wrote for journals in each of those languages. He was a student of Max Weber. He studied at the Un of Halle, Marburg, in UK, Fr & finally in Turin, Italy, where he met & befriended Gaetano Mosca, the Italian social theorist who did so much to develop what is now called 'elite theory'. He became professor & taught at the Un of Brussels, Paris, Turin, Basel, Perugia & Florence. Michels became involved in party politics, starting from the radical wing of the Ger Marxist party, the SPD, to end in It as one of Mussolini's professors of Fascist political science.

Major Works of Michels

Political Parties.

Further Reading on Michels

Beetham, David, 'From Socialism to Fascism: the Relation Between Theory and Practice in the Work of Robert Michels', Political Studies 25 (1977), pp. 3-24
Breines, Wini, 'Community and Organization: the New Left and Michels' Iron Law', Social Problems 27 (1980), pp. 419-29 (HN/1/.S58)
Cassinelli, C.W., 'The Law of Oligarchy', American Political Science Review 47 (1953), pp. 773-84. JA/1/.A6
Hands, Gordon, 'Roberto Michels and the Study of Political Parties', British Journal of Political Science 1 (1971), pp. 155-72
May, John D., 'Democracy, Organization, Michels', The American Political Science Review 59 (1965), pp. 417-29. JA/1/.A6
Scaff, Lawrence , 'Max Weber and Roberto Michels', American Journal of Sociology , 86 (1981), pp. 1269-86, HM/1/.A7

Internal
Links

Outline on the Iron Law of Oligarchy by Robert Michels

External
Links

- Project: Michels' Iron Law of Oligarchy

INTRODUCTION

'Oli' means few

Oligarchy is the tendency to be ruled by a few

Oligarchy is rule by a small group of leaders w/ little or no effective influence on the part of its members

Oligarchy is a small group of people who rule w/ absolute power

The term oligopoly is commonly used to describe a group of dominate businesses, that are not a monopoly, but together, control an entire market: e.g. airlines, steel, auto, etc.

See Also: Forms of Govt

THE IRON LAW OF OLIGARCHY

Michels pointed out the link btwn bureaucracy & political oligarchy, the rule of the many by the few

Michels conceived of the idea of the iron law of oligarchy in 191l

The "iron law of oligarchy" refers to the pyramid shape of bureaucracy placing a few leaders in charge of orgl resources

In any organization, power becomes concentrated in hands of the leaders, who may then use that power to protect their own interests

The iron law of oligarchy holds that even in democratic orgs, democracy devolves into oligarchy

For Michels & many other social theorists, power has a self perpetuating aspect

Michels found that the socialist parties of Europe, despite their democratic ideology & provisions for mass participation, seemed to be dominated by their leaders, just like the tradl conservative parties

Studying political parties, he concluded that the problem lay in the very nature of orgs

Modern demo allowed the formation of orgs such as political parties, but as such orgs grew in complexity, they paradoxically became less & less demo

The iron law of oligarchy states that all forms of org, regardless of how demo or autocratic they may be at the start, will eventually & inevitably develop into oligarchies.

The reasons for this are the technical indispensability of leadership, the tendency of the leaders to organize themselves & to consolidate their interests; the gratitude of the led towards the leaders, & the general immobility & passivity of the masses

OLIGARCHIC PROCESSES

Michels developed the iron law of oligarchy which demonstrates that oligarchic power emerges & is maintained through FIVE processes, including

a. the delegation of authority or tasks via the division of labor

b. that those in power have access to resources ( info, $$, people, the hierarchy, etc.) that others do not have

c. the followers confer both legitimacy & a sense of obligation on their leaders

d. incumbency

An Incumbent is someone who is already in office, or any position

e. human "self interest" in that once power emerges, people & orgs seek to preserve & then expand it

See also Power

See also Organizational power

OLIGARCHY, BUREAUCRACY, EFFICIENCY

For Michels, oligarchy & bureaucracy are essentially the same, & both seek to maximize efficiency

However oligarchy & bureaucracy are quite different & any org may be more or less bureaucratic, & more or less oligarchic, independent of each other

Oligarchy develops out of a desire to be effective

Michels was a student of Weber & his analysis of oligarchy is built on Weber's theories of bureaucracy

The simple observation is that the day to day running of a complex org by its mass membership was impossible & therefore, professional full time leadership & direction was required

In theory the leaders of the org were subject to control by the mass membership, through delegate conferences & membership voting, but, in reality, the leaders were in the dominant position

Leaders possess the experience & expertise in running the org, they came to control the means of communication w/in the org & they monopolized the public status of representing the org

It became difficult for the mass membership to provide any effective counterweight to professional, entrenched, leadership

Michels also argued that these inherent orgl tendencies were strengthened by a mass psychology of leadership dependency

He felt that people had a basic psychological need to be led

Michels lived at a time when mass demo & the political party were new political & social phenomena

In mass demos the individual is powerless on his/her own to get their voice heard & their demands met

In mass demos, a basic need for org in that to get their voice heard & their demands met, individuals must organize themselves collectively

In any type of org, the elites tend to look after their own personal interests

The elite use their own set of knowledge & expertise to influence the decision making process w/in the org

'Ordinary members' of the org may be excluded effectively from the decision making processes of the org

IRON LAW OR TENDENCY?

The iron law of oligarchy is just a social tendency, but a very strong, inevitable tendency that becomes reality unless steps are taken & institutions & policies are developed to resist it

Our nation is based on belief that the iron law of oligarchy is just a tendency

Govt has extraordinary controls to limit oligarchy

What are the systems in govt that maintain democracy?

EXAMPLES

An example that Michels used in his book was Germany's Social Democratic Party (SDP)

Early on in his adult career Michels himself was an active socialist & a member of the SDP

Michels' 'iron law of oligarchy' can, in some senses, be seen as the product of Michels' personal experiences as a socialist member of the German SDP

His 'iron law' is based upon Michels empirical study of the German SDP & a number of associated trade unions

Michels concluded from his studies that the German SDP whilst proclaiming a 'revolutionary' program & manifesto was quickly becoming part of the German 'establishment'

The size & complexity of a group or org is important to the iron law as well

During the 1970s & early 1980s, the Green Party of Germany made a conscious effort to try & break the iron law

In the Green Party, anyone could be or could remove a party official

In the Green Party, there were no permanent offices or officers

In the Green Party, even the smallest, most routine decisions could be put up for discussion & to a vote

When the Green Party was small, these anti oligarchic measures enjoyed some success

But as the org grew larger & the party became more successful, the need to effectively compete in elections, raise funds, run large rallies & demonstrations & work w/ other political parties once elected, led the Greens to adapt more conventional structures & practices

One of the most known exceptions to the iron law of oligarchy was the now defunct International Typographical Union, (ITU) described by Seymour Martin Lipset in his 1956 book, Union Democracy

Orgs rarely operate w/ system's to maintain democracy as does govt
What are these systems that maintain democracy?

The systems in govt that maintain democracy include the separation of powers, checks & balances, the free press, fundamental rights (i.e., the Bill of Rights), two thirds majority to change the system, the vote

Internal
Links

Outline on Species Being: Marx's Conception of Human Nature

External
Links

- Project: We Are What We Do

- Project: Human Nature & Species Being

Species being means human nature

Species being is an archaic ( or old fashioned ) word for human nature

What distinguishes people from animals?

Like humans, animals use tools, use nature, make things
- Bees build nests
- Chimps use tools
- Animals have emotions
What makes us different?

The primary behavior that distinguishes humans from animals is that we plan what we are going to do before we do it

Humans mentally pre-conceive the objective/process while animals build only instinctually

For Marx, people are "naturally" "laborers"

People work on the social, material & natural world of which they are part

In doing so, they change the world, the world changes them ( natural selection) & the activities in which we engage change us

Work is a part of our human nature

We are creative beings who must create through work to realize ourself, actualize, develop, etc.

Humans are constructing & being constructed by nature

The changing of econ systems is a result of individuals & groups struggling w/ their social & natural contexts

Marx saw history as an analogy based on competitive struggle

Marx's conception of human nature is that we need to humanly mold the world by means of our theoretical practical activity ( praxis )

We create world in the sense that we produce tools & w/ tools & externalize objects w/ the materials of nature, thus modifying nature

Animals do mold the world too through the use of tools, the use nature, & making things

For Marx, human essence is the most fully expressed through labor

For Habermas, human essence is realized in communication

Labor is a creative activity carried out in cooperation w/ others by which people transform the world outside themselves

Through the creative process of labor, we also transform our world within: we learn, struggle, will, experience compassion, etc. through labor

Labor is social

Labor is always social or cooperative because we usually produce w/ others & we usually produce for others

But market production is alienating

Early production was done
- for the family or tribe
- to give away
- to trade
- for status

See Also: Alienation

See Also: Marxist history

Marx believed that the process of labor was the process of objectification

We make objects which embody our hopes, dreams, creativity, essence, etc. & yet these things stand separate from their creators

We seek to express / objectify ourselves

Marx believed, 'We are what we do.'

For Marx, our species being is undeveloped

Marx had a conception of the natural person, natural needs, & potentials paralleling the Enlightenment thinkers

We have latent & potential powers, along w/ active powers

If people are no more than a laboring beast, we need not remain so; we can become creative, that is, we have potential

For Marx, it is not that we create that makes us different than animals; there are THREE features that make humans different than animals
a. we plan before we create
b. we desire/need to create
c. we create ourselves through what we create

We do not know what the natural person is like

We do not know what a peaceful, fulfilled society is like

We can only imagine that a society w/ fulfilled people, w/ creative, unalienated labor, is much different than what now exists

Marx believed that capitalism resulted in our human nature being alienated

Failure to realize our human nature results in alienation

Both Marx & Freud believed that to deny human nature is to distort human nature

Marx's laboring/creative species being is similar to Freud's Eros or sex drive

Marx believed we did not truly know human nature because it had been so distorted by the flawed economic system

Perhaps Marx's sense of our human nature is closest to Maslow's view of human nature

Both Marx & Maslow believed that we have higher needs & potentials that can be developed

Link

Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs describes his conception of developmental human nature

Marx's creative laboring was not similar to Maslow's lower survival needs of food, water, clothing, shelter

Marx's species being is similar to Maslow's highest need: self actualization

The concept “we are what we do” is similar to the concept of self actualization

We realize ourselves, for ourselves, not in relation to others as in Maslow's status needs, but through what we do

Human nature dictates the nature of society

Because our species being is based on our creativity / laboring so society itself is based on the system of creativity /laboring: the economy

Chart on Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs

The Chart on Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs demonstrates, as Freud believed, that the lower needs are the foundation upon which other needs are fulfilled, but unlike Freud, higher needs are primarily social in nature

Internal
Links

Outline on Michels on Human Nature

External
Links

INTRODUCTION

For Michels, one of the major factors contributing to the power of oligarchy is human nature itself

Innate human tendencies urge people to transmit their material possessions to their legitimate heir or other kin

Michels never managed to resolve whether the quest for power & material goods or an immutable human psychology, i.e. human nature, caused the socioeconomic order

HUMAN NATURE: THE QUEST FOR POWER

Like Pareto & Mosca before him, Michels rested his belief in the inevitability of oligarchy on a conception of human nature that is precisely the opposite of that held by Marx

It is humanities inherent nature to crave power, & once having attained it, to seek to perpetuate it

Political power comes to be considered as an object of private hereditary ownership

While the bequeathal of material property & political power is due to the peculiar & inherent instincts of humankind, instincts are nourished by the econ order which is based upon private property & private ownership of the means of production

For Michels, an ideal democracy is impossible under the existing econ & social conditions since the iron law of oligarchy was contingent on the existing econ & social conditions

On the basis of the psycl assumption that people crave power, Michels theorizes that democracy requires org which leads necessarily to oligarchy

For Michels, like every other sociological law, the iron law of oligarchy is beyond good & evil

HUMAN NATURE & CROWD PSYCHOLOGY

People are incapable of governing themselves because of the crowd is easily given to suggestion, irrational outbursts, the influence of crowd psychology, & extreme swings of ideation & behavior

It is easier to dominate a large crowd than a small audience

In crowds, serious discussion & deliberation are impossible

THE LIMITATIONS OF HUMAN INTERACTION/COMMUNICATION

Our human nature / physical make up dictates how much we can communicate & w/ how many people we can communicate

The technical & practical problem of involving multitudes in decision making is difficult if not impossible

Rousseau understood that it was impossible to involve large numbers of people in the discussion of resolutions & direct decision making

It is not possible for the people of a nation to be involved the control of their affairs w/o intermediate representation

And the need for representative democracy is also necessary in modern orgs, where for example, in Michels time the party in Berlin alone had 90 k members

VENERATION

The need of the masses for religion is evident from the idolatrous manner in which they venerate the political parties, secular books, symbols, & leaders

The veneration for leaders & even symbols is not peculiar to backward nations or remote periods; it is an atavistic survival of primitive psychology

LEADERS

For Michels leaders, & all people, have a 'natural greed for power'

THE MASSES

For Michels, the masses need for organization, their apathy, their adulation of leadership, their submission, etc. is so ingrained, powerful, & constant, that it has all the hallmarks of being a fundamental characteristic of human nature

Internal
Links

Outline on Social Change

External
Links

SOCIAL CHANGE IS THE ALTERATION OF BEHAVIOR PATTERNS, SOCIAL RELATIONSHIPS, INSTITUTIONS, & SOCIAL STRUCTURE OVER TIME

Soc change is the transformation of culture & social institutions over time that is reflected in the life patterns of individuals

Soc change, aka social development, is a general term which refers to a change in the nature, the social institutions, the social behavior or the social relations of a society, community of people, or other social structures

Soc change is any event or action that affects a group of individuals that have shared values or characteristics & the acts of advocacy for the cause of changing society in a normative way

Soc change is the alteration in the underlying structure of a social object or situation over a period of time

THERE IS PERVASIVE SOCIAL CHANGE; IN THE PAST, SOME SOCIETIES WERE STABLE / UNCHANGING FOR CENTURIES; TODAY CHANGE IS THE NORM & IT IS INCREASING IN PACE

In the contemporary world, everyone has experienced change, & people expect more, rapid change in the future

It must be remembered that rapid soc change is not the norm throughout history in that in many eras, esp the Mid Ages in Euro, or the Chinese Dynasties from about 1 AD to the 1700s, life changed little for the common family

Understanding soc change means understanding the degree of any modification in the basic instits during a specific period as well as an understanding of what remains stable

Soc scientists note that soc change occurs in different soc structures at different rates

In our rapidly changing world, there are continuities from the long distant past such as major religious systems, gender / pairing customs such as monogamy, broad soc instit such as the military, etc.

The concept of cultural lag, as developed by conflict theorists, notes that cultures inevitably change at different rates, w/ some lagging behind others

Soc change encompasses everything from revolution & paradigm shifts, to narrow changes such as a particular cause w/in small town govt

EARLY THEORIES OF SOCIAL CHANGE WERE OFTEN CRITICAL OF IT & THOSE WHO FOMENTED IT

Theories of soc change examine the success or failure of different political systems, globalization, democratization, development & econ growth

Some soc changes that are beneficial to society, while others may result in negative side effects or consequences that undermine or eliminate existing ways of life that are considered positive

One of the earliest, albeit non scientific, beliefs about social change the idea of decline or degeneration, or, in religious terms, the fall from an original state of grace, connected w/ theology

Ancient philosophers developed the idea that there was little soc change & instead 'history' was comprised largely of cyclical change, a pattern of subsequent & recurring phases of growth & decline, & the social cycles

The idea of cyclical change persists into the modern era

CONTEMPORARY THEORIES OF SOCIAL CHANGE RECOGNIZE IT AS A NEW,COMPLEX, SOCIAL PHENOMENON THAT IS CENTRAL TO MODERN SOCIETY

Beginning in the late mid age, the idea of continuous social progress was recognized

While there are many important theory of social change, the two approached of social evolution & historical materialism are the predominant theories

Social evolution is a gradual process of social change whereby a society develops, increases in complexity, & offers it members a better quality of life

Soc evol also tries to relate biological & soc change

See Also: Social Evolution

Evolutionary theories including social Darwinism

See Also: Social Darwinism

Historical materialism holds that soc changes comes about by changes in the material env & that the most imp aspect of that change in relation to changes in society are the changes in the mode of production & class structure

Marxists Historical Analysis

Embedded in almost all theories of soc change is the role of tech

The wide adoption of a new tech leads to imbalance in the econ relationship btwn econ agents.

Tech changes in econ systems in turn leads to changes in the social balance of power, therefore leading to social change

Historical precedent shows that major social changes have taken place during "cusp" periods, defined by changing relations among human formations, nature, & technology

Among many forms of creating social change are theater for social change, direct action, protesting, advocacy, community organizing, community practice, revolution, & political activism

Other important theorists of soc change include Weber, Parsons & many others

Internal
Links

Outline on Michels on Social Change

External
Links

Michels acknowledged that the "democratic currents of history," break over & over again on the same shoal of oligarchy

While oligarchy triumphs in one histl era, the demo currents are inevitably renewed & rise again

For Marx, social conditions elicit a subjective response from people

How people define those conditions which appear subjective to them, whether good or evil, can make a difference for the perpetuation or abolition of those conditions

There are periods when soc conditions impose limits on the actions of people, but there are other periods when opportunities for change emerge

Marx, in his development of historical materialism, held that people make history, but not under the conditions of their own choosing

See Also: Historical Materialism

Given the consciousness of opportunities on the part of a sufficient number of people who are willing to act in concert, opportunities may be seized

Part of the reason for the renewal or repeated attempts at democracy is that oligarchic rule is felt by the people to be oppressive & is thus to be overthrown

For Michels, history repeats itself in ever reoccurring democratic currents when they rise & then fall again on the same shoal of the iron law of oligarchy

But Michels was optimist in that his iron law was merely a metaphor for the dangers & weaknesses of democracy in orgs under specific hist conditions

Michels was optimistic in that while oligarchy would be a factor in any org, democracy had indeed advanced from aristocratic, to capitalist, to he believed, socialist systems

Internal
Links

Outline on the Factors in the Iron Law of Oligarchy

External
Links

INTRODUCTION

Michels stressed several factors that underlie the "Iron Law of Oligarchy" which Darcy K. Leach summarized as: "Bureaucracy happens. If bureaucracy happens, power rises. Power corrupts."

The very nature of large scale org makes oligarchy w/in these orgs inevitable

Oligarchy, specialized groups of administrators, bureaucracy, & a hierarchical org are all correlated

The rationalization & routinization of authority & decision making controlled by an oligarchy is a process that was first & perhaps best described by Max Weber, & to a lesser & more cynical extent, by the Peter Principle

BUREAUCRACY

Any large org, Michels pointed out, is faced w/ problems of coordination that can be solved only by creating a bureaucracy

A bureaucracy, by design, is hierarchically organized to achieve efficiency, many decisions have to be made daily that cannot efficiently be made by large numbers of people

The effective functioning of a bureaucracy therefore requires the concentration of much power in the hands of a few

Those few, in turn, the oligarchy, will then use all means necessary to preserve & further increase their power

DIVISION OF LABOR

Once a collectivity is formed for any purpose & attains a certain size, a division of labor becomes necessary

As an org grows larger, its growth is accompanied by an increasing complexity

New functions emerge & are distributed, & along w/ the differentiation of functions comes the delegation of authority

Bureaucratization & the division of labor / specialization are the driving processes behind the iron law of oligarchy

LEADERSHIP

Leaders are chose to represent the mass & carry out its will

In the early stages of the development of a org based upon democratic & socialist ideals the various functions stand in a coordinate relationship to one another; that is, their primary function is to coordinate

In the early stages of a dem org, no hierarchy is implied in any of the functions & positions

In a dem org, people are all equal in the sense that differential amts of wealth or power are not associated w/ the various positions

The social honor accorded to a leader does not enable her/him to transform that honor into special perquisites & privileges

For Michels, originally, the leader is merely the servant of the mass

Bureaucracy, by design, promotes the centralization of power in the hands of those at the top of the org

YOUNG ORGS

In the early stages of a dem org, the equalitarian character is assured by the commitment of the members to the principles of dem & equalitarianism

Functions are rotated, delegates & representatives are subject to the will of the collectivity, & in general a high degree of camaraderie prevails

For Michels, this hi level of dem is possible only when the org in young & the scale is small

Internal
Links

Outline on the Division of Labor ( DOL )

External
Links

- Project: The Division of Labor, Solidarity, & Social Problems

The division of labor (DOL) is highly specialized economic activity

The DOL is workplace relationship where different workers carry out different steps in producing a product

The DOL is a characteristic of most societies in which different individual or groups specialize in different tasks

The DOL is the specialization of work tasks, by means of which different occupations are combined w/in a production system

DOL = SPECIALIZATION = EFFICIENCY = COMPLEXITY

An example of the DOL can be seen in assembling bicycles in that one person performing all six required steps in assembling a bike, can make one unit in the same amount of time as it takes six people, each specializing in one of the six steps, to make 12 units

In 1776 Adam Smith argued that the DOL produces efficiencies because of the increased dexterity of the worker as he or she specializes in one task, because of the time save "in passing from one sort of work to another," and because of the introduction of machinery

All societies have at least some rudimentary division of labor, especially btwn the tasks allocated to men & those allocated to women

W/ the development of industrialism, however, the DOL becomes vastly more complex than in any prior type of production systems.

In the modern world, the DOL is international in scope, hence globalization

The most fundamental change in the nature of work over time has been the increasing DOL

EARLY DOL

In hunter gatherer societies, each member engaged in more or less the full range of work activities except as labor as divided by gender & age

See Also: Hunter Gatherer Society

See Also: Gender in Hunter Gatherer Society

It is believed that the earliest form of the DOL was that btwn men & women, & btwn children & adults

The child adult DOL began in the hunter gatherer era wherein children would tag along as adults did their tasks, learning the tasks & helping as their skills enabled them to help

The child adult DOL continued until factory work began & adults went out of the home to work, whereby child became a consumptive liability for a family rather than a productive asset

Until factory work began, the workplace orgl structure was identical w/ the family & extended family grp structure

In the Feudal Era, most workers were in agriculture, but some specialized in a single product & had occupations such as tailors, cobblers, bakers, etc.

See Also: The Feudal Era

SDOL

The social division of labor (SDOL) is the DOL into different crafts or trades

The SDOL began in the Feudal Era, but became widespread in the Early Industrial Age

In modern industrial societies, work has become so specialized that each trade is broken down into seemingly innumerable specialties

In the meat packing industry one can specialize as a large stock scalper, belly shaver, crotch buster, gut snatcher, gut sorter, snout puller, ear cutter, eyelid remover, stomach washers (sometimes called a belly bumper), hind puller, front leg toenail puller, & oxtail washer (Wilensky & Lebeaux, 1986)

Specialization creates new lines of work that require new & different skills; however, the DOL often reduces the range of skills needed to perform jobs

The DOL often results in the deskilling of workers

For example, a much narrower range of skills is needed to be a "gut snatcher" than a butcher

DOL, INDL REV, BUREAUCRACY

The DOL is a basic feature of industrialization, & the DOL as we know it today developed during the Industrial Revolution

The limited development of the DOL had occurred in eras previous to the Ind Rev

Bureaucracy had existed in limited forms previous to the Industrial Revolution, but w/ this change, bureaucracy, like the DOL became widespread

The DOL is one of the fundamental characteristics of bureaucracy

Bureaucracy as we know it could not exist w/o the DOL

See Also: Bureaucracy

See Also: Weber

Durkheim held that the DOL is a fundamental, defining feature of modern society

Durkheim believes that modern society could not exist w/o the DOL

One of Durkheim's most important insights was that the DOL & industrial interdependence, which he characterized as organic solidarity, replaced mechanical solidarity wherein each person / family is relatively independent when compared to today's people

See Also: Durkheim

See Also: Mechanical & Organic Solidarity

MDOL

Most work in industrial society is organized in terms of the manufacturing DOL (MDOL)

Under the MDOL, the different activities in each craft are separated

For example a cobbler would make soles, then make tops, & then stitch them together while w/ the MDOL workers would divide these two tasks into many

Early scholars of work in the 1800s conducted analyses of labor where they studied craftsmen in order to determine how to divide the labor among unskilled workers

The analysis of labor continues today wherein each manufacturer must conduct exhaustive studies to determine the optimal MDOL

Analysis of labor consultants often work closely w/ production engineers to optimize the way products are designed so that the components can be efficiently assembled

The MDOL often involves the increased efficiencies from the assembly line

The DOL allows some workers to be paid less than other workers & has resulted in large, stratified orgs w/ a tall hierarchy

The MDOL creates the preconditions for mechanization

Mechanization creates its own MDOL because workers must learn to operate various machines

EFFICIENCY VS. ALIENATION

Starting w/ Marx, it became well known that an extensive DOL frequently negated some of the increased efficiency because of the alienation & lost enthusiasm of the workers

The DOL is administered through direct personal control, foreman control, or technical control

See Also: Workplace Control

The DOL reached some limits in the 1970s in that jobs were so finely dissected, & wkrs were so alienated that even mgt sought alternative methods of job org

Modern indl society has developed the DOL to such a great extent via Scientific Mgt., bureaucracy, etc. that workers literally go insane

Since the 70s, there has been some limited reversal of the trend of an increasing DOL, in some industries such as auto manufacturing

In the 2000s, job enlargement & the recognition that "big picture people" give orgs an advantage is more than apparent

Internal
Links

Outline on Michels on the Division of Labor

External
Links

INTRODUCTION

Michels believed that
- for any grp of people to be effective, they must have an organization
- any org requires bureaucracy
- any bureaucracy requires a div of labor
- any div of labor requires specialization
- some people will specialize in admin skills
- admin skills, control of resources, secret knowledge, etc. allow the development of oligarchy

THE DIVISION OF LABOR

Delegation / specialization/ div of labor is necessary in any large org, as thousands, sometimes even hundreds of thousands, of members cannot make decisions using participatory democracy

W/in the div of labor certain tasks & duties become more complicated & require ability, training, & knowledge

Differentiation of functions implies specialization & specialization, in turn, expertise

Schools, courses, etc. are developed to train functionaries & officials & results in a class of professionals

Some positions may require regular examinations to ensure that a level of expertise & professionalism is maintained

Expertise becomes a foot in the door w/ the experts increasingly resembling not servants but masters

For Michels, both the div of lab as dictated by the lack of techl means that would allow large number of people to meet & debate, as well as the issues related to the crowd psychology create conditions wherein people feel the need to be led

The div of labor / specialization / delegation leads to the development of the bases of knowledge, skills, & resources, which further serves to alienate the leadership from the 'mass & rank' & entrenches the leadership in office

THE DIVISION OF LABOR & LEADERSHIP

As professionals become common in an org, the org becomes hierarchical & bureaucratic

All people in an org specialize at various tasks, but for leaders, their specialized knowledge & skill makes them indispensable

For good reasons the members in the division of labor look for leaders & organizers

What began as a tech & practical necessity is transformed into a virtue: demo & equality are no longer regarded as essential & a new ideology emerges to justify the changes wrought by the processes of org development

Acquiring a greater degree of the attributes of leaders, the experts w/draw from the masses & concentrate in the hands a variety of prerogatives

Michels researched a variety of orgs & in party & labor orgs he found the artificial creation of an elite of the working class, of a caste of cadets who aspire to leadership & thus w/o wishing it, they create a gap btwn the leaders & the masses

The changes in the div of labor, leadership, hierarchy, & bureaucracy results in the familiar process by which people originally appointed to serve the interests of the collectivity soon develop interests of their own often which are opposed to the collectivity

Leaders can threaten resignation if the org seems to be on the point of making a wrong decision & because of their indispensability due to the division of labor, this threat carries some weight

THE DIVISION OF LABOR, LEADERSHIP, OLIGARCHY

It is the process of orgl development which is the cause of the transformation from a demo org to a oligarchic org

Demo implies org, & org in turn implies the tendency to oligarchy

Every org becomes divided into a minority of directors & a majority of directed

For Michels, w/ the advance of org, demo tends to decline

Demo evolution has a parabolic course whereby the increase in the power of the leaders is directly proportional w/ the the extension of the org

In fact as the leadership develops they come to believe that it is better to abandon demo & equality rather than professionalism & expertise

Org dev is the only means of attaining the org's ultimate goals & demo & equality are sacrificed for the sake of the org's larger goals

In political parties & unions, leaders often believe that true demo & equality cannot be estbed until the struggle is over, & thus demo & equality become an end & note a means to the end

Org members are convinced by the leadership that submission to the authority of the leaders is the highest virtue; that demo & equality must be sacrificed so that demo & equality can eventually be attained

Even demo orgs such as political parties & labor unions easily adapt the vocabulary of military org

Internal
Links

Outline on an Overview of Leadership

External
Links

- Project: Leadership

- Project: How Would You Lead?

- Project: Video: Master & Commander

LEADERSHIP IS AMONG THE TOP FACTORS AFFECTING ORGS & BECAUSE ORGS & PEOPLE ARE NOT COMPLETELY RATIONAL, CHARISMA IS AN IMPORTANT FACTOR

Leadership is perhaps the most important, influential, & oft studied topic in orgl studies

There is the assumption that leadership is the most powerful aspect of any org

Even political events often hinge upon leadership as seen in the famous: "Great Man [ sic ] Theory of History" paradigm

Much of history is the story of military, political, religious, & social leaders

Leadership studies often examine why some great leaders were deposed despite apparent power & a record of successful accomplishments

LEADERSHIP IS HEAVILY CONSTRAINED, INFLUENCED, & OTHERWISE SHAPED BY MANY FACTORS INSIDE & OUTSIDE THE ORG

Meindl, et al, 1985, holds that leadership is romanticized as a solution for whatever is ailing an org

Focusing on issues such as leadership often masks problems w/ structure, power distribution, etc.

Etzioni, 1965, describes leadership as the ability, based on the personal qualities of the leader, to elicit the followers' voluntary compliance in a broad range of matters

Leadership is distinguished from power in that it entails influence, i.e., the ability to influence preferences, while power implies only that subjects' preferences are held in abeyance

Followers do alter their preferences to coincide w/ those of the leader

Gouldner, 1950, describes the leader as any individual whose behavior stimulates the patterning of the behavior & ideology of some group

For Gouldner, the leader is an influence on what the members

Katz & Kahn, 1978, see leadership as the influential increase over & above the mechanical compliance w/ the routine directions of the org

Thus leadership is closely related to power, but involves more than simply the power allocated to a position in the or or claimed by a member

Leadership is something that is attributed to people by their followers

There is little research on top leadership because these people have the power to control access to them & they have generally not allowed researchers in & when they do, they control by controlling access they control the findings of the research

Much research on top leadership is the result of books written by the leaders themselves:
Lee Iacocca & Chrysler Donald Trump Winston Churchill

There are an extremely large number of dependent variables used in leadership analysis

The contemporary conceptualization of leadership involves a combination of FIVE factors, including the:
- position w/in the org itself
- situation / context / environment
- traits of the Leaders
- traits of the Followers
- nature of the relationships w/ subordinates

Because each leadership role is the result of the unique combination of these factors, no one style of leadership is successful all the time

Leadership affects both behavior & attitudes at all levels of the org, though the influence of top leadership is thought to be greater

Internal
Links

Outline on the Functions of Leadership

External
Links

1. LEADERS MAKE CRITICAL DECISIONS & THEN CONVINCE PEOPLE TO FOLLOW THEM

Selznick, 1957, distinguishes btwn leadership & power when he notes that perhaps the most important function of leadership is to make critical decisions

For Selznick, leadership is more than the maintenance of the administration of the org

2. LEADERS DEFINE THE ORG'S MISSION, BUILD STRUCTURE, FOSTER VALUES, RESOLVE CONFLICT

Selznick believes the critical tasks of leadership fall into FOUR categories

In relation to the functions of leadership, for Selznick a critical task of leadership is the:

a. definition of the institutional (organizational) mission & role including the definition of an org's role

For Selznick, an leader's role is a dynamic process that is made difficult by a rapidly changing world

b. embodiment of the orgl purpose of building of policy into structure; i.e. deciding upon the means to achieve the ends desired

c. defense of the org's integrity by representing the org's values via public relations to the public & the org's own members

d. ordering of internal conflict by guiding it to maintain positive relationships

3. LEADERSHIP OPERATES AT ALL LEVELS OF THE ORG INCLUDING THE TOP, MIDDLE, & THE BOTTOM / LINE

Leadership occurs at all levels of the org & many studies have been done at the lowest level of leadership, i.e. 1st line supervisors, which are the easiest to study

Middle mgrs are more remote & difficult to analyze

Top mgrs are very remote & nearly impossible to analyze

The middle & top levels of mgt. have the power to control access to them, thus studies often reveal only what the mgrs allow to be revealed

The level in the org where the leadership occurs, affects the functioning of the leadership

What affects mgt., or is effective at one level most likely is not as important at another level

Internal
Links

Outline on the Components of Leadership

External
Links

MANY SCHOLARS USE A TRAITS APPROACH, EXAMINING THE COMMON CHARACTERISTICS OF LEADERS, SUCH AS RATIONALITY, PERSUASIVE, INNOVATIVE CHARISMATIC, ETC.

All orgs have a person or people at the top in leadership positions who, by Weber's conception of rationalized authority, wield power w/in the org

Hall believes it is crucial to examine what a leader does above & beyond the basic requirement of the position

For Hall, the persuasion of members & innovations in ideas & decision making is what differentiates leadership from the possession of power

Hall's analysis assumes that individual characteristics are crucial for leadership because otherwise leadership would only entail the fulfillment of the requirements of the office

Many analysts have assumed that there are a set of traits that leaders possess, but the trait approach has not gone far for TWO reasons

The trait approach has not achieved its goals because

a. no universal set of characteristics has been found since leaders have a wide range of characteristics

b. the situation in which leadership occurs is as important as any factor found (Gouldner, 1950)

MANY SCHOLARS HAVE FOCUSED ON THE EXTERNAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE LEADERSHIP SITUATION NOTING THAT THIS IS MORE DETERMINATIVE OF SUCCESS THAN THE INTERNAL CHARACTERISTICS

The situational approach assumes that the set of conditions of the moment, the situation, defines by whom & in what manner leadership will be exercised

The situational approach has dominated sociological thinking, especially in small group analyses

The emergent approach combines the trait & situation approaches in the belief that different situations call for leaders w/ different traits; thus leaders emerge to meet the situation (Yukl, 1981, 1989)

Hollander & Julian, 1969, supplement the emergent approach by integrating the dynamic btwn leaders & followers where leaders influence the followers & followers influence leaders in the context of the former dynamic

The position of the leader in the org gives the leader a power base leading the followers to the expectation that the Leader has the legitimate right to that position & that the Leaders acts for the org

The position of the leaders & the followers is especially important during times of dissent

The leader should act in such a way that the expectations of the followers' expectations are fulfilled

Here the interrelationships btwn the traits of the leader & the position's authority interact in that on set of traits is optimal for a given position in a given situation

Yukl, 1981, Figure on Leadership Variables indicates the dynamics of SIX variables impacting leadership, including:

1. traits & skills
2. behavior
3. follower / intervening variables

4. end result variables
5. position power
6. situation variables

There are THREE Advantages of Yukl's Framework
a. It identifies factors that contribute to or may block leadership
b. It can deal w/ leadership at all levels w/in the org
c. It recognizes that the end results or outcomes have an important feedback effect on leadership

Internal
Links

Outline on Michels on Leadership

External
Links

INTRO: LEADERS (LDRs) HAVE THE PERSONAL QUALS OF POLITICAL SKILL, ARE MORE CONSERVATIVE THAN MEMBERS, ARE MOTIVATED TO SHAPE ORG IN OWN IMAGE

It is the consequence of org itself which creates leaders w/ higher status & power, the domination of the elected over the electors, the administrators over the administered, the party leaders over the people, etc.

The orgl characteristics that promote oligarchy are reinforced by certain characteristics of both leaders & members of orgs

Once the org becomes large enough to have income & accumulated funds, it appoints full time officials & estbes newspapers, training schools & so on

People achieve leadership positions precisely because they have unusual political skill; they are adept at getting their way and persuading others of the correctness of their views

Leaders are often a conservative element: they are not in favor of risky experiments, or of anything that might lead to a clash with public opinion or with powerful interests, because this might lead to the destruction of the party's power to pay their salaries

See Also: Charisma

Leaders are also strongly motivated to persuade the org of the rightness of their views, & they use all of their skills, power & authority to do so

COMMON LDR ORGL QUALS ARE EXPERIENCE, EXPERTISE, INDISPENSABILITY, VENERATION, CULTURAL DISTANCE, TENURE LIMITED BY RIVALS

1. EXPERIENCE, EXPERTISE, ETC.

'Experience' & 'expertise' are among the main words to leaders use to legitimize their positions of power

Leaders of orgs often exert control by controlling the media, by diffusing their fame & popularizing their names

Leaders have patronage, i.e. the power to appoint people to paid jobs

Leaders also have control over very powerful negative & positive sanctions to promote the behavior that they desire

They have the power to grant or deny raises, assign workloads, fire, demote &, that most gratifying of all sanctions, the power to promote

Most important, they tend to promote junior officials who share their opinions, w/ the result that the oligarchy becomes self perpetuating

Leaders have access to, & control over, info & facilities that are not available to the rank & file

They control the info that flows down the channels of communication

2. INDISPENSABILITY

The impression among the rank & file is that their leaders are indeed indispensable

Indispensability, whether apparent or real, becomes an efficient tool in the leader's hands

If a leader's decisions are challenged, she or he threatens to resign, which appears as a fine democratic gesture, but which is intended to remind the followers of her or his indispensability & to force their submission to his will

3. VENERATION BY THE MASSES

The masses have a need for leadership & are actually quite content to have others attend to their affairs

Contentment w/ leadership by the masses serves to strengthen the aristocratic & bureaucratic character of the org

Michels notes that Engels regarded it as deplorable that leaders could not accept the fact that merely being involved in office did not give them the right to a higher status

Once leaders hold high office, their power & prestige is further increased

The indifference & incompetence of the masses, combined w/ the gratitude & veneration towards their leaders, strengthens the positions of the leaders

Leaders deal w/ a mass of members to whom they are superior in respect of age & experience in life

The incompetence of the masses is almost universal & the expertise of the leaders leads to oligarchy

Among the leaders megalomania develops, & this even reinforces their power: 'This overwhelming self esteem on the part of the leaders diffuses a powerful suggestive influence, whereby the masses are confirmed in their admiration for their leaders, & it thus proves a source of enhanced power.'

4. CULTURAL DISTANCE

In many nations, leaders are often from the mid class & therefore have the beginning of cultural or intellectual superiority

Even where their are a few intellectuals in the leadership, a distance develops btwn leaders of wking class origin & the membership

The leader of wking class origin, thanks to her or his new situation, is able to make themself familiar w/ all the technical details of public life, & thus increase her or his superiority over the masses

If the leaders are not 'cultured' already, they soon become so, & this superior culture exercises a suggestive influence over the masses

5. 'LIMITS' ON LEADERSHIP ARE GENERALLY ESTABLISHED BY RIVALS

Leaders have nothing to fear from the relentless criticism which is characteristic of the who have just come of age

While in young orgs, the rank & file contribute new leaders, as the org matures, the masses become impotent to provide new & intelligent forces capable of leadership

The true struggle, even in demo orgs, is not btwn the masses & the leaders but btwn the old & new leaders

The struggle btwn the old & new leadership rarely culminates in the complete defeat of the former

Following Pareto, Michels notes that the change of leadership is not so much new leadership, as a reunion of elites, an amalgam of the old & the new

The possibility of a career w/in the party attracts the interest of a less idealistic kind of person

Internal
Links

Outline on Michels on the Masses

External
Links

- Project: What other cultures are more or less authoritarian?

INTRODUCTION

For Michels, because of the characteristics of 'the masses' which he delineates in his analysis, people are incapable of exercising democracy, & because of instinctual, psychological, structural, cultural factors, & power, people not only submit to oligarchic leadership, they both need & want it

The people, the masses, the 'rank & file,' etc. leave it to the officials: they do not attend meetings, in fact supporters often do not bother to join the org, being confident that it is good hands

Members & supporters develop attitudes of gratitude & loyalty to the leaders, esp those who have suffered for the cause

THE MASSES

The masses are apathetic

It is evident that the masses are indifferent from the slackness of attendance at ordinary meetings

Since the various political & ideological issues are not merely beyond the understanding of the rank & file, & also leave them cold

The masses are incompetent

The masses are apathetic, incompetent, etc. because when their work is finished, the proletarian can think only of rest & getting to bed

The immense need for direction & guidance is accompanied by a genuine cult of leaders, who are regarded as heroes

The great differences in culture & ed btwn leaders & the masses, w/ the leaders often being from a higher class origin, are all structural factors which lead to the submissiveness of the ordinary member

The masses are amorphous & therefore need a div of labor, specialization, & guidance

The masses are easily hoodwinked & more inclined to follow mediocre leaders w/ a flair for showmanship than leaders of talent & cultivation

The age composition of the masses is such that the majority is 25 to 39 yrs old & the young have other things to do w their leisure

The young are always hoping that some miracle will deliver them form the need of passing their whole lives as simple wage earners

Older people have become weary & disillusion & are commonly resigned to their station in life

THE GERMANS

Michels is a German & he notes that w/ regards to oligarchy, authority, leadership, the masses, etc. Germany is a special case w/ a higher level of adulation for leaders & submission for the followers than other developed nations

Michels believes that Germans exhibits an extreme degree of a need for someone to point out the way & to issue orders

In Germany, adulation & submission are common to all classes & is the psychl soil upon which a powerful directive hegemony can flourish

The preconditions for a powerful hegemony include a psychical predisposition to subordination, a profound instinct for discipline, a trust in authority, a lack of a critical faculty

Michels notes that Marx was quite aware of the risks to democratic spirit inherent in the false consciousness of the wkrs

Marx thought it necessary to warn the German wkrs against too rigid a conception of org

Marx thought because the German wkrs are bureaucratically controlled from birth upward, they have a blind faith in constituted authority

Because of the false consciousness of the wkrs, Marx thought it was above all necessary to teach them to walk by themselves

- Project: What other cultures are more or less authoritarian?

REVOLT

The controls of the masses & the control over the masses are merely theoretical in that their is a constant struggle for power btwn the masses & the leaders

For Michels, the leaders are have always won out in the long run

While revolts of the masses occur from time to time, their revolts are always suppressed

The masses never revolt spontaneously, that is, w/o leadership

The process of revolt presupposes that the masses are being led by certain leading elements of their own who, once having achieved power, transform themselves into a new oligarchic leadership

In 'normal' non revolutionary times, the most talented elements, the potential revolutionary leaders are always subject to a variety of indulgences: they are smitten by ambition

A particular manifestation of the general process of co-optation described by Pareto & Michels occurs when revolutionary leaders give in to oligarchy & when revolutionary, empowered, class conscious masses become submissive

In WW 1, the domination of the bureaucratic org over the socialist soul was evident when various Euro socialist parties embraced nationalism rather than intl solidarity

And the wking class itself suffered the most in WW 1 when hundreds of thousands died in the trenches

There was not a single case where wkrs rebelled against nationalism & supported intl solidarity, though Russian soldiers had several small rebellions which so weakened the Czar & the feudalist govt that in 1917 a socialist rev occurred

Internal
Links

Outline on the Embourgeoisement of the Working Class

External
Links

INTRODUCTION

There are two processes of embourgeoisement of the wking class including the co-optation of wkrs who move up to be leaders, as well as when intellectuals & upper class people 'come down' to represent / help / lead wkrs

Michels demonstrates that through the div of labor, & the merit system, some members of the wking class move into positions of leadership

When 'lower level' people move up, they loose their roots in that they adapt the culture & interests of the class into which they move

It is both the process which they go through to succeed as well as the cultural, econ, political, etc. pressures which they experience once they have moved up which transform their culture & interests to that of their 'new' class

Furthermore, those already in the upper classes sometimes come to represent the interests of the wking class

THE RISE OF WKING CLASS LEADERSHIP

A variety of leadership & other functions are given over to wkrs, or more precisely to former wkrs, who now undergo a psych transformation that creates a distance btwn them & the rank & file equal to the gap btwn the bourgeoisie & the rank & file

A very few wkrs are given power in their ascent to leadership & are raised to bourgeoisie dignity

The soc party & other orgs provide opportunities for social ascent to former manual laborers which generates the very same tendencies one sees in originally bourgeoisie leadership

When the wkrs were 'organized,' the instinctive, unconscious, & aimless rebelling was replaced by conscious aspiration which was comparatively clear, & strictly directed to a well defined end

Michels argues that the soc mvmt of the wkrs itself created a new petty bourgeois strata of wkrs who moved up in power, prestige, & maybe income, but were not fully upper class

The mvmt of the proletarian to embrace socialism & to reject capitalism, was for Michels, a rational goal

THE BOURGEOIS LEADERSHIP OF THE WKING CLASS

There have always been those bourgeois intellectuals who for a variety of reasons have detached themselves from their original class & have joined the ranks of the wkrs to give them direction

Historically, it is the bourgeoisie that plays a central role in generating proletarian class consciousness

The bourgeoisie defends it's existence on a number of fronts at once, against the aristocracy, against the proletarian, against other bourgeoisie, against the govt, etc.

The bourgeoisie defends itself against the aristocracy whose own interests are opposed to indl development

Because the bourgeoisie is unable to prevail against the aristocracy on it's own, it is compelled to mobilize the proletariat

The org of the proletariat places in its hands the weapon of political consciousness & experience, i.e. class consciousness, which it can employ against the bourgeoisie itself

For Michels, it was a psychological histl law that any class which has despaired because of lack of ed & the deprivation of political rights cannot attain collective action until it has received instruction on it's ethical rights & politico econ powers from not only members of it's own class, but also from members in the higher class

It was only when social science was placed at the service of the wking class that the proletarian mvmt transformed into a socialist mvmt

Today, in the study of social mvmts, a social mvmt industry has developed in that many mid class people have sought professional education & training to becomes activists, organizers, politicians, aids, etc.

In many ways, when a person from any class attempts to lead or help any other class, there is an experience similar to the embourgeoisement of the wking class in that interests, power, money, culture all conflict & compliment in the processes of overlapping cleavages & crosscutting cleavages

See Also: Conflict Theory on Culture: Overlapping cleavages & crosscutting cleavages

MARX & MICHELS ON EMBOURGEOISEMENT

Michels & Marx agree that revolutions occur not because of oppressive conditions per se, rather they occur when people recognize that they are being oppressed

Engels himself was an industrialist of some renown in his era

Marx did not anticipate the extent of the entry of the bourgeois intellectuals into the socialist mvmt

The bourgeois intellectuals brought about basic changes in the mvmt

Although Marx was aware of strata w/in the wking class, he underestimated the conflict that arose among them

Marx viewed the wking class a mostly a unitary class

EXAMPLES OF EMBOURGEOISEMENT

One of the best known cases of the bourgeoisie leading / allying w/ the working class was the Fr Rev of 1789 when the bourgeoisie & the proletariat worked together to overthrown the aristocrats, who were allied w/ the church

See Also: The Fr Rev

The founders of the Euro socialist parties in the 1800s is an example of the embourgeoisement of the wking class

The founders of the Euro socialist parties were primarily men of science, & secondarily, politicians, & lastly, wking class

Contemporary examples of the embourgeoisement of the wking class can be seen in any wking class (or middle class?) person who becomes a leader achieving fortune, fame, power, status, etc.

Examples of the embourgeoisement of the wking class, members moving up include:

- Karl Marx

- Nelson Mandella

- Wangari Muta Maathai

- Martin Luther King

- Ralph Nader

Contemporary examples of the embourgeoisement of the wking class can be seen in the activism of anyone from the upper class helping / leading anyone or any grp from a lower class

Note that all of the examples of the embourgeoisement of the wking class are people who moved from a lower class position into activism, & into success in social change

Examples of the embourgeoisement of the wking class, members moving up include:

- Engels

- Angellina Jolie

- Bono

- Bill Gates

- Ted Turner

Note that all of these people were middle class or lower, & then moved up through tradl avenues of advancement, & then used there fame & power for social change

Internal
Links

Outline on the Effects of Oligarchy

External
Links

INTRODUCTION

Clearly, the problems of oligarchy, of the bureaucratic depersonalization described by Weber, & of personal alienation all are interrelated

For Michels, the benefits which accrue to the majority of the masses as a result of the processes of oligarchy are 'practically nil'

The effects of oligarchy, in the form of bureaucracy, on socialist values of a political party, or the goals of any org in general ,increases the weakening of the goals & the weakening of the intl multiplicity of its manifestations, i.e. of operations

The "iron law of oligarchy" states that all forms of org, regardless of how demo or autocratic they may be at the start, will eventually & inevitably develop oligarchic tendencies, thus making true democracy practically & theoretically impossible, esp in large groups & complex orgs

BUREAUCRACY

As bureaucracy increases people know less about the cultural aims, i.e. the overall goals & strategy of the org

As bureaucracy increases, people loose contact w/ & lose understanding of what the org is doing & it's fundamental ops

DECENTRALIZATION

Decentralization does not prevent a loss of understanding of strategy or ops

In his research, Michels found that decentralization does not lead to greater individual liberty nor does it enhance the power of the rank & file

More often than not, decentralization is the mechanism by which weaker leaders escape the dominion of the stronger

Decentralization allows weaker leaders to estb an authority wi/in their own domain

Decentralization 'saves' the org from one gigantic oligarchy only to fall into the hands of a number of smaller oligarchies each of which is less powerful

RITUALISM & APATHY

If individuals are deprived of the power to make decisions that affect their lives in many or even most of the areas that are important to them, w/drawal into narrow ritualism, i.e. the over conformity to rules, & apathy are likely responses

Such w/drawals seemed to constitute a chronic condition in some of the highly centralized socialist nations

However, there are many signs of public apathy in the US, too

For example, in 1964 about 70 % of those eligible to vote for president did so

In each of the succeeding national elections this figure has dropped, in 1988 it was only 50 %, & in it has fallen below that figure occasionally

DEMOCRACY

According to the "iron law," demo & large scale org are incompatible

The relative structural fluidity in a small scale demo succumbs to "social viscosity" in a large scale org

Internal
Links

Outline on Michels & Fascism

External
Links

INTRODUCTION

Michels was a protegee of Max Weber & their analyses are similar on oligarchy & bureaucracy

Weber was a liberal, not a socialist, & a professor, but he could not get Michels a job in Germany

Michels became involved in party politics, starting from the radical wing of the German Marxist party, the SPD, to end in Italy as one of Mussolini's professors of Fascist poli sci

Because of his involvement w/ the SPD Michels was out of the running for an academic job in Germany because the govt controlled academic appointments, & discriminated against Jews, Catholics, Socialists & others

However Weber got him a job in Italy, at Turin, where he met Gaetano Mosca, whose ideas were similar to those Michels had presented in Political Parties

When the Italian govt turned to fascism, from Mussolini's govt, in 1928, Michels accepted a chair of politics specifically estbed to promote fascism

See Also: Econ Systems

See Also: Govt Systems

ADVANTAGES OF FASCISM

In his later writings he sometimes underlines the advantages of a fascist regime

By its nature, the rule of the elite will be frank, clear, concrete, direct

Contrary to the op of demo regimes, a fascist regime does not exercise its function by means of tortuous intrigues & of "connections" dear to majoritarian & demo regimes

Nor is it inevitably prey to lack of clarity, to vacillation, indecision, & to foolish & insipid compromises

WEAKNESSES OF DEMOCRACY

In a manner, Michels was pointing out the weaknesses of demo

In democracy various elites struggle for power & from this derives:
a. a lack of stability
b. an expenditure of time
c. a slowing down of necessary training for those who intend to acquire governmental competence

STRENGTHS OF DEMOCRACY

A demo system offers a certain guarantee to the members of the various elites of the repetition of their turn at the helm of the state

Michels sees it's ability to change leaders, to circulate / rotate elites, as an advantage of demo

These manifold minor elites inevitably become bitter enemies of every govt conquered & held by a single strong elite of anti democratic tendencies.

WEAKNESSES OF FASCISM

While exploring the advantages of fascism, Michels also express reservations about one party regimes

His analysis of the career of the 'charismatic' leader is to some extent a warning

See Also: Charisma

The phenomenon of the charismatic leader has an almost permanent character & is based on a principle which prolongs the usual expectation, actually excluding the majority of the elites from political power

It is useless to hope that dictatorships, having happily initiated their political work, will abdicate at the height of their power, since abdication is an act of weakness

Giving up power implies that the dictator will feel that he has nothing more to say & nothing else to do

Giving up power implies that such an act might be voluntary on the part of him who, finding himself pressed continually by misfortune or bold & confident adversaries, judges it impossible to continue on the given path, & supinely prefers an inglorious disappearance to a glorious fall

The charismatic leader does not abdicate, not even when water reaches to his throat

Radbod conjectures that Michels thought that fascism might be the appropriate solution for Italy at the time, but still thought that 'democratic' forms were preferable when they could be got to work

For Radbod, genuine democracy, which is permanently unattainable, is but as a way of reducing the inevitable evils of bureaucracy & oligarchy

Internal
Links

Outline on a Critique of Michels

External
Links

INTRODUCTION

Michels himself admits that his analysis is 'one sided' because he wishes to emphasize the power of oligarchy

Critics have challenged iron law & its underlying assumptions

The debate around Michele's "iron law of oligarchy" over the question of whether orgs inevitably become oligarchic reaches back almost a century

Michels asserts that there will always be a need for some kind of leadership

Others questioned whether power 'corrupts' & leadership becomes unaccountable to the masses

Orthodox Marxists dispute whether increasing bureaucracy means increased power for the bureaucrats

Others in turn claimed that small orgs w/ little bureaucracy should be able to avoid the iron law, which Michels claimed is unavoidable for all orgs

LEADERS & OLIGARCHS

Michels did not distinguish btwn leaders & oligarchs

One can demonstrate the technical impossibility of the masses governing themselves directly

While one can demonstrate the need for leadership, this is not a demonstration of the inevitability of oligarchy

Insofar as there are objective criteria for oligarchy, Michels does not define them precisely

Michels mixes up the concepts of leadership & oligarchy

Michels does not indicate at what point a clear ceases to be a leader & becomes an oligarch

The term oligarchy is often used to describe the stability & longevity of leadership

A conceptual model is needed that delineates what does & does not constitute oligarchy & can be applied in both bureaucratic & non bureaucratic settings

Michels uses the term oligarchy to refer to the 'aristocracy' of talent & expertise that inevitably emerges & separates itself from the mass

Definitions found in the research are inadequate because, first, treating oligarchy solely as a feature of orgl structure neglects the possibility that a powerful elite may operate outside of the formal structure

Definitions found in the research are inadequate because, second, studies that equate oligarchy w/ goal displacement & bureaucratic conservatism cannot account for orgs w/ radical goals that are nonetheless dominated by a ruling elite

What Michels does is demonstrate the inevitability of the abuse of pwr & authority to the extent of undermining demo

Those who are placed in leadership positions are to serve the interests of the collectivity, but they soon develop interests of their own which are antagonistic to the collectivity

The divergence of interests, & acting upon them, would be the best way to determine whether leaders have become oligarchs

But Michels never examines the differences in the interests of leaders & followers

DEMOCRATIC ORGS & OLIGARCHY

The concept of oligarchy has frequently been left under specified, & the measures that have been employed are esp inadequate for analyzing non bureaucratically structured orgs

Michels acknowledges that the abuses of power are drastically reduced in demo orgs

In demo orgs, work is more often based on idealism & the enthusiasm of volunteers

Even having paid positions in orgs does not necessarily less either idealism or their immunity to temptations

Michels notes that many leaders in demo orgs could have earned more money & power in other pursuits, but choose to stay in the demo orgs

For Michels & Leach, a demo structure is a necessary precondition, but it does not guarantee the absence of oligarchy

But democratic idealism alone does not suffice to sustain an org

Paying for services in voluntary / demo orgs brings w/ it some positive & some negative effects

Employing paid wkrs rather than volunteers impairs the initiative of members & contributes to bureaucratization & the centralization of power

For Michels, paying, not paying, or paying poorly all lead to the same result: oligarchy

Internal
Links

Outline on Countering Oligarchy

External
Links

NEED TO ADD PW INFO ON DEMOCRACY, BAL OF PWRS, ETC.

OLIGARCHY IS A TENDENCY & THUS SOCIETIES & ORGS MAY TAKE MANY STEPS TO AVOID IT & PRESERVE DEMOCRACY

The iron law of oligarchy suggests that orgs wishing to avoid oligarchy should take a number of precautionary steps

For Michels none of the demo mechanisms, either in the soc parties, in other wking class orgs, in larger nat political systems has been effective in countering the oligarchic abuse of power

REFERENDUMS MAY MITIGATE AGAINST OLIGARCHY & PRESERVE DEMOCRACY

The referendum is impractical due to the incompetence of the masses & the lack of time to bring every question to a popular vote

Michels, George Sand, even Tocqueville, & others fear the power of the majority & see it as just another form of dictatorship

See Also: Tocqueville: The Tyranny of the Majority

Sands saw the referendum as an attack upon the liberty of the people if not counterpoised by the intelligence of the masses

Syndicalists & anarchists wrongly believe that they are immunized against the action of the iron law of oligarchy

Syndicalists & anarchists have not avoided representative democracy & it's tendency to create oligarchy

MARXIST THEORY OF RULE BY THE PROLETARIAT MAY MITIGATE AGAINST OLIGARCHY

Many believed that Marxism itself protects against oligarchy

Marxism seems to be the only doctrine which effectively relies to all theories, affirming the necessity for the existence of 'the political class'

Marxism fails because the efforts to abolish class distinctions create new ones

The new classes arise because of the delegation of authority which is necessary to administer socialism

The administrators acquire influence equal to to that of the petty bourgeoisie

There is no reason to assume that admin will not use their power to secure for their children the succession to office

Once a grp of people, elected or not, gains control of the existing instruments of power, they will do everything they can to retain it

The weakest link in a Marxist society is the gamut of problems of admin: the concentration of power & the means they exercise to maintain their power

CLASS / INTEREST GRP / OLIGARCHIC GRP CONFLICT MAY ALL MITIGATE AGAINST OLIGARCHY

It is inevitable that conflicts of interest emerge btwn leaders & the led, not unlike the class conflicts of the old society

In every org the need for the div of labor creates classes w/ interests peculiar to itself & the existence of these interests creates conflict

Classes always struggle to reproduce themselves

It is not Michels intention to demonstrate that the iron law of oligarchy is inevitable, it is his intention to demonstrate that it is very powerful

Michels desires to demonstrate those certain sociological tendencies which oppose the reign of democracy & socialism

Michels deliberately adopted a one sided view & stressed the negative aspects of demo

PUBLIC DEBATE, ED OF THE MASSES, ACTIVISM, COMMO BTWN LDRs & MASSES, & THE GOAL OF PRESERVING DEMOCRACY MITIGATE AGAINST OLIGARCHY

He used the term 'iron law' to dramatize the formidable obstacles that lay before the realization of democracy

Free inquiry, criticism of leaders, & control of leaders are all skills which can be developed w/in the masses themselves

A wider ed involves an increasing capacity for exercising control

There are limits on the degree of the perfection of demo, but the ideal can be more closely attained

It is the task of social ed to raise the intellectual level of the masses so they can counteract the oligarchic tendencies of the wking class mvmt

Those wishing to counteract oligarchy should make sure that the rank & file remain active in the org & that the leaders not be granted absolute control of a centralized admin

As long as there are open lines of communication & shared decision making btwn the leaders & the rank & file, an oligarchy cannot easily develop

The more the masses recognize the advantages of political democracy & economic democracy in the form of socialism, esp as compared to other systems which are usually some combination of econ & pol combinations of cap, soc & dictatorships, aristoc, or olig, even at their best, the less likely it is that the defects of demo will provoke the abandonment of democ & the return to aristocracy or capitalism

"The defects inherent in democracy are obvious. It is none the less true that as a form of social life we must choose democracy as the least of evils."

The End

Top