Class Domination Theory
The class domination by the upper class is socially conditioned. All of the upper classes ideology is shaped in school, social gathers, clubs, and etc. “Thus, boarding schools are in many ways the kind of highly effective socializing agent called total institutions, isolating their members from the outside world and providing them with a set of routine and traditions that encompass most of their waking hours” (Domoff 52)”. The socializing agent of total institutions that Domhoff mentions shapes the upper class members by associating them only with members that are in the upper class. This method empowers its members to believe that they are superior to others because they are in an exclusive environment. The environment that the upper class creates for its members offers a great deal of interaction and conversing. Its members form strong bonds with one another and can economically, financially, and socially benefit from those bonds later in the future.
These exclusive institutions that the upper class creates also causes a form of separation from other classes offering another benefit that contributes to class control. “The class that controls the means of material production controls the means of mental production” (Lecture O’Connell).
This quotation given by Professor O’Connell in lecture can also help explain Domhoff’s point of view. The Upper class’s socialization with the corporate community gives them access to the means of material production. An example of this access relates back to the exclusive institutions of the upper class. Social clubs are another way for upper class members to socialize and impact the economy and society. Social clubs are significant because many members that are involved are part of the upper class and corporate community. These social clubs show another benefit of power for the upper class. Members that are part of the upper class and corporate community can influence the ideas, and decisions of other members in the same position. This means that social clubs are ideal places for members of big corporations to network. Domhoff gives an example of this networking when discussing the Bohemian club. “Using a list of 1,144 corporations, well beyond the 800 used in the studies for 1970 and 1980, the study found that 24 percent of these companies had at least one director who was a member or guest in 1991” (Domhoff pg 59). When you have corporate representatives interacting with one another in a social environment it creates powerful bonds between the upper class and the corporate community. These bonds influence the control of political, economical, and social decisions that are made and determined only by the upper class. This then leads to the fact that the upper class governs society.
“Involvement in these institutions usually instills a class awareness that includes feelings of superiority, pride, and justified privilege” (Domhoff 75). This class consciousness of the upper class reflects the power they hold. The upper class and the corporate community have established similar goals. These goals can be expressed in this statement by Domhoff. “More importantly, the fact that the upper class is based in the ownership and control of profit-producing investments in stocks, bonds, and real estate shows that it is a capitalist class as well as an upper class” (Domhoff 75). Since the upper class and corporate community is also associated as a capitalistic class can explain why they protect one another and help control the other classes. Professor O’Connell relates this quotation to upper class domination “The most effective tactic of the upper class in dealings with the lower class is to destroy their imagination so they can’t envision a different world” (Lecture O’Connell). The upper class establishes that their goals and ideals are what everyone should look up too. Domhoff relates that because of this the lower classes develop a false class consciousness which benefits the upper class and corporate community.
However, there are other positions from Domhoff’s that differ in perspective. One position is that of the pluralist theory. The pluralist theory relates to the concept that instead of power being controlled by one group or class it is shared and exercised through voting (Lecture O’Connell). This theory is different from Domhoff’s because it believes that power can be shown through citizens creating political interest groups. “Most pluralists also believe that corporate leaders are too divided among themselves to dominate government” (Domhoff 17). An example of interest groups of the Pluralist theory can be trade unions, human right organizations, senior citizens and etc. These interest groups by the Pluralists perspective can change the governmental and societal decisions. “They point to the successes of non-business groups, such as labor unions from the 1930’s to the 1960’s, or environmentalists and consumer advocates in the 1970’s as evidence for their claim” (Domhoff 17).
Another position that is different from Domhoff is that of the power elite Theory. “Real power in America is shared by elites in government that include Corporate America, the Pentagon, Federal Government, and men who are top officers” (Lecture O’Conell).
This theory which is different from the Pluralist theory and Class Dominance theory looks at Elitists. The difference of this theory compared to Domhoff’s perspective is that is doesn’t look at classes. Instead this theory looks at the leaders that control societies. “Although corporations are one important power base according to elite theorists, they do not see the corporate community as predominant over other organizational leaders, as class-dominance theorist do” (Domhoff 17).
In Conclusion, Domhoff’s theory revolves around the relationship of the upper class, and corporate community. Contrasting Domhoff’s views are the Pluralist theory and Power Elite theory. Pluralist look at citizens ruling themselves, and the Power Elite look at leaders being in control.
