DOCSLIB.ORG

Democracy's Great Opponent: the Problem of Oligarchy in Ancient and Modern Political Thoucht

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Democracy's Great Opponent: the Problem of Oligarchy in Ancient and Modern Political Thoucht DEMOCRACY'S GREAT OPPONENT: THE PROBLEM OF OLIGARCHY IN ANCIENT AND MODERN POLITICAL THOUCHT Jeffrey Sikkenga Submitted in partial fulllllment of the requinments lot the Doctor of Philosophy in Political Science, University of Toronto 14 March 2000 Nat ional Library Bibliothèque nationale l*l of Cat~da du Canada Acquisitions and Acquisitions et Bibliographie Services sentices bibliographiques 395 Wellington Street 395, me Wellington Ol(ewa0N K1AON4 OmwaON KlAW Canede Canada The author bas granted a non- L'auteur a accordé une licence non exclusive licence aüowing the exclusive permettant à la National Library of Canada to Bibliothèque nationale du Canada de reproduce, loan, distribute or seil reproduire, prêter, distribuer ou copies of this tbesis in microform, vendre des copies de cette thèse sous paper or electronic formats. la forme de microfiche/film, de reproduction sur papier ou sur format électronique. The author retains ownership of the L'auteur conseme la propriété du copyright in this thesis. Neither the droit d'auteur qui protège cette thèse. thesis nor substantial extracts firom it Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels may be printed or othenivise de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés reproduced without the author's ou autrement reproduits sans son permission. autorisation. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This work has been a long time coming. It could never have arrived without the help of a lot of people who deserve special thanks. First, to my cornmittee: my supervisor Thomas Pangle, who gave me the idea for this work and showed scholarship by example; Clifford Orwin, whose humor and support came ai a critical time; Sennifer Nedelsky, who graciously agreed to help. Also, to my colleagues at Ashland University: Peter Schramm, for tiikiiig a chance; Brid Thornpson, who stuck by; and David Foster, for a budding friends hip. Next, thanks go to my friends. To those from Toronto: Haig Patapan, for being my midwife; and Jim Alvey, a gentleman. And those from earlier days: James Ceaser, for indulging my theoretical vice. Also. to those who lent support at crucial moments dong the way: Richard and Susan Ilka, for the use of a computer and so much more; Paul and Martha Lawrence, for a summer study; and Robert Sirico. Kris Mauren, Greg Dunn, and Gregory Gronbacher, for putting me in the right place at the right time. Findly, to my family: Grams, whose unconditional kindness will never be forgotten; and lastly, my parents -- for an education only now understood. To Sharon For the Shape of Her Heart CONTENTS PREFACE: "Why and How We Should Study Oligarchy' ................... 1 CHAPTER ONE: LLInvestigatingMichelsy Iron Law" ........................ 10 CHAPTER TWO: 'LPlato on the Oligarchic Soul" ............................20 CHAPTER THREE: "Aristotle on Oligarchie Regimes" .....................43 CHAPTER FOUR: "Hobbes and Locke on Acquisi tiveness and Oligarc hy9'........... -76 CHAPTER FIVE: "Montesquieu on Oligarchie Republicanism" ........... 104 CHAPTER SIX: "The Federalist and Oligarchy in Americaw.............. 135 CHAPTER SEVEN: "Recovering Lost Insight" .............................160 WHY AND HOW WE SHOULD STUDY OLIGARCHY 1. Why We Should Study Oiigarchy a. Startirtg with Liberal Dernocmq This work seeks to address and clarify the problem of oligarchy. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, oligarchy is "govemment by the few" or "a form of govemment in which a few persons or families hold power" (OED 1989). But etymology does little to clarify the nature of oligarchy because it does not say who constitutes "the few", nor why those "few" desire to nile. nor whether they deserve to nile. More importantly. the word itself does not explain why contemporary political scientists should care what oligarchy is. As James Ceaser points out. "liberal democracy is home to most political scientists. and most political scientists make liberai democracy -- or some aspect of it -- the focus of their life's work" (Ceaser 1990, 1 ). As political scientists. understanding and improving liberal democracy are our most immediate concems. But Ceaser also notes that "to say that political science may assist liberal democracy in no way means that this task exhausts its purposes or constitutes its only or highest horizon" (Ceaser 1990.3). The purpose of political science is. in other words, not merel y poli tically salutary. Rather, as Christopher Bruel1 argues, political science at its most comprehensive seeks to gain a rational understanding of the political mathrmata. the most important of which is the idea of nobility embodied in justice (Bniell 1987. 105, 109). For justice is the one thing unique to political action and discourse. Rightly understood, then, political science is first and foremost the study of justice. As contemporary political scientists, therefore, Our first concern should be with investigating the principles of justice at the core of our liberal democratic regime! This engagement with liberal democracy is not simply parochial. According to the argument made As a number of contemporary commentators have pointed out. liberal democracy vies ta hide its "regime character" by burying the question of justice or the right way of life underneath a concern with life simply (see, for example, MacIntyre 1988; Beiner 1992; Fukuyama 1992). But as Michael Sandel observes, disputes over justice within liberal demoçracies cannot be limited to procedural matters. They inevitably raise substantive questions about what is right or just action, and thereby what is the nght or just way of life (Sandel 1982, ch. 1). prominent by Francis Fukuyama, it is demanded by the fact that while "the current wave of democratization has probably crested, and we will be in for a period of retrenchment over the next few years", nevertheless "al1 of the major systematic alternatives to liberal democracy have collapsed, one by one" (Fukuyama 1991, 664). According to these observers. "there are no serious ideological competitors left to liberal democracy" outside of the theocratic politics espoused in parts of the Islamic world (Fukuyama 1992, 21 1). Hence for many analysts like Fukuyama. modem liberal democracy is the dominant force shaping politics around the world. Oligarchy is dead. dong with the other opponents of liberal democracy -- from Filmer and the divine right of kings io Marx and scientific socidism. They have ali been defeated because of the appeal of liberal democracy's central ideas, the core of which is individual and collective self- government based on natural or human rights (cf. Fukuyama 1992, 21 1- 12). Given the apparent triumph of liberal democracy, why then should we study oligarchy, which seems to have gone the way of the dinosaur? b. The Retum of Oligarchy? There does indeed seem to have been a decline in the twentieth century of oligarchy as a political regime. The few "oligarchs" remaining in power in Latin America. Africa. Russia, and East Asia are nearly unanimous in their proclamations of allegiance to democratic principles (cf. Jackson & Rosberg 1982, 5-6; Lewin 1987, 25)? At their boldest, the contemporary proponents of undemocratic political systems (e.g. "Asian values" paternalisrn) argue that democracy must have a different fom in their countries, or that it must be realized in a more circumspect manner. They are forced to be hypocritical because no one today seriously claims that oligarchy is a better regime than democracy, liberal or otherwise. Thus while it may be true, as Spencer Wearst notes, that oligarchies are "a historically more numerous class of republics" than democracies, the unquestionable dominance of the democratic notion of justice makes oligarchy seem no longer threatening to democracy (Wearst 1998, 1). As a result. oligarchy no longer appean to deserve urgent study by those interested in contemporary liberal democracy or in politics generally.3 Yet this appearance is deceptive. As Frank Sorauf notes, an increasing number of observen now charge that recent trends have given rise to "a new plutocracy" or even an "oligarchy" within Western liberal dernocracies. especially in the United States (Sorauf 1994, 367). The The very refusa1 of contemporary "oligarchs"openly to assert the oligarchic basis of their authonty raises the question whether there are any real oligarchs left (cf. Lewin 1987.25). In contmt. the Greco-Roman thinkers recognized oligarchy as the great political challenger to democracy. Openly oligarchic revolutions were not uncornmon, as we learn from ancient writers such as Thucydides and Polybius (cf. Onvin 1994.7 1-72; Syme 1988,56-7). commentator Kevin Phillips daims, for example, that liberal democracy is veering away from its economic and politicai principles and becoming more oligarchic. In his view, "declining manufacturing competitiveness, stagnant real wages, and increased econornic polarization" translate into a growing division within liberal democratic societies between "haves" and "have- nots" (Phillips 1994. 17). John McClaughry womes that these economic divisions eventually will entail political divisions that will give rise to the nile of the few over the many, who will be "the prisoners of a parasitical class that exists to manipulate govemment to transfer wealih into the favored pockets of a few" (McClaughry 1998, 93). Michael Patrick Allen's study of wealth concentration and politicai influence purports to show that iiberai democracy is in fact increasingly marked by the presence of "a super-rich class" who "exert a pervasive influence in social and political affairs at both
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Political Ideas and Movements That Created the Modern World
    harri+b.cov 27/5/03 4:15 pm Page 1 UNDERSTANDINGPOLITICS Understanding RITTEN with the A2 component of the GCE WGovernment and Politics A level in mind, this book is a comprehensive introduction to the political ideas and movements that created the modern world. Underpinned by the work of major thinkers such as Hobbes, Locke, Marx, Mill, Weber and others, the first half of the book looks at core political concepts including the British and European political issues state and sovereignty, the nation, democracy, representation and legitimacy, freedom, equality and rights, obligation and citizenship. The role of ideology in modern politics and society is also discussed. The second half of the book addresses established ideologies such as Conservatism, Liberalism, Socialism, Marxism and Nationalism, before moving on to more recent movements such as Environmentalism and Ecologism, Fascism, and Feminism. The subject is covered in a clear, accessible style, including Understanding a number of student-friendly features, such as chapter summaries, key points to consider, definitions and tips for further sources of information. There is a definite need for a text of this kind. It will be invaluable for students of Government and Politics on introductory courses, whether they be A level candidates or undergraduates. political ideas KEVIN HARRISON IS A LECTURER IN POLITICS AND HISTORY AT MANCHESTER COLLEGE OF ARTS AND TECHNOLOGY. HE IS ALSO AN ASSOCIATE McNAUGHTON LECTURER IN SOCIAL SCIENCES WITH THE OPEN UNIVERSITY. HE HAS WRITTEN ARTICLES ON POLITICS AND HISTORY AND IS JOINT AUTHOR, WITH TONY BOYD, OF THE BRITISH CONSTITUTION: EVOLUTION OR REVOLUTION? and TONY BOYD WAS FORMERLY HEAD OF GENERAL STUDIES AT XAVERIAN VI FORM COLLEGE, MANCHESTER, WHERE HE TAUGHT POLITICS AND HISTORY.
    [Show full text]
  • Michels's Iron Law of Oligarchy
    MICHELS’S IRON LAW OF OLIGARCHY Robert Michels ( 1876– 1936), was a young historian who had been unable to get a job in the German university system, despite the recommendation of Max Weber, because he was a member of the Social Democrats. Michels had participated extensively in party activities and had come to the conclusion that the Socialists did not live up to their own ideals. Although the party advocated democracy, it was not internally democratic itself. The revolutionary Marxism of the speeches at conventions and on the floor of the Reichstag was just a way of whipping up support among the workers, while the party leaders built a bureaucratic trade union and party machine to provide sinecures for themselves. Michels’s analysis appeared in 1911 in a book called Political Parties. The phenomenon of party oligarchy was quite general, stated Michels; if internal democracy could not be found in an organization that was avowedly democratic, it would certainly not exist in parties which did not claim to be democratic. This principle was called the Iron Law of Oligarchy, and it constitutes one of the great generalizations about the functioning of mass‐ membership organizations, as subsequent research has borne out. The Iron Law of Oligarchy works as follows: First of all, there is always a rather small number of persons in the organization who actually make decisions, even if the authority is formally vested in the body of the membership at large. The reason for this is purely functional and will be obvious to anyone who has attended a public meeting or even a large committee session.
    [Show full text]
  • The Iron Law of Oligarchy: a Tale of 14 Islands ∗
    The Iron Law of Oligarchy: A Tale of 14 Islands ∗ Christian Dippely Jean Paul Carvalhoz December 15, 2014 Abstract The great puzzle of Caribbean history in the mid-19th century is that this was a time of radical institutional change – with all but one of the long-established Caribbean parliaments voting themselves out of existence inside a twenty-year window – despite very stable conditions in the (exogenous) terms-of-trade and in the (endogenous) local plantation economy. This paper argues that the post-slavery change of the planter elite into a more creole and colored composition did not change the incentives of the coercive Caribbean plantation economy, but that it did undermine the elite’s ability to dominate the political process within the given set of formal institutions, i.e. the locally elected parliaments. The new elite needed a new set of formal institutions to maintain the existing coercive institutional bundle. The first argument is a version of the ”iron law of oligarchy” (Michels (1911)), the second a version of the ”seesaw of de jure and de facto institutions” (Acemoglu and Robinson (2008)). Guided by a model of elite coherence and institutional choice, we explore our two arguments in a combination of very rich micro-data on islands’ parliamentary politics and sugar plantations, as well as colony-level regression analysis. Keywords: Iron law of Oligarchy, Bankruptcy, de jure and de facto Institutions, Economic Development JEL Codes: F54, N26, O43, P16 ∗Financial support from UCLA’s Burkle Center, Center for Economic History and Price Center are gratefully acknowledged. yUniversity of California, Los Angeles, and NBER.
    [Show full text]
  • How Political Parties Shape Democracy
    UC Irvine CSD Working Papers Title HOW POLITICAL PARTIES SHAPE DEMOCRACY Permalink https://escholarship.org/uc/item/17p1m0dx Author van Biezen, Ingrid Publication Date 2004-11-01 eScholarship.org Powered by the California Digital Library University of California CSD Center for the Study of Democracy An Organized Research Unit University of California, Irvine www.democ.uci.edu This paper assesses the relationship between the nature of political parties and varieties of democracy1. It is argued that the changing role of parties can be attributed to an ideational transformation by which parties have gradually come to be seen as necessary and desirable institutions for democracy, and that this has contributed to a changing conception of parties from voluntary private associations towards the political party as a ‘public utility’, i.e. the party as an essential public good for democracy. Recent cases of democratization, where parties were attributed a markedly privileged position within the democratic institutional framework, provide the most unequivocal testimony of such a conception of the relationship between parties and democracy. At the same time, however, fundamental disagreements persist about the meaning of democracy and the actual role of political parties within it. Regrettably, however, the literatures on parties and democratic theory have developed to a large degree in mutual isolation. This paper provides a preliminary attempt to move beyond the consensus which exists on the surface that modern democracy is unthinkable save in terms of parties by considering varieties of party and different conceptions of democracy. On the Paradox of Party As Schattschneider famously asserted more than half a century ago, ‘the political parties created democracy and modern democracy is unthinkable save in terms of the political parties’ (Schattschneider, 1942:1).
    [Show full text]
  • Extra-Party Neo-Anarchist Critiques AQ: Please
    Rapp, John A. "Extra-Party neo-anarchist critiques AQ: Please clarify whether you want this word to read critiques as in the running head and also that the same change can be carried out in the FM also. of the state in the PRC." Daoism and Anarchism: Critiques of State Autonomy in Ancient and Modern China. London: Continuum, 2012. 175–192. Contemporary Anarchist Studies. Bloomsbury Collections. Web. 29 Sep. 2021. <http://dx.doi.org/10.5040/9781501306778.ch-008>. Downloaded from Bloomsbury Collections, www.bloomsburycollections.com, 29 September 2021, 03:37 UTC. Copyright © John A. Rapp 2012. You may share this work for non-commercial purposes only, provided you give attribution to the copyright holder and the publisher, and provide a link to the Creative Commons licence. 8 Extra-Party neo-anarchist critiques of the state in the PRC Introduction This chapter and the succeeding one examine various “neo-anarchist” critiques of the Leninist state in the PRC, from the early years of the Cultural Revolution to the beginning of the Tiananmen protests. The label of neo-anarchist in this book refers not to self-proclaimed “post-modern” anarchist critiques but to anyone in China who criticizes the Leninist state using the simple, basic, but powerful view shared by all kinds of anarchists (contradictory as they might be on their own positive agendas), namely, that the state rules for itself when it can, not for classes, interest groups, a mass of individuals, or the whole community. The term “neo-anarchist” is adapted from analysts who apply the label “neo-Marxism” to those thinkers who fi nd the Marxist class paradigm useful without necessarily being Communists.
    [Show full text]
  • Democratic Athens As an Experimental System: History and the Project of Political Theory
    Princeton/Stanford Working Papers in Classics Democratic Athens as an Experimental System: History and the Project of Political Theory. Version 1.0 November 2005 Josiah Ober Princeton University Abstract: Athens as a case study can be useful as an “exemplary narrative” for political science and normative political, on the analogy of the biologicial use of as certain animals (e.g. mice or zebrafish) as “model systems” subject to intensive study by many researchers. © Josiah Ober. [email protected] 1 What is a historical case study good for? Can the political history of classical Athens legitimately be regarded as a case study: an experimental system or exemplary narrative, useful for investigating various aspects of democracy and related phenomena? I hope to show that the answer to that question is yes, but first it seems necessary to pose an analytically prior question: What is the goal of the investigation? What precisely is the use-value of the case? What, in short, is the exemplary narrative supposed to be good for? Those questions may make a proper historian a bit queasy. She might reasonably ask: Need history be good for something other than historical knowledge itself? The point is that as soon as I say that the historical experience of (e.g.) classical Athens is an experimental system, I seem to have abandoned the historian’s tried and true ground of supposing that it is sufficient to say that Athenian history is worth studying for its own sake. I admit to a personal fondness for this sort of traditional historian’s propriety. So, as a preliminary gesture, let me plant a stake in the ground (in Greek terms: a horos) by saying that I actually do suppose that Athenian history is interesting for its own sake.
    [Show full text]
  • Democracy Embattled Francis Fukuyama Ivan Krastev Yascha Mounk Marc F
    Thirtieth Anniversary Issue January 2020, Volume 31, Number 1 $15.00 Democracy Embattled Francis Fukuyama Ivan Krastev Yascha Mounk Marc F. Plattner Larry Diamond Alina Mungiu-Pippidi Michele Dunne Carl Gershman Steven Levitsky and Lucan Way Lilia Shevtsova Ladan Boroumand Christopher Walker, Shanthi Kalathil, and Jessica Ludwig Thomas Carothers Minxin Pei Ghia Nodia Andrew J. Nathan Sumit Ganguly Laura Rosenberger on This Is Not Propaganda DEMOCRACY’S INEVITABLE ELITES Ghia Nodia Ghia Nodia is director of the International School for Political Science and professor of political science at Ilia State University in Tbilisi. He is also chairman of the Caucasus Institute for Peace, Democracy and Development. For five months in 2016–17, he was a Reagan-Fas- cell Democracy Fellow at the National Endowment for Democracy in Washington, D.C. Commentators who analyze and criticize populism—two activities that frequently go hand-in-hand—tend to presume that there is no such thing as populist theory. One can have a theory about populism, these ana- lysts generally believe, but populism itself is not based on a rationally defensible vision. Populism is not a concept or an ideology, but rather an attitude, a predisposition, a discursive technique, a specific kind of resentment that demagogues exploit. A theoretical foundation for populism can be found, however, in Robert Michels’s classic work of political sociology, Political Par- ties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy (1911).1 It is a text worth revisiting when democracy is— or at least is perceived to be—caught up in a crisis resulting from a backlash against the alleged elite appropriation of people’s power.
    [Show full text]
  • Deplorable Or Criminal”, Were in Fact So Recent. What Brings Us to Our Point
    defining the ideology of extremism deplorable or criminal”, were in fact so recent. What brings us to our point is the fact that “in spite of it, they replenished the century; one against the other, sustaining each other, they fabricated their material. Simultaneous- ly very powerful, very ephemeral and very ominous, how could they mo- bilise so much hope, or so much passion in so many individuals?” (Ibid.). Furet’s analysis brought forward an interpretation that in quite clear terms reveals the mechanisms of interdependence between fascism and bolshe- vism. Being adversaries, both ideologies and for some time also political systems needed each other. Still more, they were in a relation of complic- ity regarding their common enemy: “The heftiest secret of complicity be- tween bolshevism and fascism remains however the existence of their com- mon adversary, which the both hostile doctrines reduced or exorcised with an idea that it had been in agony, and which therefore constituted their soil: very simply, democracy” (Ibid.: p. 39). Maybe it is not so important that this interpretation, which in its minute scrutiny of both historical oc- currences maintains a constant awareness of their irreducible differences, makes possible to comprehend the turning points of history such as Hitler’s and Stalin‘s temporary alliance. From a theoretical point of view, it is more instructive that Furet’s interpretation in its retrospective insight demon- strates what could be called the vulnerability of democracy. Since the rep- resentative democracy as the formal political system does not offer much else, but the rule of the abstract Law, it maintains openness for a variety of different political alternatives and unfortunately for the anti-democrat- ic ones too.
    [Show full text]
  • How the Iron Law Extends to Peer Production
    1 Laboratories of Oligarchy? How the Iron law Extends to Peer Production Aaron Shaw, Northwestern University Benjamin Mako Hill, University of Washington 1. INTRODUCTION Commons-based peer production { the distributed creation of freely accessible information resources through the mass aggregation of many contributions { represents a modality of collective intelligence that integrates the use of digital communication networks and information technologies [Benkler 2006; Benkler et al. 2013]. Peer production projects like Wikipedia and Linux have inspired numerous organizations, social movements, and scholars to embrace open online collaboration as a model of democratic organization with broad democ- ratizing potential [Bennett and Segerberg 2013; Castells 2012; Shirky 2008]. However, many peer production projects exhibit entrenched leadership and deep inequalities [Healy and Schussman 2003; Ortega 2009; Vi´e- gas et al. 2007], and often explicitly embrace undemocratic organizational forms [Hill et al. 2008]. Instead of functioning as digital \laboratories of democracy," peer production projects may conform to Robert Michels' \iron law of oligarchy" ([1915]), an influential sociological theory which proposes that as membership orga- nizations become large and complex, a small group of early members consolidate and exercise a monopoly of power within the organization as their interests diverge from those of the collective. In a working paper that is currently under review,1 we offer an empirical test of whether or not large peer production projects resist increasing levels of organizational oligarchy. Using exhaustive longitudinal data of internal processes drawn from 683 wikis that have grown large and complex, we adapt Michels' iron law to the context of peer production communities and construct a series of hypothesis tests.
    [Show full text]
  • Neighborhood-Representing Organizations: How Democratic Are They?
    University of Pennsylvania ScholarlyCommons Departmental Papers (SPP) School of Social Policy and Practice 12-1991 Neighborhood-representing Organizations: How Democratic Are They? Ram A. Cnaan University of Pennsylvania, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.upenn.edu/spp_papers Part of the Civic and Community Engagement Commons Recommended Citation Cnaan, R. A. (1991). Neighborhood-representing Organizations: How Democratic Are They?. Retrieved from https://repository.upenn.edu/spp_papers/154 Cnaan, R. A. (1991). Neighborhood-representing Organizations: How Democratic Are They? Social Service Review, 65(4), 614-634. http://www.jstor.org/stable/30012431 Social Service Review © 1991 The University of Chicago Press This paper is posted at ScholarlyCommons. https://repository.upenn.edu/spp_papers/154 For more information, please contact [email protected]. Neighborhood-representing Organizations: How Democratic Are They? Abstract Neighborhood-representing organizations (NROs) are generally viewed as the most authentic form of citizen participation and local democracy. In this article, I question how democratic NROs actually are, both on the local level (participatory democracy) and in the external arena (representative democracy). I present a new conceptual model of the components of democracy in neighborhood organizations. A review of the literature is presented within the context of this model to show to what extent NROs are democratic. The findings indicate that the level of democracy in NROs is questionable and that the "iron law of oligarchy" is valid for this type of organization. The problem of low participatory and representative democracy is addressed, and implications for research and practice are discussed. Disciplines Civic and Community Engagement Comments Cnaan, R.
    [Show full text]
  • The Evolutionary Iron Law of Oligarchy
    The evolutionary iron law of oligarchy by CEDRIC PERRET Thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements of Edinburgh Napier University, for the award of Doctor of Philosophy School of Computing Edinburgh Napier University SEPTEMBER 2019 Author’s declaration This thesis is a presentation of my original research work. Wherever contributions of others are involved, every effort is made to indic- ate this clearly, with due reference to the literature, and acknowledgement of collaborative research and discussions. SIGNED: .................................................... DATE: .......................................... i Acknowledgements First of all, I would like to thank my director of studies Dr. Simon Powers for his in- valuable support, help and mentorship during my PhD. Simon has been here for me all along, whether it is in research projects or for the organisation of workshop (and even if it means me randomly popping out in his office and interrupting his work on a daily basis). I want to salute its incredible researcher skills, modelling ability, deep knowledge of the literature and even of the philosophy of science which, all, made this PhD possible. More importantly, I want to thank him for being always careful of my well being, for supporting and motivate me when I needed it. I could not have asked for better supervisor. I would like to thank my second supervisor and head of team Pr. Emma Hart. Emma has always been there to support and guide me. For leading a team which aims to solve problems, she is the best problem solver I have ever known. I particularly want to thank her for a genuine care and for the energy she transmitted to me.
    [Show full text]
  • Robert Michels Michels Began by Asking a Series of Questions: The
    Chapter 13: Fascism in Germany had surprised the intellectual The Shadows of Hitler world. (Michels, Mannheim, and Mills) Fascism =authoritarianism The attention of social theorists anti-modernism turned from social order to anti-scientific understanding social/political power and control. anti-rational anti-democratic The reason was the surprise rise of Hitler and fascism. Why would people allow for fascism? 1 2 Michels began by asking Robert Michels a series of questions: (1876-1936) If you expect democratic • historian in Germany organizations (or governments) to begin • Predicted and provided an replacing autocratic explanation for the fascist systems, who do you expect government in Germany. to hold the power? (Iron Law of Oligarchy) The membership 3 4 Michels proposed his now famous Iron Law of Oligarchy In modern organizations (4 parts or stages of development) and governments, does the membership actually hold 1. A small number of persons the power? (leaders) actually make the decisions If not, who then? The masses of people typically turn the day-to-day decision- The leaders making over—if everyone tried to be involved nothing would get done. 5 6 3. The leaders are in a different “social world” than the 2. The leaders have more power membership, subsequently they than the membership see things differently. Once in power the leaders are Leaders gradually develop their able to stay and “nurture” own values and purposes for their power—they the organization “know the ropes” The leader gives preference to her/his purposes over the membership’s 7 8 4. Leaders have a variety of In sum, in modern methods they use to stay in organizations, does the focus power and maintain their of the leaders typically mirror power.
    [Show full text]