{"id":97114,"date":"2023-03-31T07:44:00","date_gmt":"2023-03-31T11:44:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.shortform.com\/blog\/?p=97114"},"modified":"2023-03-31T09:32:46","modified_gmt":"2023-03-31T13:32:46","slug":"the-power-elite-by-c-wright-mills","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.shortform.com\/blog\/the-power-elite-by-c-wright-mills\/","title":{"rendered":"The Power Elite by C. Wright Mills: Book Overview"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Who really has the power in the United States? How did they get it?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In The Power Elite<\/em>, C. Wright Mills claims that the United States is controlled by a small group of powerful economic, military, and political elites. Writing in 1956, he suggests that the decisions, failures, and successes of the power elite are what truly determine the course of the country.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Keep reading for an overview of this illuminating book.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

The Power Elite<\/em> by C. Wright Mills<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

By consolidating wealth and power over time, Mills contends that these \u201cpower elites\u201d have exploited American institutions for their own benefit. Now, they\u2019re unaccountable to the people and free to act as immorally as they please. Our overview of The Power Elite<\/em> by C. Wright Mills explores how this group solidified its rule over the United States as well as how the American people have lost the ability to impact political change<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

(Shortform note: To understand Mills\u2019s goal in writing The Power Elite<\/em>, it helps to understand how he views sociology as a field. In his later work The Sociological Imagination<\/em><\/a>, Mills outlines a theory of sociology as a tool to bridge the gap between history and biography<\/a>. This means connecting individual circumstances to broader social and political forces\u2014for example, by showing an individual\u2019s<\/em> high debt was caused in part by systemic economic issues. By making these connections, sociology gives people tools to understand the world around them and ideas for improving it. Through this lens, The Power Elite<\/em> is Mills\u2019s attempt to connect the development of elite rule to the average American\u2019s feelings of political and economic powerlessness.)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Critics of Mills\u2019s \u201cDoomsaying\u201d<\/strong>

Many critics of The Power Elite<\/em> and of Mills, in general, argue he has a tendency to overstate or exaggerate in his work, offering dire warnings and predictions<\/a>. Some dismiss Mills\u2019s work entirely, viewing it as alarmist leftist propaganda<\/a> lacking academic substance. This is in part because Mills\u2019s conception of a \u201cpower elite\u201d is his version of elite theory<\/em>, a common feature of Marxism and other leftist scholarship. According to elite theory, a few coordinated individuals control a majority of power regardless of democratic elections.

Other critics say that while Mills has good ideas, he tends to present them in a too-theatrical or even conspiratorial way<\/a>. Particularly, critics decry his bold claims about coordination among the power elite, their nefarious goals, and the powerlessness of the American people (which we\u2019ll discuss in Part 2). In the decades since The Power Elite<\/em> came out, it has become an important part of the American sociological canon. However, some still argue that his work tends toward style over substance, saying Mills angrily criticizes parts of society without offering alternatives.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Part 1: Defining the Power Elite<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

According to Mills, the power elite are leaders in business, the military, and politics who have outsized influence on the country.<\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

What truly defines the power elite then is less what they do and more how much influence they have over the economy, politics, and the lives of average Americans.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

To elaborate on his definition, Mills emphasizes three aspects of the power elite, which we’ll explore next.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Social Coordination<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

According to Mills, the power elite is a coordinated class rather than a bunch of disorganized and competing individuals.<\/strong> Besides working together in their professional lives, the power elite have a much deeper level of social<\/em> integration. Most of the power elite go to the same exclusive preparatory schools and universities and join the same social clubs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Varying Competence<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Mills strongly disagrees with the idea that elites are uniquely competent or intelligent. He notes that many modern elites merely inherit a great deal of their influence. Others who join the power elite do so by getting existing elites to know and trust them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Money and Power Over Morality<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

According to Mills, being elite requires a person to emphasize money and power over everything else\u2014moral concerns and values only get in the way.<\/strong> The bureaucratic and corporate structures of the elite allow them to distance themselves from the harm their actions might cause.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Part 2: The Creation of the Power Elite<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Mills says this process began after the American Civil War, as political and technological developments allowed businessmen, military generals, and politicians to exercise their influence more broadly. Those who took advantage of these developments gained enough power to shape their respective institutions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Institution #1: Corporations<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Mills starts by discussing how an increasingly small number of corporations influence every aspect of life in America.<\/strong> This is the result of a long process of corporate centralization of wealth and power.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

1) Competing to Industrialize<\/h5>\n\n\n\n

In the decades following the Civil War, Mills says there was intense competition among American corporations<\/strong>. Lax government regulation and corruption allowed larger corporations to buy up or force out smaller competitors. 19th-century industrialists like Andrew Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller, and J.P. Morgan created massive corporations that controlled the steel, oil, and banking industries respectively. As a consequence of these historical developments, writes Mills, the vast majority of any given industry in America is now controlled by five or fewer corporations.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

2) Shifting Leadership to Executives<\/h5>\n\n\n\n

Once industries were dominated by a few major corporations, the intense competition between them slowed down or even stopped altogether, explains Mills. He argues this was because of a shift in corporate leadership from founders to executives and stockholders. Unlike the founders of the past, this new \u201cexecutive class\u201d was less concerned with the success of their specific<\/em> corporation and more concerned with the success of their industry and of corporate power in general. <\/strong>Mills suggests two reasons why this is the case:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

1) <\/strong>Most executives don\u2019t create or own a majority of their corporations\u2014instead, they\u2019re just hired to run<\/em> them. This means they don\u2019t have personal incentives to compete.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

2) In addition, executives work for multiple corporations over the course of their careers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

3) Defining American Life<\/h5>\n\n\n\n

Mills explains that, by working together toward their overall interests, the executive class and stockholders have consolidated their power and now dominate major portions of American life. Individual<\/em> companies or executives can lose power, but the collective<\/em> power and wealth of corporations remain very stable. They use this power to influence things like what people eat, where they live, the media they watch, and their political lives.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Institution #2: The Military<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Mills suggests that, while the United States has been in violent conflict for almost all of its history, the nature of who<\/em> fights and why they fight has changed drastically in the 20th century. He explains this process in three steps.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

1) Using Temporary Militias<\/h5>\n\n\n\n

Mills explains that, from America\u2019s founding until the 20th century, the military was relatively decentralized and separate from civilian political power.<\/strong> Local militias made up of citizens rather than professional soldiers did a majority of America\u2019s fighting, usually on a small scale.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Even during bigger conflicts like the American Civil War, soldiers and<\/em> officers were mostly citizens organized into small, decentralized militias. Mills explains that the average general of the late 19th century wasn\u2019t educated, saw plenty of combat firsthand, and rose through the ranks based on performance in battle or seniority as a soldier.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

2) Creating the Professional Officer Corps<\/h5>\n\n\n\n

The next step of American military centralization began at the turn of the 20th century, explains Mills. At this time, the US military started replacing decentralized militias with a professional officer corps. These officers were promoted, not for winning battles or fighting well, but instead for following strict hierarchies and chains of command over the course of their careers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

3) Going to War Indefinitely<\/h5>\n\n\n\n

The largest growth in military power and influence started a few decades later with World War II. Much like in World War I, the military, civilian government, and private industry worked together during World War II. However, US involvement in the war was much larger.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Most significantly, Mills argues that this collaboration didn\u2019t end after World War II. <\/strong>Instead of dismantling the expanded military and returning to a peacetime economy, the United States entered the Cold War.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Permanent wartime integration allows top generals to gain influence<\/a> over corporations and politicians alike. Politicians can use the strict hierarchy and obedience of the military to efficiently accomplish their political goals and bypass the democratic political process, meaning they invest more money and power into the hands of the military. Then, generals use the inflated military budget to pour massive amounts of money into private corporations that do business with the military\u2014becoming the largest customer of these companies and gaining a great deal of influence over them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Institution #3: Civilian Government<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

Mills argues that federal bureaucratic agencies have slowly gained more and more power than elected officials at every level. This process had three main steps.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

1) Using Party Machinery<\/h5>\n\n\n\n

Mills explains that, before the 20th century, American politicians mainly worked within the political party \u201cpatronage\u201d system: <\/strong>Over the course of their careers, they started in local party politics, met party mentors and allies, and received pay-offs and positions of power based on loyalty. This was also true for America\u2019s \u201ccivil service,\u201d or government bureaucrats hired for specific technical positions<\/strong>. This system was built on corruption and graft.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

2) Growing the Bureaucracy<\/h5>\n\n\n\n

In the early 20th century, the civil service was dismantled and much of the patronage system of the past was dismantled. This contributed to the centralization of power<\/a> in two distinct ways:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

1)<\/strong> The expansion of the civil service invested more power in federal non-elected positions.<\/strong> New federal agencies within the executive branch<\/a> had power over major aspects of American life.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

2)<\/strong> Reforming the patronage system took wealth and power away from low-level party members.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Reforms of this era cracked down on bribery and graft, but they crucially still allowed elites to control government positions. Mills claims that, despite these reforms, America still doesn\u2019t have a merit-based and apolitical civil service<\/strong> since politicians can create or destroy civil service jobs at will.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

3) Appointing Elites<\/h5>\n\n\n\n

Mills argues that the larger, stronger bureaucratic agencies in the executive branch allow elites to consolidate their power further. He believes these agencies allow elites inside and outside the government to control major American political decisions<\/a><\/strong>\u2014things like war and peace, the shape of the economy, and how power is distributed. What the average American sees as politics (elections, Congress, and so on) is actually just a mid-level, intermediary process for determining how<\/em> to carry out the will of these elite few.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Top bureaucratic positions are often given to corporate and military elites<\/a> rather than career politicians or bureaucrats\u2014allowing for further integration and centralization of the American power elite.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Part 3: The American People and Power<\/h3>\n\n\n\n

Mills argues that, due to changes in media and political organization, many Americans feel powerless to influence their political circumstances. Mills suggests that the resulting sense of unease can eventually lead to large-scale political violence<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Let’s look at the three main institutions that define the relationship between the American people and their political circumstances.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Institution #1: The Media<\/h4>\n\n\n\n

This centralization of media first occurred when new technologies like radio and television made it easier for a few people to reach many, while lax regulation allowed a few major corporations to dominate the media industry. Mills believes that media centralization has taken power away from the American people for two main reasons:<\/p>\n\n\n\n