As the forgoing quotations make clear, the pluralists
concentrate their attention, not upon the sources of power, but its
exercise. Power to them means “participation
in decision making” and can be analyzed only after “careful examination of a
series of concrete decisions.” As a
result, the pluralist researcher is uninterested in the reputedly powerful. His concerns instead are to (a) select for
study a number of “key” as opposed to “routine” political decisions, (b) identify
the people who took an active part in the decision making process, (c) obtain a
full account of their actual behavior while the policy conflict was being
resolved, and (d) determine and analyze the specific outcome of the conflict.
(Bachrach, Baratz, page 948)
This passage explains the perceived technique employed by the
pluralist in conducting research. The
author makes assumptions about what the researcher is concerned about and what
his interests.
I chose this passage because in attempting to disprove
the merit of the “pluralist” methodology, the author actually makes their case
very effectively for them. “Nearly all
men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man’s character, give him
power” (Abraham Lincoln). Power exist
only in action; reputed power is like a “reality show”, it’s not real. Our lives are made up of consequences
resulting from a series of decisions.
Those who make the decisions are the power brokers. Everyone has opinions, but only decision-maker’s
opinions matter, in the end. Slaves had
opinions, but no power. True power is
the ability to evaluate information, deliberate, and make a decision. Without the ability to take part in the
decision-making process, you are a mere spectator in the game of life.
No comments:
Post a Comment