What do you think?
Rate this book
Who Rules America? Power, Politics and Social Change
Domhoff's text teaches students about how power operates in U.S. society. It argues that the owners and top-level managers in large income-producing properties are far and away the dominant figures in the U.S.
288 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1967
26 people are currently reading
1389 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 42 reviews
December 2, 2014
Other than teachers and family, the greatest influences on my development were a few older male friends in high school, particularly Ed. When Ed went off to the University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana, I took advantage of our different holiday schedules to visit him there at every opportunity as he would later come to visit me at Grinnell College in Iowa. During an approximately four-year long primary relationship, he introduced me to scores of books and, all unknowingly, set me on an intellectual path which was to see me through three degrees.
One of the more illuminating and just plain fun books he lent me was G. William Domhoff's Who Rules America? I read it while on one of those visits downstate. I have since read the update, Who Rules America Now?, after hearing Studs Terkel discuss it on WFMT radio.
Domhoff started as a social psychologist. His analysis of the power structure in the USA takes an unusual, sociological bent. Rather than focusing, as C. Wright Mills did, on power structures connected to employment, Domhoff goes into the social behaviors of elites by analyzing lineages, marriage alliances and recreational behaviors. A major resource for him is The Blue Book series. Many elite members, some of the wealthiest people in America, don't work at all--others work for them on behalf of their interests. Most elite individuals, except for the few who enter politics personally, don't mingle with us at all. They have, quite literally, their own worlds with their own prep schools, social clubs and leisure resorts.
One of the more illuminating and just plain fun books he lent me was G. William Domhoff's Who Rules America? I read it while on one of those visits downstate. I have since read the update, Who Rules America Now?, after hearing Studs Terkel discuss it on WFMT radio.
Domhoff started as a social psychologist. His analysis of the power structure in the USA takes an unusual, sociological bent. Rather than focusing, as C. Wright Mills did, on power structures connected to employment, Domhoff goes into the social behaviors of elites by analyzing lineages, marriage alliances and recreational behaviors. A major resource for him is The Blue Book series. Many elite members, some of the wealthiest people in America, don't work at all--others work for them on behalf of their interests. Most elite individuals, except for the few who enter politics personally, don't mingle with us at all. They have, quite literally, their own worlds with their own prep schools, social clubs and leisure resorts.
December 17, 2007
Not entirely palatable, even for me. The tone of the book bordered one of a conspiracy theory. There are certainly truths contained herein. One need look no further than the executive boards of large corporations to find that the social elites are indeed involved in gross conflicts of interests. From think tanks in Washington, to politics, to private business ventures, these elites float from one group to the next trying to keep down the masses in an effort to maintain their wealth and power. A little much? Yes...at least I hope so.
Read
October 23, 2009Just finished reading this book and all I have to say is that our country is more corrupt than I originally thought. This is a nonfiction book about the power elite and how it is intertwined with politics. It also reminds me of white supremacy ideology.
November 11, 2025
G. William Domhoff’s Who Rules America? (first published in 1967, with subsequent updated editions) is a landmark work in the sociology of power and remains one of the most influential analyses of elite domination in modern American society. Drawing upon the intellectual legacy of C. Wright Mills’s The Power Elite (1956) and the empirical rigor of contemporary social science, Domhoff constructs a sustained argument that the United States is governed not by a pluralistic distribution of power, as mainstream political science often asserts, but by a relatively cohesive upper class that controls the major institutions of economic, political, and cultural life. The enduring significance of Who Rules America? lies in its synthesis of theoretical clarity, empirical evidence, and critical engagement with the dominant paradigms of American democracy.
Domhoff’s central thesis is that the United States is ruled by a “power elite” grounded in the structure of corporate capitalism and sustained through a network of social, economic, and institutional mechanisms. He defines this elite not merely as a collection of wealthy individuals, but as a class—a social group united by shared interests, interlocking networks, and a common worldview. Through their control of large corporations, foundations, policy-planning organizations, and key media institutions, members of this upper class exercise a disproportionate influence over national policy and public opinion. Domhoff’s analysis thus challenges pluralist models of politics, such as those advanced by Robert Dahl, which portray decision-making as a competition among diverse interest groups. Instead, he contends that American democracy is formally egalitarian but substantively oligarchic: real power lies in the hands of those who own and manage the instruments of economic production and communication.
Methodologically, Who Rules America? is distinguished by its empirical grounding. Domhoff employs sociological tools such as network analysis, content analysis, and elite biography to map the interconnections among corporate boards, social clubs, universities, and policy institutions. He highlights organizations such as the Council on Foreign Relations, the Business Roundtable, and the Committee for Economic Development as key “policy-planning” institutions where economic elites coordinate strategies and reach consensus on long-term objectives. These organizations function as the connective tissue between business interests and state power, shaping legislation and foreign policy through indirect influence rather than overt conspiracy. In this respect, Domhoff’s approach aligns with the “instrumentalist” tradition of Marxist sociology, while remaining accessible to a broader audience through its empirical precision and avoidance of ideological dogmatism.
The book’s theoretical contribution lies in its integration of class analysis with institutional sociology. Domhoff’s concept of the “upper class” is multidimensional, encompassing not only economic ownership but also social reproduction through elite education, exclusive social clubs, and philanthropy. These institutions serve to transmit class values and to cultivate a sense of collective identity among elites. Domhoff also emphasizes the role of “the corporate community”—a term he uses to describe the network of large, interdependent corporations that constitute the power base of the ruling class. Through campaign financing, lobbying, and revolving-door appointments, the corporate community ensures that public policy reflects the interests of capital accumulation and market stability.
Critically, Domhoff’s analysis has evolved through successive editions to incorporate new empirical findings and respond to shifting political contexts. Later versions address the globalization of capital, the rise of neoliberalism, and the increasing concentration of wealth and media ownership. Yet the underlying framework remains remarkably consistent: elite cohesion, institutional integration, and the marginalization of popular participation are the defining features of American power. This consistency has both strengthened and limited Domhoff’s influence. While his empirical evidence has been continually updated, his theoretical model has been criticized for underestimating internal divisions within the elite and for insufficiently accounting for moments of political disruption, such as social movements and populist insurgencies.
Nevertheless, the durability of Domhoff’s thesis testifies to its explanatory power. His findings have been corroborated by subsequent research in elite studies, political sociology, and network analysis. Scholars such as Thomas Dye, William Robinson, and Michael Useem have extended and refined Domhoff’s model, demonstrating its continued relevance in explaining patterns of policy convergence, wealth inequality, and the consolidation of corporate power in the global era. In this sense, Who Rules America? functions not only as a critique of mid-twentieth-century pluralism but as a foundational text for the sociological study of power in capitalist democracies.
Stylistically, Domhoff writes with clarity and restraint. His prose is straightforward, eschewing ideological rhetoric in favor of empirical demonstration. The tone is analytical rather than polemical, reflecting his conviction that the structure of power can be understood through careful observation rather than moral outrage. Yet beneath the measured analysis lies a moral concern for the health of democracy: Domhoff’s work implicitly warns that political equality is impossible without economic and institutional reform. His critique of the “democratic facade” remains as relevant in the twenty-first century—marked by rising inequality and the dominance of money in politics—as it was during the Vietnam-era crisis that shaped his initial study.
Who Rules America? endures as a cornerstone of American political sociology and a vital counterpoint to pluralist and liberal democratic theories. Its analytical framework—emphasizing the concentration of power, the interlocking nature of elite institutions, and the reproduction of class privilege—continues to inform critical scholarship on inequality and governance. While Domhoff’s model may not capture every nuance of contemporary power relations, its clarity, empirical rigor, and moral urgency ensure its continuing relevance. As both a historical document and an ongoing project of inquiry, Who Rules America? challenges readers to reconsider the relationship between democracy, capitalism, and the social structures that determine who truly governs the United States.
GPT
Domhoff’s central thesis is that the United States is ruled by a “power elite” grounded in the structure of corporate capitalism and sustained through a network of social, economic, and institutional mechanisms. He defines this elite not merely as a collection of wealthy individuals, but as a class—a social group united by shared interests, interlocking networks, and a common worldview. Through their control of large corporations, foundations, policy-planning organizations, and key media institutions, members of this upper class exercise a disproportionate influence over national policy and public opinion. Domhoff’s analysis thus challenges pluralist models of politics, such as those advanced by Robert Dahl, which portray decision-making as a competition among diverse interest groups. Instead, he contends that American democracy is formally egalitarian but substantively oligarchic: real power lies in the hands of those who own and manage the instruments of economic production and communication.
Methodologically, Who Rules America? is distinguished by its empirical grounding. Domhoff employs sociological tools such as network analysis, content analysis, and elite biography to map the interconnections among corporate boards, social clubs, universities, and policy institutions. He highlights organizations such as the Council on Foreign Relations, the Business Roundtable, and the Committee for Economic Development as key “policy-planning” institutions where economic elites coordinate strategies and reach consensus on long-term objectives. These organizations function as the connective tissue between business interests and state power, shaping legislation and foreign policy through indirect influence rather than overt conspiracy. In this respect, Domhoff’s approach aligns with the “instrumentalist” tradition of Marxist sociology, while remaining accessible to a broader audience through its empirical precision and avoidance of ideological dogmatism.
The book’s theoretical contribution lies in its integration of class analysis with institutional sociology. Domhoff’s concept of the “upper class” is multidimensional, encompassing not only economic ownership but also social reproduction through elite education, exclusive social clubs, and philanthropy. These institutions serve to transmit class values and to cultivate a sense of collective identity among elites. Domhoff also emphasizes the role of “the corporate community”—a term he uses to describe the network of large, interdependent corporations that constitute the power base of the ruling class. Through campaign financing, lobbying, and revolving-door appointments, the corporate community ensures that public policy reflects the interests of capital accumulation and market stability.
Critically, Domhoff’s analysis has evolved through successive editions to incorporate new empirical findings and respond to shifting political contexts. Later versions address the globalization of capital, the rise of neoliberalism, and the increasing concentration of wealth and media ownership. Yet the underlying framework remains remarkably consistent: elite cohesion, institutional integration, and the marginalization of popular participation are the defining features of American power. This consistency has both strengthened and limited Domhoff’s influence. While his empirical evidence has been continually updated, his theoretical model has been criticized for underestimating internal divisions within the elite and for insufficiently accounting for moments of political disruption, such as social movements and populist insurgencies.
Nevertheless, the durability of Domhoff’s thesis testifies to its explanatory power. His findings have been corroborated by subsequent research in elite studies, political sociology, and network analysis. Scholars such as Thomas Dye, William Robinson, and Michael Useem have extended and refined Domhoff’s model, demonstrating its continued relevance in explaining patterns of policy convergence, wealth inequality, and the consolidation of corporate power in the global era. In this sense, Who Rules America? functions not only as a critique of mid-twentieth-century pluralism but as a foundational text for the sociological study of power in capitalist democracies.
Stylistically, Domhoff writes with clarity and restraint. His prose is straightforward, eschewing ideological rhetoric in favor of empirical demonstration. The tone is analytical rather than polemical, reflecting his conviction that the structure of power can be understood through careful observation rather than moral outrage. Yet beneath the measured analysis lies a moral concern for the health of democracy: Domhoff’s work implicitly warns that political equality is impossible without economic and institutional reform. His critique of the “democratic facade” remains as relevant in the twenty-first century—marked by rising inequality and the dominance of money in politics—as it was during the Vietnam-era crisis that shaped his initial study.
Who Rules America? endures as a cornerstone of American political sociology and a vital counterpoint to pluralist and liberal democratic theories. Its analytical framework—emphasizing the concentration of power, the interlocking nature of elite institutions, and the reproduction of class privilege—continues to inform critical scholarship on inequality and governance. While Domhoff’s model may not capture every nuance of contemporary power relations, its clarity, empirical rigor, and moral urgency ensure its continuing relevance. As both a historical document and an ongoing project of inquiry, Who Rules America? challenges readers to reconsider the relationship between democracy, capitalism, and the social structures that determine who truly governs the United States.
GPT
October 4, 2019
Depressing, but I'm learning a lot in this Corporate Power seminar for sure
October 25, 2021
Domhoff explains why the balance of power in the US government, between "corporate-conservatives" (corporate Democrats), "ultraconservatives" (corporate Republicans and the Christian Right) , and the "liberal-labor coalition" (labor Democrats and minority rights groups), is such that the government is dominated by a coherent upper-class aligned with corporate interests. He argues that this social class controls the top levels of government as well as the foundations and think-tanks which largely design public policy.
This model suggests that business interests dominate as long as there are no power struggles among different sections of the business class. This seems quite similar to Poor People's Movements: Why They Succeed, How They Fail, which argues that poor people's interests are only catered to during crisis situations where the Democratic and Republican coalitions are in flux.
Another nice feature of the book is a clear explanation of how corporations fund foundations, which in turn fund the think-tanks which develop public policy. This general overview is backed up with details of various think-tanks and foundations, and examples of how they exerted their influence in particular legislative debates.
My main complaint is that Domhoff does not really explain what determines the balance of power of those three main groups, or provide enough empirical evidence for this tripartite division. In particular, what mechanisms do corporate interests use to prevent the "liberal-labor coalition" from winning in Democratic party primaries, and why can they not use these mechanisms to throw "liberal-labor" out the party entirely? How do segments of the public decide which corporate interests best align with their personal interests?
I'm not sure this undermines Domhoff's main point, but it weakens his pessimistic claims regarding the inability of the public to distinguish between the material differences between candidates.
This model suggests that business interests dominate as long as there are no power struggles among different sections of the business class. This seems quite similar to Poor People's Movements: Why They Succeed, How They Fail, which argues that poor people's interests are only catered to during crisis situations where the Democratic and Republican coalitions are in flux.
Another nice feature of the book is a clear explanation of how corporations fund foundations, which in turn fund the think-tanks which develop public policy. This general overview is backed up with details of various think-tanks and foundations, and examples of how they exerted their influence in particular legislative debates.
My main complaint is that Domhoff does not really explain what determines the balance of power of those three main groups, or provide enough empirical evidence for this tripartite division. In particular, what mechanisms do corporate interests use to prevent the "liberal-labor coalition" from winning in Democratic party primaries, and why can they not use these mechanisms to throw "liberal-labor" out the party entirely? How do segments of the public decide which corporate interests best align with their personal interests?
I'm not sure this undermines Domhoff's main point, but it weakens his pessimistic claims regarding the inability of the public to distinguish between the material differences between candidates.
May 23, 2007
A remarkable work of (political) sociology -- does great work empirically showing the interlocking networks of the elite class in America -- how the political and corporate elites are connected. It's common sense, but remarkable to see data showing the depth. Also has some excellent history of labor and corporate power in US, and insight into what has kept the left from exerting any meaningful influence in our politics.
I was supposed to read this in college; didn't; and read it while working in the soup kitchen. Suddenly it made a lot more sense. (Some things you have to experience to understand -- the problem with segregated education in the US.)
I was supposed to read this in college; didn't; and read it while working in the soup kitchen. Suddenly it made a lot more sense. (Some things you have to experience to understand -- the problem with segregated education in the US.)
October 18, 2012
Quite a comprehensive text on the existence of corporate class dominance in the United States of America. It also gives interesting history on how the dominance came to be, like the circumstances surrounding the evolution of a strong two-party political system in the United States. It also explains why the 'liberal-labour coalition'--as Domhoff is wont to call it--has had so much more trouble in the USA than in other countries. Overall quite an informative book.
April 27, 2020
美国大公司总是为富人所拥有和掌控，他们分享共同 的经济利益和社会纽带，这些社会纽带甚至比亲属纽带还要多。此 外，早在19世纪初，银行和保险公司为普通民众保管的存款和保险费 就被用于投资和公司的扩张。同样，董事和高管控制公司是美国商业 系统的早期特征，而非传闻所说的20世纪上半叶股东失去对公司的控 制，让位于银行家和经理之后发生的变化。（Bunting 1987）许多社会 科学家认为，公司的发展和重组是对科技与市场变化的敏锐而高效的 反应，这一传统主张丝毫没有关注权力因素。相反，历史学家和社会 学家做出的研究表明，大公司的出现是对法律变化和阶级冲突的一种 反应，尽管必须承认，运输和通讯的改善促成了这些变化。（Roy 1997）
版权归作者所有，任何形式转载请联系作者。
作者：巫猫子（来自豆瓣）
来源：https://book.douban.com/review/8936932/
为何只有两个主要政党？
G.威廉•多姆霍夫
实行比例代表制选举议会成员的国家通常至少拥有四个主要政党，与此形成强烈对比的是，美国历史中长期都只有两个主要政党。唯一的例外是联邦党解散后1812年至1824年之间短暂的一党时期，以及19世纪50年代中的几年时间，那时，围绕是否将奴隶制扩张到堪萨斯州和密苏里州而产生的冲突令短命的辉格党分崩离析。由于辉格党在1852年至1856年迅速瓦解，在1854年发展起来的共和党（基于其在向西部扩张奴隶制上的坚定立场）并不能真正算得上是第三党，因为它很快就取代了辉格党的位置。
为何美国动荡的历史上不乏种族、地域、宗教以及阶级对抗，却只有两个主要政党？美国政府的两个基本特征导致了两党制的形成。第一个特征是被所有美国人视为理所当然的选举系统，即从各州和选区选举参议员和众议员时，只需要获得“相对多数票”而不是“半数票”。这种设置被称为“单一选区相对多数制”，采用这一制度的国家大多都是两党制。（Lipsetand Marks 2000; Rosenstone, Behr, and Lazarus 1996）在那些例外的国家中，第三党往往是由于种族或宗教原因而在某一区域拥有较大势力的。
美国两党制的第二个原因相对特殊：和加拿大以及大多数西欧国家的政府议会制度不同，美国的总统选举创造了极为特别的动力。总统选举实际上是单一选区相对多数制的强化版，它将整个国家作为唯一的选区。相比之下，议会制度即使是基于单一选区，也会为第三党派提供空间，因为总理是在选举之后由议会选出的。因此在美国，被称为民主党和共和党的选前同盟承受的压力相对较小。而总统拥有的巨大权力又进一步促进了两党制的倾向。因此，和其他实行选区/多数制选举制度的国家相比，美国的第三党派更难发展，规模也更小。
将公司所有者和高管浇铸成一个全国性的上层阶级的那些机构，不受任何给定的个体或家族的存在或缺席的影响。家族在阶级结构中可能会兴起或衰落，但上层阶级的习俗制度会继续存在。在全国范围内，上层阶级中的每一个人并不是都认识所有人，但是每一个人认识的人，都会认识这个国家里其他地方的某些人，而这要归功于共同的学校经历、同一个地方的夏令营活动、相同社交俱乐部的成员资格，或者同一个董事会里的董事资格。在任何一个给定的历史时刻，上层阶级都是一个由相互交叠的社交圈子所组成的复杂网络，而将这些社交圈子编织在一起的，则是拥有共同属性的成员，以及从相似的生活方式中形成的大量标志着相同社会地位的符号。从社会心理学家的角度来看，上层阶级是由无数面对面的小群体所组成的，而随着人们从一个社会环境转移到另一种环境中，这些小群体的构成也在不断地发生变化。 卷入到这些制度中的人，通常会慢慢地形成一种阶级认识，包括优越感、骄傲感和貌似合理的特权感。在心底里，许多上层阶级的成员都认为他们比其他人要优秀，因此完全应该得到他们现在这样的生活。这种阶级认识的基础，是公司所有权，但是，通过共享的社会认同以及经由参加上层阶级的社交机构而建立的人际纽带，这种认识得到了强化。 更重要的是，上层阶级的基础是以股票、债券和不动产等形式表现出来的对创收性投资的所有权和控制权，这一事实说明，它既是一个上层阶级，也是一个资产阶级。它的成员关注的不仅仅是一家公司或某个商业部门的利益，而且关注诸如投资氛围和利润率这样的事情。也就是说，他们有一种资产阶级的心智品质。 除了少部分加入了自由派-劳工联盟或左翼运动中的另类，上层阶级的成员在与作为一个整体的企业共同体的福利有关的议题上，也采取的是一种保守主义的观点。他们的这种倾向导致了一种普遍的阶级视角，而这种视角在……政策研制网络中则得到了应用和强化------引自第161页
大型媒体通过它们接受和包装事件的例行化方式来加强社会体制的合法性，从而在权力平衡中发挥重要作用。它们的风格和调子通常是认真对待商业和政府领袖说的话，对他们的任何表态都报以极大的尊敬。这一尊崇的方式在外交政策领域既表现得最为明显，同时也特别重要。媒体的报导方式使得美国的外交目标总是显得十分可敬，公司在海外的活动既是必要的也是合法的，而大多数国家发生的任何大规模变迁都是不应该的，也必须被压制下去。 然而，除了这些十分泛化的、可能随着社会或经济破坏而衰落的影响以外，媒体并不是舆论塑造过程中的一个基础部分或阶级宰制社会里的一个核心组成部分。-----引自第277页
(https://book.douban.com/review/12208747/)
零、导言
1.介绍了公司联盟（上层阶级）的组成、对手、目的。阶级冲突。
2.人们不关注政治是自然的，因为政策提案无休止的争论，日常生活的吸引力不可阻挡。
一、美国的权利与阶级
1.美国的发展史，使得人们天然对认为“平等”。但实际上是在争取独立过程中，领导者（革命精英）为了更多团结人民，面对更大的对手（英国）而做的策略。此时，竞争让位于合作。
2.权力定义：除了集体权力（在此不表）外，本书主要说的是面对冲突时获得成功的能力。始于对经济、政治、军事、意识形态这四个社会网络的控制。
3.权力用指标来衡量大小，当然指标很难定，可以有三个表现。在三个表现处较高的，可认为权力较高
（1）谁受益。即取得大多数人想要的东西的能力。比如财富、高收入、异国休假、健康的身体。
（2）谁管理。即阶层中在公共机构中担任要职以及参与到重要决策团体中的数量。当然，在国情下，该指标可能有一些幕后
（3）谁获胜。指在公共决策中，更能按自己意愿产生结果的。该指标比较隐藏。
4.社会阶级：一般来说美国人讨厌谈论阶层，而且认为美国梦，使得阶层的重要性下降。
5.高阶层对阶层的认识：认为阶层是存在的，但一般不喜欢用阶层。且对自己所属阶层有认可感（使用“我们”这样的词汇，对自己所属阶层有优越感）
6.社会科学家眼中的社会阶层：建立内部社会组织，共享相同的生活方式，在同样的组织中（学校、俱乐部等——俱乐部这个很有意思，在中国似乎并非这样划分阶层。中国更多的阶层划分，是通过资产地位，可能说，中国同一阶层的人们并没有那么强烈的团结感，相对孤立？）
7.很多拼搏的人的目标，只是为了提升社会阶层。所以，如果有提升社会阶层的确切方法，是一个比较好的能够满足用户需求的东西。
二、公司共同体
1.公司共同体由所有通过重叠董事链接到某一单一网络的营利性组织组成。公司共享相同的，以获利为目标的董事会成员，享有共同的目标和价值观。
2.公司共同体还通过各类大型商业组织来体现，比如全美制造商协会、美国商会等
3.公司共同体的重要组成成分：董事会。
三、公司共同体与上层阶级（这一章神了）
1.对实验环境中小群体的研究证明：（1）当一个社会群体被认为排外并且地位较高时（2）当互动发生在轻松的非正式场合下，社会凝聚力最高。
2.经济权利已然被转化为地位权力，地位权力使上层阶级成员产生了正当资格和尊重需求的社会心理，同时也使得圈外的人们产生了崇拜和顺从的信息。
3.美国是否有上层阶级？
即，这个阶级不是一个人或者一个家族，而是一个固定化的制度、规则、生活方式，社会机制。是否有这种机制？文中认为是有的。还提供了指标
通过 交流机制、社会关系、深度访谈得到民众认知 证明
这也涉及到这些上层阶级如何找到，便于成为后文的研究主体
4.上层阶级的求学阶段。
私立寄宿学校。寄宿学校属于极为高效的社会化组织，全面机构，将成员与外部世界隔绝，向他们灌输一整套习俗和传统，最终挺过这一严苛教育的人们将会产生一种独特与优越的意识。
绝大多数私立学校毕业生会选择商业、金融或公司法领域的职业。
私立学校也成为了小部分人向上层社会流动的机遇，积累社会资本（与权贵的联系）和文化资本（彰显地位的文化素养）
5.社交俱乐部。
产生独特感，和其他人排除开，树立傲慢的排外态度
用一些特有的甚至在公共场合遭受非议的活动产生信任，对外保守秘密
活动中交流
6.上层阶级的延续性常在，向上流动性有，但往往需要经历较长时间的奋斗实现7.上层阶级是经济阶级。文中通过前1%富人的收入和拥有财富数量，论证集中度；通过富人成为社会名流比例，论证金钱在社会地位作用，这些也被广泛研究证明。
“研究证明，上层阶级是一个以盈利性资产（非居住用的房产之类）的所有权和控制权为基础的经济阶级”
8.上层阶级对公司的控制
有很多家族企业
家族办公室——家族雇佣人来投资、地产规划
控股公司——家族设立公司，以一个法人名义，购买股票控制其他企业作为控股公司的经营目标
各个经济领域最大的几家公司，并不存在个人或家族大量持股的现象。说明，单个家族还未做到这么大的能量
9.公司经理
上层阶级的子女一般不会对这种需要在大官僚机构的公司阶梯上奋斗多年的职业感兴趣。他们更喜欢投身于金融领域、公司法领域，或是自己家族的产业，也有人将时间用在管理自己的巨额财富和关注股市动态之上。这些追求富裕上层阶级成员更大的个人自主权和更多运用权力的机会。
上层阶级的成员成了通过投资基金获取利益的金融家，而不是忙于处理公司日常运营中出现的各种问题的经理人。
进而经理人常由中产阶级的孩子成长成
10.通化地位上升的公司经理
经理人因为教育环境原因，已经被高社会地位的人部分同化
复杂机构的高层决策中的云橘波诡和伸缩空间造成一种局面，使得领导之间的新人管的至关重要。现代大公司开始明确，管理工作中存在着不确定性商数。这使得管理层在社交上非常严格，他们排斥社会异己，形成紧密的小圈子；使控制权掌握在社会地位相近的人手中；他们强调服从的重要性，坚持在各方面无限忠诚。在这种氛围下，新的经历很快就明白，他们必须对上级表示忠诚，比如加班工作、让自己的衣着打扮符合上司的心意，并努力在态度和行为上与上司保持一致。不论正确与否，他们开始相信，为了在公司取得成功，他们必须成为“老同学网”的一部分。尽管在提拔经理时，对能力哟一定的标准要求，但这些标准要么模糊不清，要么无法操作，以致于大多数经理开始相信社会因素也是非常重要的。
由于经理人的高收入，期权，有可能被同化成公司富豪
11.阶级意识，是一种正当特权的社会心理，这种意识因共同的社会身份和人际纽带而不断强化。
四、政策规划网络
1、共享的经济利益和社会凝聚力为政策共识的达成提供了起点，但如果没有研究、磋商和深思熟虑，也不能实现协议的达成。因而需要有慈善基金会、智库和政府研讨团体的形式存在。
2.从经济支援、参与到这些团体中，体现上层阶级的意志。
3.从起源、领导和目标等方向来看，基金会其实是公司共同体的延伸
4.政策规划网络组织，是公司共同体在融资和领导权方面的延伸。
5.以上三种模式和结构性权力、地位权力、专家权力，仍无法保证对政府的支配。需要在舆论上继续努力
五、公众舆论的作用
1.毫无疑问地，人们基于自身经验以及与朋友的讨论形成的观点，很可能对政府政策产生影响。
2.但受限于公众特点，不太可能给予某项特定抽象议题足够的关注，更多是对于一些表面的比如政府发生的事件产生看法。
3.公司共同体塑造舆论网络，主要通过 公司公共关系（公关）部门、研讨群体、基金会赞助的广告组织来进行。
4.公司共同体常用的舆论塑造方法：
利用美国常用的自由、个人负责的理念，来转移大公司责任到个人身上
利用舆论使得民众对科学发现不再笃信不疑。如全球气候变暖基于二氧化碳等物质排放的质疑，就是埃克森美孚进行的工作
5.媒体的作用，也是难以评估的，有时有效有时无效，影响力常常是非直接的
六、政党和选举
1.大致了解了选举制度
2.成为政客的律师能够妥善地处理资助他们的公司富豪与选他们上台的普通公民这两者之间的复杂关系
七、权力精英如何支配政府
1.据调查，在1934-1980年间，被委任以内阁、外交和法院要职的官员中，有64%来自公司共同体。研究一直认为，无论是共和党政府还是民主党政府，其高层官员大多是公司董事、公司法律师，或是政策规划网络中的理事会成员，也就是权力精英的��员。
八、大图景
1.支配是指某一团体或阶级的命令能够在阻力相对较小的情况下得以执行。之所以成为可能，是因为该团体或阶级能够建立起日常生活中不可或缺的组织、规则和习惯。换言之，就是巨大的分配性权利的制度化结果。根据这一定义，公司富豪可以说是一个支配阶级，因为他们拥有的各种分配性权力的积累效果使大多数美国人都接受或默许了他们的政策。
2.结构性权力、政策规划网络、政党的一定程度的控制。
3.公司富豪强大的原因是：
和西欧相比，没有历史包袱，不用和封建贵族、强大的政府以及传统教会的通知集团作斗争；
同时，工薪阶层因为选举制度（二党制）、移民类型分歧相对能量较小；
大公司诞生早于大政府
九、其他不同意见
1.多元主义：因为公司共同体不具有支配阶级应当具备的凝聚力，因而不够有支配作用。——反驳：实际上公司共同体经常取得胜利；政府在政治外交政策上忽视公众舆论
2. ……
版权归作者所有，任何形式转载请联系作者。
作者：巫猫子（来自豆瓣）
来源：https://book.douban.com/review/8936932/
为何只有两个主要政党？
G.威廉•多姆霍夫
实行比例代表制选举议会成员的国家通常至少拥有四个主要政党，与此形成强烈对比的是，美国历史中长期都只有两个主要政党。唯一的例外是联邦党解散后1812年至1824年之间短暂的一党时期，以及19世纪50年代中的几年时间，那时，围绕是否将奴隶制扩张到堪萨斯州和密苏里州而产生的冲突令短命的辉格党分崩离析。由于辉格党在1852年至1856年迅速瓦解，在1854年发展起来的共和党（基于其在向西部扩张奴隶制上的坚定立场）并不能真正算得上是第三党，因为它很快就取代了辉格党的位置。
为何美国动荡的历史上不乏种族、地域、宗教以及阶级对抗，却只有两个主要政党？美国政府的两个基本特征导致了两党制的形成。第一个特征是被所有美国人视为理所当然的选举系统，即从各州和选区选举参议员和众议员时，只需要获得“相对多数票”而不是“半数票”。这种设置被称为“单一选区相对多数制”，采用这一制度的国家大多都是两党制。（Lipsetand Marks 2000; Rosenstone, Behr, and Lazarus 1996）在那些例外的国家中，第三党往往是由于种族或宗教原因而在某一区域拥有较大势力的。
美国两党制的第二个原因相对特殊：和加拿大以及大多数西欧国家的政府议会制度不同，美国的总统选举创造了极为特别的动力。总统选举实际上是单一选区相对多数制的强化版，它将整个国家作为唯一的选区。相比之下，议会制度即使是基于单一选区，也会为第三党派提供空间，因为总理是在选举之后由议会选出的。因此在美国，被称为民主党和共和党的选前同盟承受的压力相对较小。而总统拥有的巨大权力又进一步促进了两党制的倾向。因此，和其他实行选区/多数制选举制度的国家相比，美国的第三党派更难发展，规模也更小。
将公司所有者和高管浇铸成一个全国性的上层阶级的那些机构，不受任何给定的个体或家族的存在或缺席的影响。家族在阶级结构中可能会兴起或衰落，但上层阶级的习俗制度会继续存在。在全国范围内，上层阶级中的每一个人并不是都认识所有人，但是每一个人认识的人，都会认识这个国家里其他地方的某些人，而这要归功于共同的学校经历、同一个地方的夏令营活动、相同社交俱乐部的成员资格，或者同一个董事会里的董事资格。在任何一个给定的历史时刻，上层阶级都是一个由相互交叠的社交圈子所组成的复杂网络，而将这些社交圈子编织在一起的，则是拥有共同属性的成员，以及从相似的生活方式中形成的大量标志着相同社会地位的符号。从社会心理学家的角度来看，上层阶级是由无数面对面的小群体所组成的，而随着人们从一个社会环境转移到另一种环境中，这些小群体的构成也在不断地发生变化。 卷入到这些制度中的人，通常会慢慢地形成一种阶级认识，包括优越感、骄傲感和貌似合理的特权感。在心底里，许多上层阶级的成员都认为他们比其他人要优秀，因此完全应该得到他们现在这样的生活。这种阶级认识的基础，是公司所有权，但是，通过共享的社会认同以及经由参加上层阶级的社交机构而建立的人际纽带，这种认识得到了强化。 更重要的是，上层阶级的基础是以股票、债券和不动产等形式表现出来的对创收性投资的所有权和控制权，这一事实说明，它既是一个上层阶级，也是一个资产阶级。它的成员关注的不仅仅是一家公司或某个商业部门的利益，而且关注诸如投资氛围和利润率这样的事情。也就是说，他们有一种资产阶级的心智品质。 除了少部分加入了自由派-劳工联盟或左翼运动中的另类，上层阶级的成员在与作为一个整体的企业共同体的福利有关的议题上，也采取的是一种保守主义的观点。他们的这种倾向导致了一种普遍的阶级视角，而这种视角在……政策研制网络中则得到了应用和强化------引自第161页
大型媒体通过它们接受和包装事件的例行化方式来加强社会体制的合法性，从而在权力平衡中发挥重要作用。它们的风格和调子通常是认真对待商业和政府领袖说的话，对他们的任何表态都报以极大的尊敬。这一尊崇的方式在外交政策领域既表现得最为明显，同时也特别重要。媒体的报导方式使得美国的外交目标总是显得十分可敬，公司在海外的活动既是必要的也是合法的，而大多数国家发生的任何大规模变迁都是不应该的，也必须被压制下去。 然而，除了这些十分泛化的、可能随着社会或经济破坏而衰落的影响以外，媒体并不是舆论塑造过程中的一个基础部分或阶级宰制社会里的一个核心组成部分。-----引自第277页
(https://book.douban.com/review/12208747/)
零、导言
1.介绍了公司联盟（上层阶级）的组成、对手、目的。阶级冲突。
2.人们不关注政治是自然的，因为政策提案无休止的争论，日常生活的吸引力不可阻挡。
一、美国的权利与阶级
1.美国的发展史，使得人们天然对认为“平等”。但实际上是在争取独立过程中，领导者（革命精英）为了更多团结人民，面对更大的对手（英国）而做的策略。此时，竞争让位于合作。
2.权力定义：除了集体权力（在此不表）外，本书主要说的是面对冲突时获得成功的能力。始于对经济、政治、军事、意识形态这四个社会网络的控制。
3.权力用指标来衡量大小，当然指标很难定，可以有三个表现。在三个表现处较高的，可认为权力较高
（1）谁受益。即取得大多数人想要的东西的能力。比如财富、高收入、异国休假、健康的身体。
（2）谁管理。即阶层中在公共机构中担任要职以及参与到重要决策团体中的数量。当然，在国情下，该指标可能有一些幕后
（3）谁获胜。指在公共决策中，更能按自己意愿产生结果的。该指标比较隐藏。
4.社会阶级：一般来说美国人讨厌谈论阶层，而且认为美国梦，使得阶层的重要性下降。
5.高阶层对阶层的认识：认为阶层是存在的，但一般不喜欢用阶层。且对自己所属阶层有认可感（使用“我们”这样的词汇，对自己所属阶层有优越感）
6.社会科学家眼中的社会阶层：建立内部社会组织，共享相同的生活方式，在同样的组织中（学校、俱乐部等——俱乐部这个很有意思，在中国似乎并非这样划分阶层。中国更多的阶层划分，是通过资产地位，可能说，中国同一阶层的人们并没有那么强烈的团结感，相对孤立？）
7.很多拼搏的人的目标，只是为了提升社会阶层。所以，如果有提升社会阶层的确切方法，是一个比较好的能够满足用户需求的东西。
二、公司共同体
1.公司共同体由所有通过重叠董事链接到某一单一网络的营利性组织组成。公司共享相同的，以获利为目标的董事会成员，享有共同的目标和价值观。
2.公司共同体还通过各类大型商业组织来体现，比如全美制造商协会、美国商会等
3.公司共同体的重要组成成分：董事会。
三、公司共同体与上层阶级（这一章神了）
1.对实验环境中小群体的研究证明：（1）当一个社会群体被认为排外并且地位较高时（2）当互动发生在轻松的非正式场合下，社会凝聚力最高。
2.经济权利已然被转化为地位权力，地位权力使上层阶级成员产生了正当资格和尊重需求的社会心理，同时也使得圈外的人们产生了崇拜和顺从的信息。
3.美国是否有上层阶级？
即，这个阶级不是一个人或者一个家族，而是一个固定化的制度、规则、生活方式，社会机制。是否有这种机制？文中认为是有的。还提供了指标
通过 交流机制、社会关系、深度访谈得到民众认知 证明
这也涉及到这些上层阶级如何找到，便于成为后文的研究主体
4.上层阶级的求学阶段。
私立寄宿学校。寄宿学校属于极为高效的社会化组织，全面机构，将成员与外部世界隔绝，向他们灌输一整套习俗和传统，最终挺过这一严苛教育的人们将会产生一种独特与优越的意识。
绝大多数私立学校毕业生会选择商业、金融或公司法领域的职业。
私立学校也成为了小部分人向上层社会流动的机遇，积累社会资本（与权贵的联系）和文化资本（彰显地位的文化素养）
5.社交俱乐部。
产生独特感，和其他人排除开，树立傲慢的排外态度
用一些特有的甚至在公共场合遭受非议的活动产生信任，对外保守秘密
活动中交流
6.上层阶级的延续性常在，向上流动性有，但往往需要经历较长时间的奋斗实现7.上层阶级是经济阶级。文中通过前1%富人的收入和拥有财富数量，论证集中度；通过富人成为社会名流比例，论证金钱在社会地位作用，这些也被广泛研究证明。
“研究证明，上层阶级是一个以盈利性资产（非居住用的房产之类）的所有权和控制权为基础的经济阶级”
8.上层阶级对公司的控制
有很多家族企业
家族办公室——家族雇佣人来投资、地产规划
控股公司——家族设立公司，以一个法人名义，购买股票控制其他企业作为控股公司的经营目标
各个经济领域最大的几家公司，并不存在个人或家族大量持股的现象。说明，单个家族还未做到这么大的能量
9.公司经理
上层阶级的子女一般不会对这种需要在大官僚机构的公司阶梯上奋斗多年的职业感兴趣。他们更喜欢投身于金融领域、公司法领域，或是自己家族的产业，也有人将时间用在管理自己的巨额财富和关注股市动态之上。这些追求富裕上层阶级成员更大的个人自主权和更多运用权力的机会。
上层阶级的成员成了通过投资基金获取利益的金融家，而不是忙于处理公司日常运营中出现的各种问题的经理人。
进而经理人常由中产阶级的孩子成长成
10.通化地位上升的公司经理
经理人因为教育环境原因，已经被高社会地位的人部分同化
复杂机构的高层决策中的云橘波诡和伸缩空间造成一种局面，使得领导之间的新人管的至关重要。现代大公司开始明确，管理工作中存在着不确定性商数。这使得管理层在社交上非常严格，他们排斥社会异己，形成紧密的小圈子；使控制权掌握在社会地位相近的人手中；他们强调服从的重要性，坚持在各方面无限忠诚。在这种氛围下，新的经历很快就明白，他们必须对上级表示忠诚，比如加班工作、让自己的衣着打扮符合上司的心意，并努力在态度和行为上与上司保持一致。不论正确与否，他们开始相信，为了在公司取得成功，他们必须成为“老同学网”的一部分。尽管在提拔经理时，对能力哟一定的标准要求，但这些标准要么模糊不清，要么无法操作，以致于大多数经理开始相信社会因素也是非常重要的。
由于经理人的高收入，期权，有可能被同化成公司富豪
11.阶级意识，是一种正当特权的社会心理，这种意识因共同的社会身份和人际纽带而不断强化。
四、政策规划网络
1、共享的经济利益和社会凝聚力为政策共识的达成提供了起点，但如果没有研究、磋商和深思熟虑，也不能实现协议的达成。因而需要有慈善基金会、智库和政府研讨团体的形式存在。
2.从经济支援、参与到这些团体中，体现上层阶级的意志。
3.从起源、领导和目标等方向来看，基金会其实是公司共同体的延伸
4.政策规划网络组织，是公司共同体在融资和领导权方面的延伸。
5.以上三种模式和结构性权力、地位权力、专家权力，仍无法保证对政府的支配。需要在舆论上继续努力
五、公众舆论的作用
1.毫无疑问地，人们基于自身经验以及与朋友的讨论形成的观点，很可能对政府政策产生影响。
2.但受限于公众特点，不太可能给予某项特定抽象议题足够的关注，更多是对于一些表面的比如政府发生的事件产生看法。
3.公司共同体塑造舆论网络，主要通过 公司公共关系（公关）部门、研讨群体、基金会赞助的广告组织来进行。
4.公司共同体常用的舆论塑造方法：
利用美国常用的自由、个人负责的理念，来转移大公司责任到个人身上
利用舆论使得民众对科学发现不再笃信不疑。如全球气候变暖基于二氧化碳等物质排放的质疑，就是埃克森美孚进行的工作
5.媒体的作用，也是难以评估的，有时有效有时无效，影响力常常是非直接的
六、政党和选举
1.大致了解了选举制度
2.成为政客的律师能够妥善地处理资助他们的公司富豪与选他们上台的普通公民这两者之间的复杂关系
七、权力精英如何支配政府
1.据调查，在1934-1980年间，被委任以内阁、外交和法院要职的官员中，有64%来自公司共同体。研究一直认为，无论是共和党政府还是民主党政府，其高层官员大多是公司董事、公司法律师，或是政策规划网络中的理事会成员，也就是权力精英的��员。
八、大图景
1.支配是指某一团体或阶级的命令能够在阻力相对较小的情况下得以执行。之所以成为可能，是因为该团体或阶级能够建立起日常生活中不可或缺的组织、规则和习惯。换言之，就是巨大的分配性权利的制度化结果。根据这一定义，公司富豪可以说是一个支配阶级，因为他们拥有的各种分配性权力的积累效果使大多数美国人都接受或默许了他们的政策。
2.结构性权力、政策规划网络、政党的一定程度的控制。
3.公司富豪强大的原因是：
和西欧相比，没有历史包袱，不用和封建贵族、强大的政府以及传统教会的通知集团作斗争；
同时，工薪阶层因为选举制度（二党制）、移民类型分歧相对能量较小；
大公司诞生早于大政府
九、其他不同意见
1.多元主义：因为公司共同体不具有支配阶级应当具备的凝聚力，因而不够有支配作用。——反驳：实际上公司共同体经常取得胜利；政府在政治外交政策上忽视公众舆论
2. ……
March 8, 2007
This one blew me away. It's an empirical analysis of how the unequal power distribution in America is maintained and further consolidated. It's an academic publication, so is stupidly expensive, but the UW library has a copy. In the authors own words: "Using membership network analysis, this book attempts to show there is a corporate community (Chapter 2) that is the basis for a social upper class (Chapter 3). This intertwined corporate community and social upper class have developed a policy-planning network (Chapter 4) and an opinion-shaping network (Chapter 5) that give them the means to win a majority of seats in the electoral process (Chapter 6) and to shape the policies of interest to them within the federal government (Chapter 7)."
February 13, 2011
This is an excellent, extremely well researched and sourced book about how the "power elite" as the author puts it maintains its grip on power. It covers everything from who are these power elite, the role of the media, study groups and think tanks, political parties, shaping public opinion, and even those role of those private clubs that the rich a members of and the role of the exclusive private schools.
As an academic book, its not always the most engrossing page-turner, but that said it is generally well written and as long as you find the subject matter interesting there's something good on every page.
My only problem with the book is that it does not account for the role of mass movements in pressuring and winning the reforms that the masses need.
As an academic book, its not always the most engrossing page-turner, but that said it is generally well written and as long as you find the subject matter interesting there's something good on every page.
My only problem with the book is that it does not account for the role of mass movements in pressuring and winning the reforms that the masses need.
February 20, 2012
I read this book in college for a class on world development. At the time I didn't know much about Marxist categories or worldviews, and now that I look back on this book I wonder how much Marxian thought permeates this book. I do know that it took away some of my naivete and it was a fascinating look at power in the highest echelons of our society. One day I will probably reread this book and reevaluate.
February 9, 2011
I have no idea what I would think of this book if I read it now, but it changed my life in college - this book-and the class I took that I read it for-fascinated me and drew me into becoming a sociology major! - Sociology of Power w/Professor Jerry Lembcke. I still have the notebook from the class. And Jerry wound up being my advisor. Thanks, Jerry!
January 4, 2012
The first edition was published forty-four years before Occupy Wall Street. It described the 1% and their disproportionate power. Whether this edition or a later one, this book would provide a factual and conceptual cornerstone of the Occupy movement. It identifies--and leaves us to solve--a very serious problem that has only gotten worse since that first edition.
September 18, 2009
There is much data here, historical data some 20 years on, about relations among members of the ruling class. Domhoff also shows how class priviledge translates into the power to rule and exploit the masses.
May 28, 2012
As far as I'm concerned, one of the best analyses of social class in America to date, with blood-boiling statistics that demonstrate how truly concentrated are power, class and privilege in the United States.
January 3, 2013
Extremely powerful and exceedingly detailed analysis of the deep and widespread interconnection of and collusion among the elite and corporate classes in order to maintain their class dominance. Jaw-dropping and Eye-opening and every other platitude you can imagine.
June 29, 2008
Obsessed. This book rules America that's who.
October 15, 2008
amazing if dry at times.
August 10, 2008
influenced me at an early age
September 14, 2008
I learned how america is rule by 3 main powers. Corporations, Executive Power and Pentagon
May 5, 2009
Political scientists take note...the best explanation of how policy happens in this country is probably in this book by a sociologist.
October 4, 2011
Domhoff investigates who actually controls the American political system. The results might surprise you.
March 3, 2021
First off, Domhoff makes it clear that in this book his class domination theory is "narrowly focussed as to time an place" and not meant to refute other other theories, such as the pluralist, state autonomy or Marxist theories which may be applicable in Europe or at other times.
He presents tons of empirical results but also states that "there is no substitute for historical studies." A case in point is the origin of Social Security and Occupational Safety and Health Administration. The latter looks like a win for labour on the scorecard, but a closer look reveals that implementation of its regulations leaves a lot to be desired. And rules which might have had some bite were scaled back or cancelled, as happened with regulations on preventing tuberculosis from returning.
Domhoff gives detailed and convincing explanations as to why the power elite retain their position at the top and why policies they champion are not successfully challenged. Unfortunately, the explanations are inevitably in terms of power relations and politics. He tacitly assumes that liberal-labor policies would be superior; however he never tries to actually make a case that this is so. In fact, he rarely deals with any economic arguments proper. I'm not suggesting he is economically illiterate and couldn't offer cogent economic analysis, but he doesn't. He could have expanded his observation that most leftists have "abandoned their hopes for a centrally planned nonmarket economy due to the failure of socialist/communist experiments" to point out that this was in large measure due to a failure in their economics. But much of the same economics principles undergird many leftist policies as well--so Domhoff cannot just take it for granted the any change in the current system would be for the better, though changes are of course needed.
Though there is much to resent in the manner which America is ruled by the power elite, some of the positions they support ought to be challenged on purely economic grounds. Productivity, debt, interest levels and all the rest have real consequences to which he does not give their due. How should America be ruled? is intertwined with the question of Who rules America and though Domhoff does a great job addressing the latter question, the project is incomplete.
Much of the material can be had in bits and pieces elsewhere. But the section on the socialization of the power elite was really eye-opening and seems to invite research into the apparent guilt-free rule of the powerful. Presumably they are not all psychopaths lacking in empathy. Rigorous socialization may provide the answer. Check out his website for updated material:
https://whorulesamerica.ucsc.edu/
He presents tons of empirical results but also states that "there is no substitute for historical studies." A case in point is the origin of Social Security and Occupational Safety and Health Administration. The latter looks like a win for labour on the scorecard, but a closer look reveals that implementation of its regulations leaves a lot to be desired. And rules which might have had some bite were scaled back or cancelled, as happened with regulations on preventing tuberculosis from returning.
Domhoff gives detailed and convincing explanations as to why the power elite retain their position at the top and why policies they champion are not successfully challenged. Unfortunately, the explanations are inevitably in terms of power relations and politics. He tacitly assumes that liberal-labor policies would be superior; however he never tries to actually make a case that this is so. In fact, he rarely deals with any economic arguments proper. I'm not suggesting he is economically illiterate and couldn't offer cogent economic analysis, but he doesn't. He could have expanded his observation that most leftists have "abandoned their hopes for a centrally planned nonmarket economy due to the failure of socialist/communist experiments" to point out that this was in large measure due to a failure in their economics. But much of the same economics principles undergird many leftist policies as well--so Domhoff cannot just take it for granted the any change in the current system would be for the better, though changes are of course needed.
Though there is much to resent in the manner which America is ruled by the power elite, some of the positions they support ought to be challenged on purely economic grounds. Productivity, debt, interest levels and all the rest have real consequences to which he does not give their due. How should America be ruled? is intertwined with the question of Who rules America and though Domhoff does a great job addressing the latter question, the project is incomplete.
Much of the material can be had in bits and pieces elsewhere. But the section on the socialization of the power elite was really eye-opening and seems to invite research into the apparent guilt-free rule of the powerful. Presumably they are not all psychopaths lacking in empathy. Rigorous socialization may provide the answer. Check out his website for updated material:
https://whorulesamerica.ucsc.edu/
December 20, 2020
¿Quién gobierna Estados Unidos?, escrito por G. William Domhoff, es un estudio que busca demostrar que la clase superior estadounidense es una clase gobernante. Dicha investigación se enfocó en los años de 1932 al 1964 y se rigió por el método de la sociología del liderazgo para el cual se estudiaron los antecedentes sociales de los individuos que controlan instituciones poderosas y toman decisiones significativas.⠀
⠀
El autor comienza por definir los siguientes conceptos: ⠀
• Clase social: grupo mayor de gente cuyos miembros tienen acceso íntimo uno a otro.⠀
• Clase gobernante: clase social superior que posee una parte desproporcionada de la riqueza de la nación, recibe una cantidad desproporcionada del ingreso anual de un país y proporciona un número desproporcionado de sus miembros a las instituciones rectoras y a los grupos que deciden los destinos del país.⠀
• Elite gobernante: grupo que controla, menor en volumen que una mayoría, que no es puro producto de reglas democráticas. Es una minoría de individuos cuyas preferencias prevalecen regularmente en casos de diferencias en asuntos políticos graves.⠀
⠀
Para investigar y adquirir conocimiento sobre la clase superior nacional, Domhoff acude al Social Register, volúmenes de libros que se publican para las principales ciudades de Estados Unidos que contienen los nombres de quienes figuraron la clase superior nacional de aquellos tiempos.⠀
⠀
De ahí, el autor analiza la presencia de esta clase superior en diferentes sectores como el de las grandes empresas, la banca, la política, las universidades, la milicia y el gobierno (local, estatal y federal). ⠀
⠀
En adición, el autor analiza las cohesiones y antagonismos dentro de la clase superior estadounidense y cómo esta ha ido evolucionando, pero además, presenta la forma en que el sistema entrena y prepara a nuevos miembros de la clase para que asimilen los intereses del grupo dominante. ⠀
Encontré que el libro estuvo interesantísimo; en especial, porque entiendo posee vigencia hoy día. Aunque considero que pudo haber sido más robusto con otras técnicas de investigación, el autor fue explicativo y preciso con casa tema que abordó.
⠀
El autor comienza por definir los siguientes conceptos: ⠀
• Clase social: grupo mayor de gente cuyos miembros tienen acceso íntimo uno a otro.⠀
• Clase gobernante: clase social superior que posee una parte desproporcionada de la riqueza de la nación, recibe una cantidad desproporcionada del ingreso anual de un país y proporciona un número desproporcionado de sus miembros a las instituciones rectoras y a los grupos que deciden los destinos del país.⠀
• Elite gobernante: grupo que controla, menor en volumen que una mayoría, que no es puro producto de reglas democráticas. Es una minoría de individuos cuyas preferencias prevalecen regularmente en casos de diferencias en asuntos políticos graves.⠀
⠀
Para investigar y adquirir conocimiento sobre la clase superior nacional, Domhoff acude al Social Register, volúmenes de libros que se publican para las principales ciudades de Estados Unidos que contienen los nombres de quienes figuraron la clase superior nacional de aquellos tiempos.⠀
⠀
De ahí, el autor analiza la presencia de esta clase superior en diferentes sectores como el de las grandes empresas, la banca, la política, las universidades, la milicia y el gobierno (local, estatal y federal). ⠀
⠀
En adición, el autor analiza las cohesiones y antagonismos dentro de la clase superior estadounidense y cómo esta ha ido evolucionando, pero además, presenta la forma en que el sistema entrena y prepara a nuevos miembros de la clase para que asimilen los intereses del grupo dominante. ⠀
Encontré que el libro estuvo interesantísimo; en especial, porque entiendo posee vigencia hoy día. Aunque considero que pudo haber sido más robusto con otras técnicas de investigación, el autor fue explicativo y preciso con casa tema que abordó.
September 15, 2019
America is a superpower nation. Although Americans may pride themselves in the American prestige, it is a handful of individuals that possess actual power that can be used to influence federal policies and the economy at large. In his book, Domhoff gives insight into the power structure and social stratification of the American people. This is a wonderful resource for sociologists.
January 9, 2019
This book made me come to the conclusion that Lebanon is a tiny version of America in the Middle East.
- Corporate rich govern and rule over Parliament
- Capitalist economy
- Weak labor union or infiltrated by the rich
- Corporate rich govern and rule over Parliament
- Capitalist economy
- Weak labor union or infiltrated by the rich
April 8, 2021
I had to read this for class so I didn't find it SUPER interesting, but it definitely taught me a bit about power in the US and how/why specific groups are typically in power in corporations and government. It was quite dense though which didn't always make me excited to read it.
March 24, 2018
Jews, Bakers, Banks, Corporations, or one percenters, different straw men put up in fallacious arguments to justify the ends.
December 12, 2020
so much good information i learned a lot. hard to read at some points because it was a lot of information to digest.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 42 reviews