Critical Review | The Power Elite

This article explores the how mass media influence the views of the public, that is, the public opinion. Of course, Jürgen Habermas' idea of the Bourgeois Public Sphere and Chomsky's analysis and criticism of the mass media in today's context are closely tied to this item and further reading is recommended. Many social critics are concerned with how public opinion and, perhaps more importantly, public consensus is formed. In Post-War U.S., C. Wright Mills investigates the interactions of the elites and the formation of stereotypes among other relevant issues. Find other critical reviews here.

--------------------

In The Power Elite, C. Wright Mills examines public opinion and its makers, the process of the transformation from public to mass and the influence of mass media in the shaping of stereotypes. The author links his analysis to what is referred to in his text as ‘The Great American Public.’ In the eighteenth century, public opinion was seen as the result of having individual thoughts and making those thoughts public. These individual opinions are organized into volunteer associations, which represent and discuss these views in the Congress. It is in this way that opinions are legitimized by the public, which has the power to make or break these parties. This view is based on the idealized (or ‘fairy tale,’ as Mills calls it) hope that free speech and discussion will lead to truth and justice within a society. The belief that the public of public opinion is capable of such degree of power and democratic legitimization is a view that, according to the author, overestimates the potential of such public. These communities of public are, in fact, becoming a society of masses. Several statements challenge the view of the democratic society of publics: the prominence of the individual is being replaced by the sovereignty of the whole; the interests of the individuals composing the public are not, in effect, harmonious, but rather a class struggle; rational discussions require experts and autonomy; and finally, it is not true that individuals will behave according to what is right and just. In order to understand the differences between public and mass as extreme examples of social formations, Mills proceeds to describe the terms. In a public, two people can have personal conversations with each other; communicative acts are symmetrical and answering back is possible. The opinions formed in such acts invite effective action and the intervention of institutional authorities is not required, forming an autonomous public. Thus, communication in this kind of community is ascendant. In the opposite side (in a mass), a spokesman talks impersonally to a large amount of people he has never seen; there exists a monopoly of communication and very few member can answer back. Action according to formed opinions is controlled by those holding authoritative power. These imposing agents reduce the autonomy of the mass, and sometimes terrorize it into uniformity. Clearly, no society will be entirely a mass or a public. In reality, all societies are a mixture of the two. The author states a parallel between the economic market and the public of public opinion: in both cases, there is a shift from widely scattered power to centralized authority. Just as the little corner store gets replaced by the big supermarkets, the multitude of little producers of opinions is substituted by the power centres and centres of manipulation—the deciding elite. The term public comes to have a ‘phantom meaning,’ as it consists of that unidentified, unorganized and silent part of the manipulated society, those who have no explicit interests in a world defined by partisan interest, and, therefore, appear as an unattached part of the community and public affairs. The political will of the individual in the public has been replaced by the voluntary associations (e.g. political parties) led by the deciding elites in the mass. As these organizations become larger and administrative rather than political, and individuals become more dependent on them, a widening gap develops between them, making these deciding elites less accessible. On the one hand, the man in the mass does not feel he belongs to any such organization because of the lack of belief in the party’s organized opinions and leaders. On the other hand, these centralized organizations, along with the mass media, turn the crowds into submissive and atomized masses by increasingly controlling, intimidating and manipulating them. Among the tools available to the modern elites in order to achieve these goals, we find the media of mass communication, which transforms the primary publics (those who live in immediate social contexts) into media markets. Mass media shatters the chance of reasonable human discussion. The information provided does not attempt to connect the listener or the viewer with his or her daily life or give them rational insight into issues. These media help shape stereotypes, or means by which the masses organize and categorize their experiences. Not only do they act as a filter through which the masses perceive reality, but also how the individual perceives himself. They give him identity and aspirations, and the gap between what the media tell them they are and want to be leads to technique (how to achieve one’s aspirations) and escape (how to feel well even if the individual is not the way he wants to be). Mills states that public education has, in a way, become another mass medium. Instead of developing skills and values, that individuals can use to become self-educating beings, schools teach ‘adjustment to life’—or to accept living in masses. These structural trends of modern society, as well as the manipulation by the mass media work together in the urban societies (the fundamental setting for mass societies).
It is in this metropolitan setting that our contemporary generations are growing up. With the advent of satellite television and the Internet, technology has made it possible to extend the power of mass media. A child growing up in such society becomes overrun by prejudgement and stereotypes and is lead to a fake interpretation of the world surrounding him. The contemporary generations mature within an empty and fake sense of belonging and pursue unreal, artificial projects and standardized identities and aspirations. Furthermore, education works as a mass medium, in the sense that it leads to the ‘adjustment’ to such conditions and way of life. Even a young student will feel uneasy when coming across one of his or her teachers in an environment other than the one socially established for that encounter (i.e. the school). His or her pre-fabricated, stereotypical notion of the teacher hinders their transcendence of milieux. Surpassing this barrier is dependent upon their capacity to detach themselves from such stereotypical views and developing an ability to evaluate their experiences in relation to their primary publics—their immediate social contexts—rather than to their existence in a media market. The children’s exposure to mass media obstructs their development as self-educating beings, capable of truly connecting the massive amounts of information provided to them with their comparatively minor daily lives. They are being distracted and, even more importantly, alienated from the world. These generations, which I consider myself part of, fail to translate their personal problems into relevant social issues, which would account for practical applications within their communities. The structures of modern society and the mass media isolate the individual from the group. The administrative nature of political parties and the power of institutional authorities contribute to this effect. Unlike historical generations in which public was the seat of sovereignty, our generation is no longer independent or autonomous. We rely on the deciding elites to even know how to experience the world and to give meaning to it. As alienated individuals, we do not possess the power or instruments to transcend the mass and take action in decision-making processes. We lack a sense of political belonging and belonging in general. But most importantly, we generally disregard the existence of what is closest to each one of us: the primary public.

© 2006 Ezequiel Gerszonowitz (All Rights Reserved)