The Enactment of Civil and Social Rights Policies in The United States, 1940 - 2000

THE ENACTMENT OF
CIVIL AND SOCIAL RIGHTS POLICIES

IN THE UNITED STATES, 1940 – 2000 :
AN ANALYSIS OF
AFRICAN-AMERICAN PARTICIPATION
___________
A Dissertation
Submitted to the Faculty of the
Graduate School
of
SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY AND A&M COLLEGE
_____________________
in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Nelson Mandela School of Public Policy
_____________________
by
Ambakisye-Okang Dukuzumurenyi
July 2005
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I express my gratitude, praise and appreciation to the Lord God Almighty without whose
guidance and inspiration this task could not have been accomplished. As the Wisdom of the Ages has
stated: “God is my Strength and Power: and He makes my way Perfect.”
ii
DEDICATION
I dedicate this dissertation to my parents, Ozella and Patricia Harvey, my brother and sister
Floyd and Imaura Harvey, to my late grandparents Adell and Floyd Harvey and to LaTisha Peoples for
it is within the family that all seeds are planted and bear fruit; and to the African-American community
past, present and future for as the ancestors have taught: “ None of us are safe until all of us are safe,
and none of us are free until all of us are free.”
iii
Abstract
The goal of this study is to determine the applicability of pluralist, elitist, plural-elitist, Marxist class
analysis and protest theory for explaining African-American political participation from 1940 to 2000.
The significance of this study lay in the need to associate African-American politics with a major
theoretical model. For theory has a great effect on the society at large, as it can influence public policy
and the perceptions that policy makers have of target populations. A sociohistorical qualitative analysis
was conducted by analyzing African-American political participation from the perspective of the tenets
of each of the five competing models. A time series analysis was conducted to determine the impact of
violent and nonviolent protests, the percentage of Democrats in congress, the percentage of African-
Americans in the total voter population, the percentage of former Asian and African colonies gaining
independence, the percentage of African-American in congress and the African-American poverty rate
on the enactment of civil and social rights legislation from 1940 to 2000. The qualitative findings
showed that pluralist theory had the greatest explanatory power when confined to the nature of state and
group interaction, and the efficacy of democracy, while the other theories had some limited utility. In
the areas of economics Marxist theory was of limited utility, whereas the other theories lacked
significant explanatory power. Protest theory was at its strongest when explaining social change and
social movements with regards to African-American political participation during the time period under
investigation. None of the theories provided and adequate explanation of race relations or succinctly
delineated the contours of the African-American historical political participation. The time series
analysis found nonviolent protest, violent protest and Asian and African decolonization to have the
greatest impact on the enactment of civil and social rights policies and showed that the control of
congress for the majority of the period by the democratic party was not statistically nor substantively
significant in accounting for the development of civil and social rights policies.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
DISSERTATION COMMITTEE SHEET i
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii
DEDICATION iii
ABSTRACT iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS v
LIST OF TABLES ix
CHAPTER I 1
THE PROBLEM AND ITS SETTING 1
The Statement of the Problem 1
The Sub-problems 1
The Hypotheses 2
Assumptions 2
The Limitations of the Study 3
The Definition of Terms 4
Abbreviations 8
The Significance of the Study 9
CHAPTER II 12
REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE 12
African-American Political Participation 12
v
Historical Overview 12
Quantitative Studies 16
Qualitative Studies 37
CHAPTER III 120
METHODOLOGY 120
The Purpose of the Study 120
Design 121
Population & Sample 129
Specific Treatment of the Data for Each Sup-problem 135
Data Sources 136
Variable Description 136
Qualitative Data Sources 137
Theory Operationalization 137
Quantitative Data Sources 150
Variable Descriptions 152
Validity and Reliability 158
CHAPTER IV 164
HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF AFRICAN-AMERICAN POLITCS 164
African-American Politics and Political Models 164
The African-American Sociopolitical Community 165
West African Political Background 167
African-American Society and American Government 171
African-American Society 1526-1940 171
vi
African-Americans and American Social Welfare Policy 195
African-American Worldview 221
African-American Population Growth 224
African-American Socioeconomic Organization 226
African-American Political Culture 228
CHAPTER V 232
ANALYSIS 232
Qualitative Analysis 232
Nature of the Sociopolitical Process of State/Group Interaction 232
Conventional Pluralist Theory 232
Radical Pluralism 244
Elite Theory 252
Plural-Elite Theory 261
Marxist Class Analysis 274
Protest Theory 288
The Efficacy of Democracy 292
Theory of History 296
Theory of Economics 300
Theory of Social Change 304
Theory of Social Movements 308
Theory of Race and State Relations 311
Quantitative Analysis 316
vii
CHAPTER VI 321
CONCLUSIONS 321
BIBLIOGRAPHY 324
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 1: Models/Comparative Topics & Expected Explanatory Power 149
Table 2: Variables and Expected Signs 157
Table 3: Definition, Level of Measurement and Source of Variables 157
Table 4. Explaining Civil & Social Rights Policy Enactment 1940-2000 319
ix
CHAPTER I
THE PROBLEM AND ITS SETTING
The Statement of the Problem
The problem addressed by this study is that studies of African-American political
participation have employed theories to explain the outcomes of public policy but have
not weighted those theories to accurately measure African-American political
participation. Furthermore, those studies have generally been limited to an analysis of
African-American political participation at the local level. This dissertation uses five
major theoretical social science models regarding the distribution of power in the
American political system to explain the extent of African-American political
participation in the enactment of national civil and social rights policymaking in the
United States from 1940 to 2000. The five theoretical models employed are pluralist
theory, plural-elitist theory, elitist theory, protest theory and Marxist class analysis.
The Sub-problems
The first sub-problem. The first sub-problem is the necessity of delineating the
historical context of the distinctive characteristics of the politics of African-American
political participation in the enactment of civil and social rights policies in the United
States from 1940 to 2000.
The second sub-problem. The second sub-problem consists of the requirement
of operationalizing each theoretical model to facilitate their use in a qualitative analysis
and interpretation of the politics African-American political participation in the
enactment of civil and social rights policies in the United States from 1940 to 2000.
1
The third sub-problem. The third sub-problem is to operationalize each model
quantitatively and to analyze and interpret the data to evaluate the efficacy of each model
in explaining the politics of African American political participation in the enactment of
civil and social rights policies in the United States from 1940 to 2000.
The Hypotheses
H1: The first hypothesis was that the distinctive characteristics of the politics of
African-American political participation in the enactment of civil and social rights
policies in the United States from 1940 to 2000 can be explained by one of the five
theoretical models.
H2: The second hypothesis is that the five theoretical models can be
operationalized qualitatively to facilitate their utility in explaining the politics of African-
American political participation in the enactment of civil and social rights policies in the
United States from 1940 to 2000.
H3: The third hypothesis is that the quantitative operationalization of the five
theoretical models can aid in the explanation of the politics of African-American political
participation in the enactment of civil and social rights policies in the United States from
1940 to 2000, thus, tying African-American politics to a major theoretical perspective.
Assumptions
The first assumption. The first assumption is that there is a need to associate
African-American politics with a major social science theoretical perspective.
The second assumption. The second assumption is that the qualitative and
quantitative operationalizing of the five theoretical models would aid in the rigorous
analysis of the data.
2
The third assumption. The third assumption is that the civil and social rights
policies selected for this study were representative of the universe of legislation enacted,
in which African-Americans actively participated.
The fourth assumption. The fourth assumption is that the models can explain
the American political system and thusly, would aid in the explication of the politics of
African-American political participation in the enactment of civil and social rights
policies during the specified time period.
The Limitations of the Study
This dissertation, which is a sociohistorical interpretive policy analysis and time
series analysis of federal civil and social rights policies, congressional hearing testimony,
relevant scholarly works and Supreme Court case laws, faced the general limitation of all
qualitative and quantitative research. In particular in qualitative research, the researcher
has influence on the conduct of the study, the design of the methods involved, the
accumulation of data and information, and on the analysis and interpretation of the
results. As such this brings into question the issues of reliability and validity.1
As the primary research tool is the sociohistorical interpretive policy analysis the
reliability and validity of the source data is of the utmost importance. Federal, social and
civil rights policies, Supreme Court case laws, and congressional hearing testimony are
all primary source data. Because this is a primary data, this information is the direct
recording of actual events and policies. The scholarly works, which will be consulted, are
secondary sources that are subject to the influence of the opinions, methods and
1
Jerome Kirk and Marc L. Miller, Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research (Beverly Hills: Sage
Publications, 1986): “No experiment can be perfectly controlled, and no measuring instrument can be
perfectly calibrated. All measurement is therefore to some degree suspect.” p. 21.
3
interpretations of the authors. However, the works selected are as much as possible based
on primary source documents as well.
Another limitation of this study which stems from the qualitative approach is the
use of the protest, pluralist, plural-elitist and elitist and Marxist class analysis models.
Each of these models has a built in self-validation based on the different methods
employed. It was intended that by using the Lowi typology of public policies the natural
tension generated by the conflicting approaches would be nullified. Again however, the
researcher’s interpretation of the analysis was a major influence.
The validity and reliability of the typology and the theoretical models employed
all depend on the replication and generalization of the findings and their interpretation by
the researcher. The quantitative component of the research was limited by the likelihood
that it would be possible to obtain data on all of the independent variables over the period
of the study. Therefore, there was likely to be a good deal of missing data. There are
statistical ways of mitigating the effects of missing data in computer data analysis.2 In
addition, in all quantitative research there is always the problem of classifying cases that
could be classified in more than one category. The preponderance of evidence and
judgment was used to settle these nettlesome classification issues.
The Definitions of Terms
Political Participation. Political Participation encompasses those volitional
procedures by means of which social group constituents engage in political functions
within the government institutions and as a part of conventional and unconventional
politics. These political functions pertain to constituent input, representation and
2
Gary King, A Solution to the Ecological Inference Problem: Reconstructing Individual Behavior from
Aggregate Data. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1997).
4
influence in the political order as well as that of the elected officials, allowing for a fuller
explanation of the policy process. Specifically, the political functions are the direct or
indirect election of government elite, the appointment of non-elected government
officials, tactics of direct-action confrontation with elected and appointed administrators,
the process for the selection of civil servants, and the formation, adoption,
implementation and evaluation of public policy.3
Political Functions. Political functions are systematic political actions that aid in
the continuous performance, preservation and modification of a political system or its
complete transformation.
Enactment. Enactment consists of the process for the adoption of policy
decisions by duly constituted and representative legislative bodies of the state. The
participants in the process of enactment come from both the public and private sectors.
The public sector participants include the judicial, legislative, and executive branches of
state and federal government. Private sector actors are coalitions and individuals.4
Power. Power is the ability to control and or pressure persons, groups and
institutions with the intent of producing outcomes, which are a reflection of ones
interests. This influence is exercised directly or indirectly, and with or without threats of
expropriation or promises of gratification.5
3
Herbert Mclosky, "Political Participation", in David L. Sills ed. The International Encyclopedia of the
Social Sciences. (New York: The Macmillan Company & Free Press, 1968) vol. 12, pp. 252-265; M.
Margaret Conway, Political Participation in the United States. (Washington D.C.: Congressional Quarterly
Inc., 1991) pp. 3-5; Sidney Verba and Norman H. Nie, Participation in America Political Democracy and
Social Equality. (New York: Harper and Row, 1972) pp. 44-55.
4
James E. Anderson, Public Policymaking. (New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1997) pp. 134;
Benjamin Akzin, "Legislature: Nature and Functions", in David L. Sills ed. The International Encyclopedia
of the Social Sciences. (New York: The Macmillan Company & Free Press, 1968) vol. 9, pp. 221.
5
J. M. Brown, "Power", in Julius Gould and William L. Kolb eds. A Dictionary of the Social Sciences.
(New York: The Free Press, 1965) p. 524.
5
Civil Rights. Civil Rights are those fundamental social privileges attested to by
the branches of government, which are the elemental components of citizenship. They
include: "…(a) safety and security of person…[or] individual rights; (b) citizenship and
its privileges…. [or] political rights (granting of the suffrage, eligibility to hold public
office); (c) freedom of conscience and expression…[or] civil liberties (freedom of the
press and of association, equal protection of the law and due process of the law); and,
(d) equality of opportunity…[the prohibition of discrimination on the basis of ethnic
origin, religion or social status."6
Social Rights. Social Rights are those social privileges guaranteed by
government, designed to overcome accidents of birth and enable citizens to take
advantage of equality of opportunity7. Access to quality education, excellent healthcare
and the creation of an atmosphere whereby sustainable livelihoods can be maintained,
through viable employment are three important social rights. The provisions of social
insurance programs such as workers compensation and unemployment benefits are two
social rights, which are highly regarded, in the contemporary setting. Workers
compensation provides a modicum of protection against possible workplace hazards; and
unemployment insurance contributes to security against the uncertainties of the
marketplace such as, unemployment caused by technological innovation and or skill
obsolescence.8
6
David G. Farrelly, "Civil Rights", in Julius Gould and William L. Kolb eds. A Dictionary of the Social
Sciences. (New York: The Free Press, 1965) pp. 91-92; To Secure These Rights, Report of the President's
Committee on Civil Rights, (Washington D. C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1947); T. H. Marshall,
Citizenship and Social Class. (London: Cambridge University Press, 1950) pp. 14-65.
7
The idea of social rights also entails "equality of results", although the inclusion of this concept is far more
widely contested than the debate on what is meant by "equality of opportunity".
8
T. H. Marshall, Citizenship and Social Class. (London: Cambridge University Press, 1950) pp. 14-65.
6
African-Centered . African-centered means the analytical study of African-
Americans as subjects or agents of social change in the historical context as opposed to
being spectators or objects on the periphery of American dominant group activities. This
perspective moves African-Americans from the marginal status accorded them by
mainstream scholars. Under a marginal perspective African-Americans are viewed as
engaging in reaction. African-centered analysis focuses on African-Americans as actors
complete with a culturally defined set of norms (ideal and real) mores, folkways, values
and cognitive culture.
Social Movement. A social movement connotes social groups engaged in
collaborative and prolonged struggle with existing status quo social institutions; with the
intent of assimilating into, reforming or deracinating the social institution and
establishing a new set of social arrangements in its place.9
Social Change. Social Change is the process-and the impact of that process-
whereby the actions of individuals, groups or social institutions result in the alteration of
the social and/or physical ecology, a restructuring of social relationships, or the
modification of social behavior.10
Collective Behavior. Collective behavior is the process of group actions
generated in uncertain and vague circumstances, through immediate social interactions.
The actions are impulsive, poorly defined and mood based. Emotion is the predominant
motivator, fed by bias, fear, hate and the like. Organization is spontaneous and devoid of
9
Preston Valien, "Social Movement," in Julius Gould and William L. Kolb eds. A Dictionary of the Social
Sciences. (New York: The Free Press, 1965) p. 658.
10
Tom Burns, "Social Change," in Julius Gould and William L. Kolb eds. A Dictionary of the Social
Sciences. (New York: The Free Press, 1965) p. 647.
7
societal prohibitions and social actions are unequivocally focused on some emotionally
laden object.11
Abbreviations
AAA is the abbreviation used for Agricultural Adjustment Administration.
ACLU is the abbreviation used for the American Civil Liberties Union.
ADA is the abbreviation used for Americans for Democratic Action.
AFL-CIO is the abbreviation for American Federation of Labor and the Congress
of Industrial Organizations.
BCD is the abbreviation of Black Community Development and Defense Group.
BPP is the abbreviation for the Black Panther Party for Self-Defense.
BSCP is the abbreviation for Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters.
CAP is the abbreviation used for Community Action Programs.
CNLU is the abbreviation used for the Colored National Labor Union.
COFO is the abbreviation used for Council of Federated Organizations.
CORE is the abbreviation used for Congress of Racial Equality.
CUCRL is the abbreviation used for Council for United Civil Rights Leadership.
EEOC is the abbreviation for Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
FEPC is the abbreviation used for Fair Employment Practices Committee.
LCFO is the abbreviation for the Lowndes County Freedom Organization.
MFDP is the abbreviation used for Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party.
NAACP is the abbreviation for the National Association of Colored People.
NOI is the abbreviation for the Nation of Islam.
NUL is the abbreviation for the National Urban League.
OEO is the abbreviation for the Office of Economic Opportunity.

11
Herbert Blumer, "Collective Behavior," in Julius Gould and William L. Kolb eds. A Dictionary of the
Social Sciences. (New York: The Free Press, 1965) p. 100.
8
PAC is the abbreviation used for Political Action Committee.
SDS is the abbreviation used for Students for a Democratic Society.
SCLC is the abbreviation used for Southern Christian Leadership Conference.
SNCC is the abbreviation used for Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee.
UNIA is the abbreviation used for the Universal Negro Improvement Association
and African Communities League.
VISTA is the abbreviation for Volunteers in Service to America.
YSA is the abbreviation for Young Socialists Alliance.
The Significance o the Study
This dissertation seeks to show a strong association between a major theoretical
Model and the study of African American politics. The importance of this task can not be
understated. Theory is at the heart of all scientific investigation. Without a sound theory,
many an erroneous interpretation can be taken from any scientific analysis of any
question of interest. Equivalent to theory is the concept of the paradigm. As Kuhn,12 so
aptly states the paradigm is the lens through which the scientist or social researcher views
or observes the world. The theory upon which the paradigm is based can greatly affect
both why the researcher chooses to observe phenomena and how he interprets the
phenomena.
12
Thomas S. Kuhn, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962)
“There are, in principle, only three types of phenomena about which a new theory might be developed. The
first consists of phenomena already well explained by existing paradigms, and these seldom provide either
motive or point of departure for theory construction. A second class of phenomena consists of those whose
nature is indicated by existing paradigms but whose details can be understood only through further theory
articulation. These are the phenomena to which scientists direct their research much of the time, but that
research aims at the articulation of existing paradigms rather than at the invention of new ones. Only when
these attempts at articulation fail do scientists encounter the third type of phenomena, the recognized
anomalies whose characteristic feature is their stubborn refusal to be assimilated to existing paradigms. This
type alone gives rise to new theories. Paradigms provide all phenomena except anomalies with a theory-
determined place in the scientist's field of vision. But if new theories are called forth to resolve anomalies in
the relation of an existing theory to nature, then the successful new theory must somewhere permit
predictions that are different from those derived from its predecessor. That difference could not occur if the
two were logically compatible. In the process of being assimilated, the second must displace the first.”
9
Theory is at the heart of the scientific endeavor. Thus, the association of African
American politics with a major theoretical model is of the utmost importance to the study
of African American politics, and its continued viability as an area of research. In the
field of political science, theory can have an even greater effect on the society at large, as
it can influence public policy and the perceptions that policy makers have of target
populations.13
The influence of theory upon public policy-makers perceptions of target
populations is best expressed in social construction theory.14 An excellent example is the
field of African American politics and the perception policy-makers have of this target
group. This further exemplifies the need for rigorous theory development in the study of
African American politics, a goal that this dissertation plans to meet. By connecting
African-American politics to a major theoretical model, the marginalization of African-
American politics would begin to loose the sociological and philosophical basis upon
which it rests.
Furthermore, this dissertation sought to add to the limited body of information,
which holds that African American political participation in the enactment of civil and
social rights policy is best explained by pluralist theory. At present few studies have been
conducted which hold this position.15 In addition, this study sought to serve as a
13
William H. Tucker, The Science and Politics of Racial Research (Urbana and Chicago: University of
Illinois Press, 1994).
14
Helen Ingram and Anne Schneider, “The Social Construction of Target Populations: Implication for
Politics and Policy,” The American Political Science Review (1993)
15
Huey L. Perry, Democracy and Public Policy: Minority Input into the National Energy Policy of the
Carter Administration (Bristol: Wyndham Hall Press, 1985); Huey L. Perry and Wayne Parent ed., Blacks
and the American Political System (Gainesville: University of Florida Press, 1995); Huey L. Perry,
“Pluralist Theory and National Black Politics in the United States,” Polity (1991) 23:549-565; Taeku Lee,
Two Nations, Separate Grooves: Black Insurgency and the Activation of Mass Opinion in the United States
From 1948-The Mid-1960s (Ann Arbor: UMI Dissertation Services, 1997)
10
reassessment of a tumultuous political period in American history nearly a half-century
later. The intention is to see anew from the vantage point of distance in time a
momentous period in the development of American democracy from the perspective of a
non-participant and thereby providing new insights and gleaning new truths.
Finally, this study is designed to make a major contribution to the scholarly
literature on African-American politics substantively, methodologically, and theoretically.
The study’s contribution substantively is its focus on explaining the enactment of national
legislation that directly seeks to attenuate African-American inequalities and
disadvantages. No study to date has done this for the range of civil rights policies that
will be examined in the research. The study’s contribution methodologically is its
integration of interpretive (qualitative) and quantitative methodology in analyzing the
intersection of African American political participation and protest activities and national
civil rights policymaking designed to attenuate African-American inequalities and
disadvantages. The study’s contribution theoretically is its focus on analyzing the
efficacy of five major social science theoretical models for explaining the influence of
African-American political participation and protest activities on national civil rights
policymaking.
11
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE
In this chapter, a review of the quantitative research of African-American political
participation is conducted chronologically. In addition, the cardinal studies in the
development of the pluralist, plural-elitist, elite, Marxist class analysis and protest theory
are analyzed followed by an examination of those qualitative studies that apply the
models to the study of African-American political participation. Furthermore, the
relevance of the works under review to the present work is explained.
African-American Political Participation
Historical Overview
When studying the African-American experience, which centers on African-
American social, political and economic aspirations, scholars have stressed two
requirements, which increase the field of studies utility to the internal scholarly
community and the wider public. The first prerequisite is to reconnect African-American
political experience with the political struggles of the global African Diaspora and with
the African continental political and economic independence movements. The second
imperative is to construct the analysis of the African-American political experience
within the framework of an African-centered historiography and sociopolitical
perspective16. The problem under investigation and its significance are the points of
16
Molefi Kete Asante, The Afrocentric Idea (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1998) pp. 2; Amos N.
Wilson, The Falsification of Afrikan Consciousness Eurocentric History, Psychiatry and the Politics of
White Supremacy (New York: Afrikan World InfoSystems, 1993) pp. 1-4; Molefi Kete Asante,
Afrocentricity (Trenton, N.J.: African World Press, 1996) pp. 45-47; Maulana Karenga, Introduction to
Black Studies (Los Angeles: University of Sankore Press, 1993) pp. 109-110; Errol Anthony Henderson,
Afrocentrism and World Politics Towards a New Paradigm (Westport, Conn.: Praeger, 1995) pp. xii-xiii;
Linus A Hoskins, "Eurocentrism vs. Afrocentrism: A Geopolitical Linkage Analysis," Journal of Black
Studies, Vol. 23, No. 2, Special Issue: The Image of Africa in German Society (December, 1992) pp. 247-
257.
12
convergence for the larger field of African-American experience and therefore must meet
the requisite tasks of the scholarly consensus. In order that these two preconditions may
be met, the historical overview will seek to accomplish both to give context to African-
American political participation.
The earliest studies of African-American political participation approached the
subject from the German historical paradigm known as the Aryan model.17 This
paradigm, which postulated a Greek/Aryan origin of civilization and a denigration of all
things African and Asian, gained prominence in the mid to late 1800s. However, the
scholarship upon which it was based extends back into the late 1700s. Up until this point,
the scholarship of the day relied upon the Ancient model18, which was based upon
primary source documents, and contemporary scholarship. These sources stated that the
men and women who at that time were enslaved in the Americas were the descendants of
the founders of world civilization.19 The Aryan model, which replaced the Ancient,
served two purposes. The first was that it sought to place Europe at the center of world
civilization, culture and scholarship; secondly, it provided a rationale for the treatment
meted out to Africans and Asians on the African and Asian continents and in their
respective Diaspora.
Within this intellectual atmosphere, African-Americans gained their physical
independence. The studies of Africans and African-Americans written during this period
17
Martin Bernal, Black Athena The Afroasiatic Roots of Classical Civilization (New Jersey: Rutgers
University Press, 1987) pp. 317-336.
18
Ibid., pp. 75-120.
19
Count Constantin De Volney, Ruins of Empire (Paris: 1789) Preface, "There a people now forgotten
discovered while others were yet barbarians, the elements of the arts and sciences. A race of men now
rejected for their black skin and wooly hair founded on the study of the laws of nature, those civil and
religious systems which still govern the universe."; Count Constantin De Volney, Voyages in Syria and
Egypt (Paris: 1787) Vol. 1, pp. 74-75, "…this race of blacks…is the very one to which we owe our arts, our
sciences, an even the use of the spoken word…"
13
drew heavily from the Aryan model, which was steeped in the German methodology.20
Moreover, the scholarly work of the time provided the psychological and scientific basis
for the prejudices exhibited by most Americans. Thus, southern and northern
policymakers of the 1860s and 1870s set about to deal with the freedmen with a warped
social construction of reality and a racist social construction of the target population. This
information is of importance to this study for one major reason. The scholarship on
African-Americans of the mid to late 1800s provided the rationale for southern and
northern social scientists and policymakers, who choose to oppose African-American
efforts to attain social, political and economic equality during Reconstruction. Even more
so, from Reconstruction through the Civil Rights and Black Power Movements, these
studies and the scholarship that was engendered formed the fundamental elements of the
social, political and economic thought of the time. Policymakers and social scientists
throughout this period would modify their studies as new scientific "breakthroughs" were
made; nevertheless, the basic premise remained the same.
One of the earliest pieces on African-American political participation was written
in 1873 by James S. Pike21. Pike's work on African-American political participation
during Reconstruction drawing on the racist assumptions of the Aryan model and the
social science of the day presented a picture of African-American mismanagement of
public affairs and as ignorant and easily led voters. For a generation Pike's work stood as
20
E. Jarvis, "Insanity among the Coloured Population of the Free States," American Journal of the Medical
Sciences 7 (1844) pp. 80-83; J.H. van Evrie, Negroes and Negro Slavery (New York: van Evrie, Horton,
1853) pp. 89-91; S. A. Cartwright, "Report on the Diseases and Physical Peculiarities of the Negro Race,"
New Orleans Medical and Surgical Journal 7(1851) pp. 692-693; See, William H. Tucker, The Science and
Politics of Racial Research (Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1994) pp. 7-36.
21
James S. Pike, The Prostrate State: South Carolina under Negro Government (New York: 1873); John
Hope Franklin, "Mirror for Americans: A Century of Reconstruction History", Vol. 85, No. 1 (February,
1980) pp. 1-14.
14
an expert account of the period, and was quoted time and again as evidence against
extending the franchise to African-Americans or allowing African-Americans to hold any
public office. Even as late as 1935, an eminent historian such as Henry Steele
Commager, in his introduction to the republication of the work, spoke highly of the
quality and truthfulness of the account22. The perspective of Pike concerning African-
American political participation was according to Kenneth M. Stamp23 echoed in the
works of James Ford Rhodes24, John W. Burgess25, Claude Bowers26, William Archibald
Dunning27, and James G. Randall28.
Notwithstanding the fact that the era of these early studies of African-American
political participation was a racist and segregated period dominated overtly by a white
supremacist ideology, scholars and activists came forward to present a different view of
22
Henry Steele Commager, "Introduction" in reissue of James S. Pike, The Prostrate State: South Carolina
under Negro Government (New York: 1935)
23
Kenneth M. Stampp, The Era of Reconstruction 1865-1877 (New York: Vintage Books, 1965) pp. 4-6.
Stampp's work begins to revise the early writings addressing the subject from a balanced perspective
drawing on primary sources to analyze the first major period of African-American political participation in
conventional politics in the United States.
24
James Ford Rhodes, History of the United States from the Compromise of 1850 7Vols. (New York, 1893-
1906) Rhodes' work continues in the tradition of Pike and highlights with exaggeration African-American
misconduct during the period as well as label the masses of African-American voters as ignorant.
25
John W. Burgess, Reconstruction and the Constitution (New York: 1902) Burgess continues the theme of
defending Southern redeemers, evening using premises of the Constitutionality of the enfranchisement of
African-Americans, as well as addressing the corruption and political misconduct of Northern whites and
their African-American cohorts.
26
Claude Bowers, The Tragic Era (Boston: 1929) Bowers work helped to carry the message of Dunning and
Rhodes beyond the walls of the University setting into the mainstream American cultural setting.
27
William Archibald Dunning, Reconstruction, Political and Economic, 1865-1877 (New York: 1907)
Dunning works influenced a generation of politicians and social scientists, who went on to defend Jim Crow
laws, fight against African-American enfranchisement, equality in public accommodations and other social
rights, while also publishing countless textbooks to influence later generations.
28
James G. Randall, The Civil War and Reconstruction (Boston: D.C. Heath and Company, 1937) Randall's
work continued the spirit of Dunning, adding the insight of a Northern, and thus supposedly objective
writer.
15
the evidence.29 This revisionist interpretation was based upon the primary sources and
eyewitness accounts and was both quantitative and qualitative. The differences were the
faithful use of the scientific method and the lack of innate hostility towards African-
Americans.
Quantitative Studies
Beginning in the late 1800s and continuing uninterruptedly into the 1960s, W. E.
B. Dubois, the most widely known outspoken African-American scholar and activist of
the time, began his critique of the early studies on African-American political
participation by covering the same source materials and additional ones not used by his
contemporaries. Next, he employed his sociological and historical skills to render a
detailed account of the period.
Dr. Dubois also focused on the role of African-Americans voters and office
holders, the coalitions they formed with northern and southern interests and their policy
accomplishments during their first period of participation in conventional politics in the
United States. Dr. Dubois further emphasized in other works the extensive political
background of African-Americans.30 Significance was attached to the political traditions
and skills that were apart of their heritage. Later scholars would build on his work to
29
W. E. B. Dubois, Souls of Black Folks (Chicago: A. C. McClurg, 1903) pp. 9-24; W. E. B. Dubois,
Black Reconstruction: An Essay toward a History of the Part Which Black Folk Played in the Attempt to
Reconstruct America, 1860-1880 (New York: 1935); E. Franklin Frazier, The Negro in the United States
(New York: Macmillan Company, 1949)
30
W. E. B. Dubois, The Negro (New York: Holt, 1915); W. E. B. Dubois, The World and Africa (New
York: International Publishers, 1965)
16
highlight the extent31 and nature32 of these political skills and the methods33 by which
these political skills survived and were later adapted to the peculiar nature of African-
American life in the Americas.
Following African-American migrations from the rural south to northern urban
industrial cities from 1910 - 1930 and then during the years of the Great Depression and
World War II, scholars began to study African-American political participation in the
north. As African-Americans began to concentrate in the major cities of the north, they
inadvertently became the swing vote in important local and national elections. The
earliest works addressed the issue of African-Americans and the franchise, as the
movement to disenfranchise African-Americans had begun in earnest throughout the
south.34
Later studies focused on African-American politics in the northern urban centers,
where in certain cases they could participate. The works of Harold G. Gosnell best
represents this scholarship. In two studies, Gosnell studied African-American politics in
the north35. One study was concerned with African-American politics in Chicago, a major
31
G. Mokhtar (ed.), General History of Africa Volume II Ancient Civilizations of Africa (Berkley:
University of California Press, 1990); Rudolph R. Windsor, From Babylon to Timbuktu (Atlanta: Windsor's
Golden Series, 1988); Drusilla Dunjee Houston, Wonderful Ethiopians of the Ancient Cushite Empire
(Baltimore: Black Classic Press, 1985); Yosef ben-Jochannan, Africa Mother of Western Civilization
(Baltimore, Black Classic Press, 1991); Chancellor Williams, The Destruction of Black Civilization: Great
Issues of a Race from 4500 B. C. to 2000 A.D. (Chicago: Third World Press, 1974)
32
Basil Davidson, F. K. Buah and J.F.A. Ajayi, A History of West Africa 1000-1800 (Great Britain:
Longman Group Limited, 1977); Carter G. Woodson, African Background Outlined (Washington D.C.:
Associated Publishers, 1936)
33
Melville J. Herskovits, The Myth of the Negro Past (New York: Harper and Bros., 1941); Melville J.
Herskovits, "A Social History of the Negro," in Carl Murchison (ed.), A Handbook of Social Psychology
(Worchester, Mass.: Clark University Press, 1935); Sultan A. Latif and Naimah Latif, Slavery: The African-
American Psychic Trauma (Chicago: Latif Communications Group and Tankeo, Inc., 1994)
34
James A. Hamilton, Negro Suffrage and Congressional Representation (New York: The Winthrop Press,
1910)
35
Harold F. Gosnell, Negro Politicians, the Rise of Negro Politics in Chicago (Chicago: The University
Press, 1935); Harold F. Gosnell, "The Negro Vote in Northern Cities," National Municipal Review, Vol.
30, No. 5 (May, 1941) pp. 264-267.
17
destination point during African-American migration from the south36. The other dealt
with African-American politics in northern cities in general. Each addressed voting
patterns with comparison to the larger society.
The most influential work on African-American political participation during this
period was a two-volume study by the Swedish social scientist Gunnar Myrdal.37
Although political participation was not the central focus of the work, Myrdal's research
cast substantial light upon African-American political participation in the United States at
that time. Myrdal placed African-American political participation in the context of White
American acceptance of the American Creed, and the cognitive dissonance associated
with the conflict between White American beliefs and concrete actions.38
Aside from this, Myrdal examined the make up of the African-American
community, styles of leadership, voting behavior, and prospects for increased voting in
the segregated south. One other area of particular interest to this study is Myrdal's
succinct analysis of African-American political organizations. In particular he looked at
their use of protest and violence in an American political atmosphere where White
Americans did not hesitate to engage in violent race riots and lynching to ensure the
status quo by terrorizing African-Americans.39 In each instance Myrdal gave particular
36
Harold F. Gosnell, Negro Politicians, the Rise of Negro Politics in Chicago (Chicago: The University
Press, 1935)
37
Gunnar Myrdal, An American Dilemma: The Negro in a White Nation (New York: McGraw Hill Book
Company, 1944) Vol. 1; An American Dilemma: The Negro Social Structure (New York: McGraw Hill
Book Company, 1944) Vol. 2
38
Gunnar Myrdal, An American Dilemma: The Negro in a White Nation (New York: McGraw Hill Book
Company, 1944) Vol. 1, pp. lxix-lxxxiii.
39
Gunnar Myrdal, An American Dilemma: The Negro Social Structure (New York: McGraw Hill Book
Company, 1944) Vol. 2, pp. 736-780, 810-878.
18
attention to the prospective social policies which could possibly help in alleviating the
social issues related to the problems affecting the African-American community.
Towards the end of 1949, E. Franklin Frazier completed a second important study,
which also addressed African-American political participation in the context of the larger
society.40 Frazier's study emphasized the various institutions of the African-American
community their relationship to the institutions of the larger society. Of equal importance
was the development of African-Americans and their integration into the larger American
community.41 Concerning the problem of this study, Frazier's work cast important light
upon African-American social movements and racial consciousness and solidarity in their
quest for civil and social rights.42
Following the early momentum of the Civil Rights Movement, more studies were
conducted on African-American political participation. These studies, however, did not
marginalize African-American political participation. Instead of viewing African-
American political participation as occurring on the periphery of the larger issues in the
African-American community, the political activity of the African-American community
examined as a central aspect of the community's life. An example of this scholarship
would be the research of James Q. Wilson on African-American politics.43 Wilson's
research viewed African-American politics through the lens of the two most famous
African-American politicians of the era, Adam Clayton Powell, Jr. and William L.
40
E. Franklin Frazier, The Negro in the United States (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1949)
41
Ibid., p. xi.
42
Ibid., pp. 520-563.
43
James Q. Wilson, Negro Politics (Glencoe: The Free Press, 1960); James Q. Wilson, "Two Negro
Politicians: An Interpretation," Midwest Journal of Political Science, Vol. 4, Issue 4 (November, 1960) pp.
346-369.
19
Dawson. His work considered their voting constituencies, leadership style and
effectiveness as U.S. Congressmen.
As the Civil Rights and Black Power Movements gave way to full African-
American participation in electoral politics at the local, state and national levels in the
1970s, a plethora of studies were conducted. African-American political participation in
the enactment of public policies had now become an issue of theoretical and empirical
importance to research scholars. A place that the subject retains to this day. The
dominant paradigm, the Aryan model still held sway at this time, however, the Black
Consciousness aspect of the Black Power Movement had caused the paradigm to be
seriously questioned. This would in time lead to the gradual shift to an African-centered
approach which embraced the Ancient model.
Since the 1970s, the research on African-American political participation has
generally focused on quantitative comparisons of African-American and white American
political participation.44 These early studies of African-American political participation
were concerned with measuring the level of African-American empowerment since the
passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The
significance of when the studies were conducted is important. Particularly so, as the
research took place at a point in African-American history when the political mobilization
of the resources of the African-American community were at an all time high and the
stimulus for participation was the desire for enfranchisement and employment.
44
Anthony M. Orum, "A Reappraisal of the Social and Political Participation of Negroes," American
Journal of Sociology (1966) 72: 32-46; Marvin E. Olsen, "Social and Political Participation of Blacks,"
American Sociological Review (1970) 35: 682-697; Lawerence Bobo and Franklin D. Gilliam Jr. “Race,
Sociopolitical Participation, and Black Empowerment” American Political Science Review 84 (June 1990)
pp. 377-393; Sidney Verba and Norman H. Nie. Participation in America Political Democracy and Social
Equality. (New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1972); M. Margaret Conway. Political Participation in
the United States. (Washington D. C.: Congressional Quarterly Inc., 1991)
20
Sidney Verba and Norman H. Nie conducted one of the first post Civil Rights
Movement studies, which compared African-American and white American political
participation, in 1972.45 Defining political participation as those activities that private
citizens use to influence the election of and decisions made by government officials46,
Verba and Nie delineated four modes of political participation. The four modes were "…
voting, campaign activity, cooperative activity and citizen-initiated contacts."47
The research showed that whether lower class African-Americans voted less than whites
of similar socioeconomic background. Furthermore, lower class African-Americans
engaged less often in political campaigns and contacted elected officials less often than
whites of similar background. Finally, African-Americans of lower socioeconomic status
did not participate in cooperative activities as whites of similar social status.
When social class was considered African-Americans scored higher on campaign
activity and cooperative activity, and lower on voting and contacting elected officials than
whites of similar background.48 Their results also showed that as a result of the historic
segregation and discrimination faced by the African-American community, African-
Americans were generally motivated to participate in the American political system by
their elevated sense of group/ racial consciousness. A sense of racial solidarity that was
tapped by the Black Power Movement under the guise of Black Consciousness. The
findings of this study would be the standard in the subject area until the 1990s.
45
Sidney Verba and Norman H. Nie. Participation in America Political Democracy and Social Equality.
(New York: Harper and Row Publishers, 1972)
46
Ibid., p. 2.
47
Ibid., pp. 51-53.
48
Ibid., pp. 160-172.
21
From the early 1970s until the 1990s, the findings of the early studies on African-
American political participation were the principle sources from which political tacticians
and public opinion manipulators obtained their information. Campaign and issue
strategies designed to garner a large percentage of the African-American and white vote
or community support for various issues were based on the early studies. Policymakers
used the studies to determine what issues would arouse African-American or white
community interest or concern.
Furthermore, by being concerned with comparing African-American political
participation to white political participation, the studies were mired in a social
construction of reality based on white American perceptions of the African-American
community. Though no longer overtly grounded in the overt racism of the post-
Reconstruction era, the social construction of the African-American population was
centered on the latent racially tented covert prejudices of the white population. To be so
perceived by the dominant group would not bode well for African-American specified
policy initiatives in the final decades of the 20th century.
By the 1980s, the African-American community struggle occurred in the midst of
a decided shift to the right in American public opinion and policy initiatives. This shift in
the general politics of the society was accompanied by the increasing prominence of more
conservative voices in the African-American community. Moreover, an increase in the
overall size of the so-called African-American upper and middle classes led to questions
among the scholarly community about the relevance of the early studies on African-
American political participation. The relevance of the early studies was further brought
into question following the significant increase in African-American elected officials at
22
all levels of government and the two presidential campaigns of the Reverend Jesse
Jackson.
1987 saw the publication of an edited text by Michael B. Preston, Lenneal J.
Henderson, Jr., and Paul L. Puryear,49 which dealt with the new situation in which
African-Americans now existed. Their work called attention to the shift in African-
American politics to the "new black politics". The authors contextualized their work by
placing it within the larger struggle of African-Americans for political and social equality
in a society that had a grandiose political philosophy of "justice for all", "individual
freedom", "egalitarianism" that was substantively different from actual practice.50 The
themes that are woven throughout the articles of the book focus on African-American
political progress during the 1970s and 1980s. An increase in the number of African-
American elected officials is a central concern.
Beyond this the strategic importance of an African-American voting block in
close elections at all levels of government and the importance or lack there of regarding
the increase in African-American elected officials are also discussed. Lastly the authors
distinguish between machine politics which dominated local politics for a significant
period of American political history from the "politics of personality" which tends to
dominate the campaigns of African-American mayoral candidates.51 The "new black
politics" is primarily categorized by a shift from confrontational direct action strategies or
the "old black politics" to conventional electoral politics, which has netted substantial
gains for the middle class, but has resulted in very little change in the lives of the poor.
49
Michael B. Preston, Lenneal J. Henderson, Jr. and Paul L. Puryear, The New Black Politics: The Search
for Political Power (New York: Longman, 1987)
50
Ibid., p. vii.
51
Ibid., pp. vii - ix.
23
Maulana Karenga's analysis of Preston, Henderson and Puryear draws out eight
essential areas of African-American politics. They are listed as "…key positions in
government…voting strength…community organizations …possession of critical
knowledge…coalition and alliance…and coercive capacity."52 Karenga states that by
being represented in government offices African-Americans may have input into the
formulation of public policy. The voting strength of the community is central to being
able to elect adequate representatives. Thus, the demarcation of voting districts is of
equal importance. With the African-American community developing political
organization, there exists a base from which to mobilize political resources to effectively
influence the power structure. Karenga considers the community's level of critical
knowledge of central importance as by its possession they are allowed to become integral
actors in those social functions, which allow for the continuing maintenance of the social
structures of society.
Due to the nature of the American political system and the minority status of the
African-American community, Karenga postulates that alliances and coalitions allow the
community the opportunity to influence the political power structure beyond their actual
numbers. Coercive power is held as being primarily in the control of the legitimate
political authorities and as represented by the armed forces, state national guard units and
local law enforcement agencies. However, the African-American community is held is
still maintaining their own form of coercive power in the guise of direct-action political
52
Maulana Karenga, Introduction to Black Studies (Los Angeles: The University of Sankore Press, 1993)
p. 314.
24
strategies, and violent political action, such as riots, strikes, and any methods that directly
interfere with the normal functions of the social order.53
In 1989 Patricia Gurin, Shirley Hatchett and James S. Jackson54 conducted a study
that centered attention on three controversies55 in African-American politics. The first
controversy had to do with, whether or not the African-American community was
monolithic and uniform in political perspective, or diversified. The second dispute
focused on the past and present importance of social class in African-American political
participation. The final argument addressed African-American group cohesion and
consciousness.
Gurin, Hatchett and Jackson found that on many issues, the African-American
community was unified and yet there was simultaneously diversity on some points.56 The
authors further found that agreement existed across class boundaries in the African-
American community.57 This finding contradicted the other studies which postulated the
importance of class in African-American politics to the point that it was held to supercede
race.58 Lastly, their study uncovered two forms of African-American group cohesion.
The first entitled "common-fate identity"59 by the authors, showed much in common with
53
Maulana Karenga, Introduction to Black Studies (Los Angeles: The University of Sankore Press, 1993)
pp. 314-315.
54
Patricia Gurin, Shirley Hatchett, James S. Jackson, Hope & Independence: Blacks' Response to Electoral
and Party Politics (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1989)
55
Ibid., pp. 12-13.
56
Ibid., pp. 125-175.
57
Ibid., pp. 12-13.
58
William Julius Wilson, The Declining Significance of Race: Blacks and Changing American Institutions
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978)
59
and Party Politics (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1989) pp. 232-233.
25
W. E. B. Dubois' theory on the dual nature of African-American identity. The second
was the "exclusivist identity"60 and drew a distinction between the African and American
contexts of the black community. This perspective on group cohesion and consciousness
was decidedly African, while seeing little of value in the American identity. Indeed, the
authors hypothesized it as housing the potential to prevent or disrupt coalition formations
between African-Americans and other ethnic communities.61
The study by Gurin, Hatchett and Jackson was immediately followed by the
research of Lawerence Bobo and Franklin D. Gilliam, Jr.62 Bobo and Gilliam were also
interested in reassessing the political climate of the African-American community. They
directly looked at the findings of the Verba and Nie research, considered the changes in
the political and social atmosphere that had taken place in the intervening twenty years
and decided to test the viability of the results. Their study would have huge implications
in determining the importance of social class in determining the level of participation of
African-Americans and whites. In fact, their research would provide a new interpretation
of the solidarity or group consciousness of the African-American community post-Verba
and Nie. The Gurin, Hatchett and Jackson study had addressed the importance of the
subject. Now Bobo and Gilliam would to this growing aspect of the research.
Specifically, Bobo and Gilliam determined that there was a need for the
reassessment of the Verba and Nie research as the earlier study did not use a sampling
method that would assure a proportionate number of African-American respondents. In
60
and Party Politics (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1989) p. 233.
61
Ibid., p. 13.
62
Lawerence Bobo and Franklin D. Gilliam, Jr., "Race, Sociopolitical Participation, and Black
Empowerment," American Political Science Review Vol. 84, No. 2 (June, 1990) pp. 377-393.
26
the earlier studies the African-American population did not contain an large oversample
to ensure representativeness.63 Beyond this point, Bobo and Gilliam also reached the
conclusion after analyzing the earlier studies that the method of operationalizing certain
variables engaged in indirect methods of measurement. An example here is the Verba
and Nie concept of group consciousness and how it is operationalized.64 The most
prominent reason for the reassessment, however, was the changed political climate. The
Verba and Nie study was conducted during the Civil Rights and Black Power
Movements. Generally, their study and others like it65 found the level of political
discontent as a primary motivator in African-American political participation.
Bobo and Gilliam hypothesize that as African-American empowerment increases
the level of African-American sociopolitical participation would increase and reach levels
that were equal to or greater than white sociopolitical participation. Political
empowerment was defined as the degree that African-Americans have attained the level
of representation necessary to influence policymaking, or the level of political
incorporation.66 They use local government participation, as it is at this level that the
greatest amount of African-American organization and political influence is exercised.
63
Empowerment," American Political Science Review Vol. 84, No. 2 (June, 1990) p. 378
64
Ibid., p. 378
65
Thomas M. Guterbock and Bruce London, "Race, Political Orientation, and Participation: An Empirical
Test of Four Competing Theories." American Sociological Review (1983)48: 439-453; Lester W. Milbrath
and M. Lal Goel, Political Participation (New York: University Press of America, 1977); Marvin E. Olsen,
"Social and Political Participation of Blacks," American Sociological Review (1970)35:682-697; Richard
D. Shingles, "Black Consciousness and Political Participation: The Missing Link," American Political
Science Review (1981)75:76-91.
66
27
Bob and Gilliam further hypothesize that in areas where African-Americans have
a higher level and longer tenure of political representation and authority the degree of
participation should be highly valued and greatly increased. This would then increase the
level of trust and efficacy of African-Americans towards the political system.67 The
earlier studies found that mistrust of the political system led to high degrees of African-
American participation. Bobo and Gilliam suggested that increases in African-American
political incorporation would lead to a greater number of African-Americans participating
that are politically content.
To operationalize empowerment, Bobo and Gilliam state that the primary
sampling units where the office of mayor in the large city was controlled by African-
Americans would be designated as high empowerment. Those large cities without an
African-American mayor or with a mayor in only a small city were designated as low
empowerment areas. To operationalize the dependent variable of sociopolitical
participation Bobo and Gilliam create a summary participation index. The index is
composed of four factors: voting, campaigning, communal involvement, and
particularized contacting modes.68
Bobo and Gilliam present individual indicators of participation and scaled
measures of participation in their first two models. On the first African-Americans
tended to participate less than whites on all of the indicators, these numbers are not
controlled for socioeconomic status.69 On the scaled measures before controlling for
socioeconomic status the differences between African-Americans and whites are

67
68
Ibid., p. 380
69
Ibid., p. 381
28
statistically significant, afterwards however, they are not.70 This supports the conclusion
that once socioeconomic status is taken into consideration the differences in African-
American and white participation are not of importance.
A third table provides the findings on the summary participation index.71 Without
controlling for socioeconomic indicators in low empowerment areas, the difference in
participation between African-Americans and whites is statistically significant at the .001
level. In high empowerment areas, the differences are not statistically significant between
the races. The difference between African-American participation in low and high
empowerment areas is statistically significant also at the .001 level. This supports the
contention that African-Americans tend to participate at higher levels in high
empowerment areas. The difference between whites does not reach statistical
significance, although whites do tend to participate at a lower level in high empowerment
areas than they do in low empowerment areas.72
When the adjustment is made to account for socioeconomic indicators, in low
empowerment areas the difference in African-American and white participation rates is
not statistically significant. In high empowerment areas, the difference is significant at
the .01 level. The difference between African-Americans in low and high empowerment
areas is statistically significant at the .05 level. This shows that in high empowerment
areas African Americans tend to participate at a greater level than they do in low
empowerment areas. Again when controlling for socioeconomic indicators whites
participate less in high empowerment areas than they do in low empowerment areas.
70
71
Ibid., p. 383.
72
Ibid., p. 383
29
The most important table of the study is table six, which consists of four
regression models. In the first regression, model empowerment has substantive
significance when explaining the increase in sociopolitical involvement. Furthermore,
Education and Region also have substantive significance.73 In the second regression
model, the variable political orientation is added. This variable is composed of politically
engaged, obedient and alienated. Empowerment remains substantively significant,
although it decreases. Politically engaged now is the most substantively significant.
Education and region are also substantively significant.74 In the third model only
politically engaged and political knowledge are substantively significant at the .001 level.
The final model measures white participation. In this model political knowledge is
substantively significant in explaining white political participation.75
Emig, Hesse and Fisher76 pointed out one problem with this method of
operationalization. Their critique showed that by narrowly operationalizing
empowerment, Bobo and Gilliam overlook additional support for their hypothesis. Thus,
they hypothesize that in cities where African-Americans have attained political influence
at significant levels, exemplified by positions on school boards, city councils, etc., then
their level of sociopolitical participation should reach levels that are equal to or greater
than that of whites.77 These areas should then be designated as high empowerment, even
73
74
Ibid., p. 386
75
Ibid., p. 386.
76
Arthur G. Emig, Michael B. Hesse, and Samuel H. Fisher III, "Black-White Differences in Political
Efficacy, Trust, and Sociopolitical Participation A Critique of the Empowerment Hypothesis," Urban
Affairs Review (November, 1996) Vol 32, No. 2, pp. 264-276.
77
Ibid., p. 267.
30
though; they do not have an African American mayor. To operationalize their
independent variable Emig, Hesse and Fisher, construct survey questions designed to
measure external efficacy, internal efficacy, political trust, community involvement and
basic demographic variables. They use a probability telephone survey and to ensure
representativeness the numbers are chosen randomly with a computer.78
Emig, Hesse and Fisher run three regression models. In their first regression
model without considering race, the variable of internal efficacy is substantively
significant.79 In the second model, the dummy variable race is added and only internal
efficacy is substantively significant.80 In the third model, the effect of race on internal and
external efficacy and trust is determined. Internal efficacy is still substantively significant
for both races; however, external efficacy is not substantive and trust is.81
On the issue of political trust and efficacy, Bobo and Gilliam find them to be of
substantive significance only in high empowerment areas. Their findings are contained in
table four of their research, which provided means, by race for low and high
empowerment areas.82 Emig, Hesse and Fisher, find political efficacy and trust to be of
substantive significance in the third regression model of their findings.83 Their definition
of empowerment was expanded to include areas that Bobo and Gilliam had labeled as low
78
Affairs Review (November, 1996) Vol 32, No. 2, p. 267.
79
Ibid., p. 273.
80
Ibid., p. 273
81
Ibid., p. 273
82
Empowerment," American Political Science Review Vol. 84, No. 2 (June, 1990) p. 384.
83
Affairs Review (November, 1996) Vol 32, No. 2, p. 273.
31
empowerment. The Emig, Hesse and Fisher study built upon the Bobo and Gilliam study
and provided a concise argument for why the empowerment variable should include cities
without African American mayors but with significant African American political
representation.
The findings of Bobo and Gilliam and Emig, Hesse and Fisher updated the
literature on African-American political participation. No longer is political discontent
held to be the primary factor in explaining African-American political participation.
African-American political participation increases with African-American representation
regardless of whether there is an African-American mayor or not, when the
socioeconomic factors are taken into account. This leads to the conclusion that when
African-Americans feel that the policy process is responsive toward their needs they will
participate at greater levels than when the reverse is true. This information is of
importance as far as the present study is concerned, as it provides an explanation on the
motivation for African-American political participation. However, these studies limited
their analysis to African-American political participation at the local level.
Other studies conducted during the 1990s generally fell into three categories: the
impact of African-American political participation on congressional policymaking,84
84
Francine Sanders, "Civil Rights Roll-Call Voting in the House of Representatives, 1957-1991: A
Systematic Analysis," Political Research Quarterly (September, 1997) Vol. 50, No. 3, pp. 483-502; Kenny
J. Whitby, "Measuring Congressional Responsiveness to the Policy Interests of Black Constituents," Social
Science Quarterly (1987) 68:367-377; Kevin A. Hill, "Does the Creation of Majority Black Districts Aid
Republicans? An Analysis of the 1992 Congressional Elections in Eight Southern States," The Journal of
Politics (May, 1995) Vol. 57, No. 2, pp. 384-401; David T. Canon, Matthew M. Schousen and Patric J.
Sellers, "The Supply Side of Congressional Redistricting: Race and Strategic Politicians, 1972-1992," The
Journal of Politics (August, 1996) Vol. 58, No. 3, pp. 846-862; M. V. Hood III, Quentin Kidd, and Irwin L.
Morris, "Of Byrds and Bumpers: Using Democratic Senators to Analyze Political Change in the South,
1960-1995," American Journal of Political Science (April, 1999) Vol. 43, No. 2, pp. 465-487.
32
intersection of race and politics85 and minority political participation.86 With regard to the
impact of African-American political participation on congressional policymaking Kenny
Whitby87found that party affiliation, the degree of urbanization and the proportion of
African-American constituents in a southern congressman's district had a substantial
affect on how the congressman voted on social welfare legislation.
Hood, Kidd and Morris88 conducted a study on political change in the south.
Their findings showed that the southern shift from strongly democratic to republican and
the transition from conservative to more liberal voting patterns by southern Senators was
a result of the gradual development of the Republican party in the south and the dramatic
increase in the African-American electorate which followed the passage and enforcement
of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Canon, Schousen and Sellers'89 research concluded that
the creation of minority districts does not lead to "political apartheid" nor is it necessarily
merely a token move lacking in substance. Instead, their research shows that as the
85
Timothy Bates and Darrell L. Williams, "Racial Politics: Does it Pay?" Social Science Quarterly
(September, 1993) Vol. 74, No. 3, 507-522; R. Michael Alvarez and John Brehm, "Are Americans
Ambivalent Towards Racial Policies?" American Journal of Political Science (April, 1997) Vol. 42, No. 2,
pp. 345-374; Lawerence Bobo and James R. Kluegel, "Opposition to Race-Targeting: Self-Interest,
Stratification Ideology, or Racial Attitudes," American Sociological Review (August, 1993) Vol. 58, pp.
443-464.
86
Frank D. Gilliam, "Exploring Minority Empowerment: Symbolic Politics, Governing Coalitions, and
Traces of Political Style in Los Angeles," American Journal of Political Science (February, 1996) Vol. 40,
No. 1, pp. 56-81; Kenneth R. Mladenka, "Blacks and Hispanics in Urban Politics," American Political
Science Review (March, 1989) Vol. 83, No. 1, pp. 165-191; Paula D. Mclain and Albert K. Karnig, "Black
and Hispanic Socioeconomic and Political Competition," American Political Science Review (June, 1990)
Vol. 84, No. 2, pp. 535-545.
87
Kenny J. Whitby, "Measuring Congressional Responsiveness to the Policy Interests of Black
Constituents," Social Science Quarterly (1987) 68:367-377.
88
M. V. Hood III, Quentin Kidd, and Irwin L. Morris, "Of Byrds and Bumpers: Using Democratic Senators
to Analyze Political Change in the South, 1960-1995," American Journal of Political Science (April, 1999)
Vol. 43, No. 2, pp. 465-487.
89
David T. Canon, Matthew M. Schousen and Patric J. Sellers, "The Supply Side of Congressional
Redistricting: Race and Strategic Politicians, 1972-1992," The Journal of Politics (August, 1996) Vol. 58,
No. 3, pp. 846-862.
33
elected representatives begin to perform out of their own self-interest, power will shift to
African-American and white moderates within the district and will not create a system of
apartheid in the district. This is true based on the degree in which the elected
representative attempts to serve the interests of his constituents.
Kevin Hill90 found that in the 1992 congressional elections in the states of
Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, Texas, Virginia, and North Carolina four of the seats
one by southern republicans were the result of the creation of majority African-American
districts. The creation of these districts also led to formerly safe democratic seats
becoming competitive, because of the loss of African-American democratic constituents.
In the Francine Sanders91 1997 study of Civil Rights roll-call voting in the House of
Representatives, the results showed that the degree to which the bill was viewed as costly
to a representatives white constituents greatly affected whether their vote would be in
favor or not.
With respect to the intersection of race and politics, Alvarez and Brehm92 carried
out research to determine why there was variation in American considerations of racial
policy. They postulated that the reason might be the result of uncertainty or ambivalence
growing out of the beliefs of the respondents in the study. The belief areas delineated
were "…modern racism, anti-black stereotyping, authoritarianism, individualism and
90
Kevin A. Hill, "Does the Creation of Majority Black Districts Aid Republicans? An Analysis of the 1992
Congressional Elections in Eight Southern States," The Journal of Politics (May, 1995) Vol. 57, No. 2, pp.
384-401.
91
Francine Sanders, "Civil Rights Roll-Call Voting in the House of Representatives, 1957-1991: A
Systematic Analysis," Political Research Quarterly (September, 1997) Vol. 50, No. 3, pp. 483-502.
92
R. Michael Alvarez and John Brehm, "Are Americans Ambivalent Towards Racial Policies?" American
Journal of Political Science (April, 1997) Vol. 42, No. 2, pp. 345-374.
34
anti-Semitism."93 The results showed that modern racism accounted for the respondents'
policy choices and the variation in their choices stemmed from uncertainty.
In an analysis of white opposition to racial policies, Bobo and Klugel94 set out to
determine why white opposition to racially focused policies had not decreased since
1940. The interest in this research question stemmed from the fact that white prejudice
towards African-Americans had declined steadily in the same period. They considered
the prevailing explanations: perceived self-interest, views on inequality biased racial
perceptions. To the standards they added their own: the degree of specificity in the racial
policy, and whether the policy intended to improve equal opportunity or bring about equal
results. Bobo and Klugel found that white opposition was best explained by their theory
and by white perceptions of self-interest and reverse discrimination.
In 1993, Bates and Williams' study on racial politics95 determined that African-
American businesses in cities with African-American mayors had greater total sales
compared to African-American businesses in cities without an African-American mayor.
Another finding of their study dealt with average sales and employment. Here it was
determined that on average businesses in cities with an African-American mayor had
greater average sales than their counterparts in cities without an African-American mayor.
Furthermore, the firms in cities with an African-American mayor were able to translate
the greater average sales into employment. Lastly, the firms in cities with African-
American mayors had diminished levels of business failure compared to African-
93
R. Michael Alvarez and John Brehm, "Are Americans Ambivalent Towards Racial Policies?" American
Journal of Political Science (April, 1997) Vol. 42, No. 2, p. 345.
94
Lawerence Bobo and James R. Kluegel, "Opposition to Race-Targeting: Self-Interest, Stratification
Ideology, or Racial Attitudes," American Sociological Review (August, 1993) Vol. 58, pp. 443-464.
95
Timothy Bates and Darrell L. Williams, "Racial Politics: Does it Pay?" Social Science Quarterly
(September, 1993) Vol. 74, No. 3, 507-522.
35
American businesses in cities without an African-American mayor. The mayors' impact
increased, when he had been in office for a considerable amount of time.
With reference to minority political participation, McClain and Karnig96 found
that in cities with African-American majorities there was not a great deal of African-
American and Hispanic socioeconomic and political competition. However, Hispanics
do not do as well socio-economically or politically as they do in cities without African-
American majorities. Kenneth Mladenka97 found that African-Americans and Hispanics
elected to city councils make a greater contribution to African-American and Hispanic
employment than do African-American and Hispanic mayors. Mladenka's study showed
that "…political power, racial polarization and the nature of political institutions"
moderated the degree of effectiveness of the political system for African-Americans and
Hispanics.98 Frank Gilliam99 researched whether the way African-Americans viewed an
African-American political administration was founded on the constituencies' symbolic
value of an African-American administration or their being a part of that administration.
The results showed that constituency membership in the administration best explained
their view of the administration.
Due to the depth and breadth of the studies conducted in the 1980s and 1990s, a
great deal of knowledge was accumulated on the African-American politics. The data
gathered allowed for the revising of previous explanations of African-American political

96
Paula D. Mclain and Albert K. Karnig, "Black and Hispanic Socioeconomic and Political Competition,"
American Political Science Review (June, 1990) Vol. 84, No. 2, pp. 535-545.
97
Kenneth R. Mladenka, "Blacks and Hispanics in Urban Politics," American Political Science Review
(March, 1989) Vol. 83, No. 1, pp. 165-191.
98
Ibid., p. 165.
99
Frank D. Gilliam, "Exploring Minority Empowerment: Symbolic Politics, Governing Coalitions, and
Traces of Political Style in Los Angeles," American Journal of Political Science (February, 1996) Vol. 40,
No. 1, pp. 56-81.
36
participation. The studies provided explanations for the many changes that had occurred
in the African-American community since the 1960s. Moreover, the studies in keeping
with the positivist trend in the social sciences were all quantitative in methodology. With
the shift in the social sciences in the 1950s to more empirically based research-a shift
which had gained significant momentum by the 1980s-these studies were on the cutting
edge of the subject. Furthermore, the research was primarily centered on the local
political level in stark contrast the earliest studies.
As has been noted, the first studies on African-American political participation of
the late 1800s and early 1900s were biased generalized historical narratives. Gradually,
with the development of the social sciences from 1910 to the 1940s, the studies focused
on areas of political science proper, for example voting patterns, and became quantitative
in nature. By the 1980s, quantitative analysis had become the paramount methodology in
the study of African-American political participation. Still, other studies were being
conducted simultaneously, beginning in the 1960s and continuing into the 1980s and
1990s, which were qualitative in nature and sought to explain African-American political
participation from the perspective of some of the major theories of the social sciences.
Qualitative Studies
The qualitative studies of African-American political participation were a direct
outgrowth of the political climate amidst, which they were conducted. As the Civil
Rights and Black Power Movements increased the importance and viability of African-
American political participation on policy development and enactment, scholars became
interested in understanding as much as possible about the impact of African-Americans
on public policies. The qualitative studies however, were not interested in merely
comparing African-American and white political participation. These studies examined
37
African-American participation in federal, state and local political institutions. The
particular emphasis in this regard has been on African-American representation, input,
and influence in these policy-making institutions in the context of African-American
interest group activism.100 The social science theories used in these studies were protest
theory, pluralist theory, Marxist class analysis, plural-elitist theory and elitist theory.
Pluralist Theory. Pluralist theory is the most prominent model used to explain
how social, economic and political power are dispersed and exercised in national, state
and local communities in the United States and increasingly in representative
democracies around the world.101 The primary unit of analysis within pluralism is the
group, or organized interests in society. Pluralism or pluralist theory, which is also
100
Huey L. Perry. Democracy and Public Policy Minority Input into the National Energy Policy of the
Carter Administration. (Bristol, IN: Wyndham Hall Press, 1985); Huey L. Perry. Political Participation and
Social Equality: An Assessment of the Impact of Political Participation in Two Alabama Localities.
(Chicago: University of Chicago, 1976); Dianne Pinderhughes. “Collective Goods and Black Interest
Groups” The Review of Black Political Economy. 12 (Winter, 1983) pp.219-236.; Dianne M.
Pinderhughes. “Black Interest Groups and the 1982 Extension of the Voting Rights Act.” In Huey L. Perry
and Wayne Parent (eds.) Blacks and the American Political System. (Gainesville: University of Florida
Press, 1995)pp. 203-224; Huey L. Perry, “Pluralist Theory and National Black Politics in the United States”
Polity (1991) 23:549-565; Taeku Lee, Two Nations, Separate Grooves: Black Insurgency and the
Activation of Mass Opinion in the United States From 1948-The Mid-1960s (Ann Arbor: UMI Dissertation
Services, 1997); Michael Parenti, “ Power and Pluralism: A View from the Bottom,” Journal of Politics
(August, 1970), pp. 501-530; Harold L. Wolman and Norman C. Thomas, “Black Interests, Black Groups,
and Black Influence in the Federal Policy Process,” Journal of Politics (1970) 32: 875-897; Edward S.
Greenberg, “Models of the Political Process: Implications for the Black Community,” In Black Politics:
The Inevitability of Conflict ed. Edward S. Greenburg, Neal Milner, and David J. Olson (New York:
Oxford University Press, 1971); Dianne M. Pinderhughes, Race and Ethnicity in Chicago Politics (Urbana:
University of Illinois Press, 1986)
101
Edward Banfield, Political Influence (New York: The Free Press, 1961); Darryl Baskin, “American
Pluralism: Theory, Practice, and Ideology.” Journal of Politics 32, (1970) pp. 71-95; John Camobreco,
“Medicaid and Collective Action.” Social Science Quarterly 77 (December 1996): pp. 860-875; R.A. Dahl,
Who Governs? (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1961) and Pluralist Democracy in the United States
Conflict and Consent (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1967); Huey L. Perry, “Pluralist Theory & National Black
Politics in the United States.: Polity 33, (1991) pp. 549-565; Huey L. Perry and Wayne Parent ed., Blacks
and the American Political System (Gainesville: University of Florida Press, 1995); Nelson Polsby,
Community Power and Political Theory (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1963); John F. Manley, “Neo-
Pluralism: A Class Analysis of Pluralism I and Pluralism II.” American Political Science Review 77 (June
1983): pp. 368-383; Edward S. Greenberg, “Models of the Political Process: Implications for the Black
Community,” in Black Politics: The Inevitability of Conflict, ed. Edward S. Greenberg, Neal Milner and
David J. Olson (New York: Oxford University Press, 1971): pp. 3-15; Arnold M. Rose, The Power
Structure (New York: Oxford University Press, 1967); David B.Truman. The Governmental Process:
Political Interests and Public Opinion. (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1955).
38
delineated in the literature as interest-group liberalism or group theory,102 provides useful
insights into explaining the relationship and impact of organized interests in society on
policymaking and administration in local government bodies, such as mayors, city
councils, and planning and development commissions, as well as in state and federal
government.103
Pluralism as an explanatory model in political science finds its western European
modernist basis in the study of philosophy.104 Moreover, the origins of the pluralist
philosophical conception extend into the distant past and locate its foundations in the
universities of classical east and west African high culture- most notably in the
northeastern African civilization of Ancient Khemet.105 The philosophical treatise of
Ancient Khemet, which encapsulates the earliest rendition of philosophical pluralism, is
the Memphite Theology.106 The Memphite Theology presents a universal cosmology that
is simultaneously monadic and pluralistic.
The monadic element of the Khemetic cosmology postulates a single causal
principle of the cosmogony. The Khemetic sages labeled this fundamental component,
Ptah, the primary self-actualized cause. Following the monad, Ptah, who emerged from
the chaotic primordial waters, was Atum, or Atom. Atum was brought forth by Ptah and
in union with him initiated the work of Creation, by bringing forth a plurality of
102
Theodore J. Lowi, The End of Liberalism: The Second Republic of the United States (New York: W.W.
Norton & Company, 1979).
103
Robert A. Dahl, Who Governs? (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1961).
104
Gregor Mclennan, Pluralism (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1995) p. 26.
105
George G. M. James, Stolen Legacy: Greek Philosophy is Stolen Egyptian Philosophy (New Jersey:
Africa World Press, Inc., 1992) pp. 9-19.
106
Ibid., p. 102.
39
opposites-ocean and matter, light and darkness, etc.107 Hence, the Khemetic savants
presented monadism and pluralism as complementary opposites. The primordial waters
Ptah, Atum and the Creation, each were unique elements with an underlying integration.
Within this philosophy of complementarity are the seeds of the pluralist and monist
debates, which have occurred throughout western physical and social science scholarly
communities since the Renaissance.
The monadic and pluralist complementarity of Ancient Khemetic philosophy was
interpreted by the Ancient Greeks as a monistic and pluralist dichotomy.108 Philosophers
such as Benedict Baruch Spinoza109 and Gottfried Wilhelm Von Leibniz110 were two of
the most famous western philosophers of the early Greek monistic and pluralist traditions.
The writings of these to philosophers particularly Leibniz influenced succeeding
philosophers until the rise of George Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel. Hegel's philosophy
hypothesized a connection between the person and the thing one attempts to know. Using
the Greek dialectical method Hegel proposed a means by which the person knows. One
begins with a thesis, which naturally gives rise to its opposite the antithesis. The thesis
and antithesis lead to conflict that is resolved by their synthesis. This was the basis of
Hegel's theory of knowledge.111 Hegelianism with its monistic view of history, politics,
107
George G. M. James, Stolen Legacy: Greek Philosophy is Stolen Egyptian Philosophy (New Jersey:
Africa World Press, Inc., 1992) pp. 101-104.
108
109
Stuart Hampshire, The Age of Reason: The 17th Century Philosophers (New York: Mentor Books, 1956)
pp. 99-141; Gregor Mclennan, Pluralism (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1995) p. 27; R. H.
M. Elwes, The Chief Works of Benedict de Spinoza (New York: The Dover Publishing Company, 1952)
110
Stuart Hampshire, The Age of Reason: The 17th Century Philosophers (New York: Mentor Books, 1956)
pp. 142-182; Gregor Mclennan, Pluralism (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1995) p 27; Robert
Latta, The Monadology and Other Philosophical Writings (London: Oxford University Press, 1925)
111
J. Bronowski and Bruce Mazlish, The Western Intellectual Tradition: From Leonardo to Hegel (New
York: Harper Torchbooks, 1960) pp. 481-482.
40
philosophy and civilization112 was the inheritor of the Greek monistic mantle.
Nevertheless, at the beginning of the 20th century, pluralist philosophers such as Bertrand
Russell, William James and John Dewey began the philosophical debate, which led to the
downfall of Hegelianism in western scholarly communities, with the notable exception of
Marxist circles.113
Pluralism made its advent in political science in the work of Harold Laski. Laski
viewed philosophical pluralism as the theoretical grounds from which a polemic on the
Hegelian analysis of the state could be launched. Whereas Hegel began his analysis of
the state from an ideal prototype, reminiscent of Plato's ideal republic, Laski used
pluralism to argue for the study of the institutional character and foundation of the state.
In Laski's formulation corporations and other societal organizations, i.e., groups, was the
true locality of power in society. The state under Hegel was a monolithic entity, welding
centralized power over mass society. Pluralists of Laski's orientation had a socialist view
of society and believed that negotiation among groups led to increased political
participation. Pluralism at this time was a critique of laissez-faire individualism and
representative democracy as well as of the Hegels philosophy. In part the critique of
laissez-faire capitalist democracies stemmed from the inequality exemplified in capitalist
democracies of the day the high degree of political disenfranchisement of the majority of
the populace of the democratic countries and the elitist oligarchic character of western
democracies at the beginning of the 20th century.
Pluralism as adopted in the United States at the beginning of the 20th century,
shifted away from a view of the inherent negativity of the state. Early American
112
Gregor Mclennan, Pluralism (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1995) p 27.
113
Ibid., pp. 28-31.
41
pluralism viewed the state as a mediator of the political competition between various
groups in society. This competition and the resulting negotiation and compromise was
the basis of American representative democracy according to the early brand of
pluralism.114 Pluralism is divided between conventional115 or pluralism I116 and radical
pluralism117 or pluralism II.118 Pluralism I was the dominant version of pluralist theory in
the United States from the early 1900s until the 1970s. Pluralism II gained prominence in
the mid 1970s and continues along with aspects of Pluralism I into the present.
American pluralism traces its' nascent to the beginnings of the American republic.
The concept of pluralism is central to American political theory and finds one of its
earliest expressions in the debates of 1788 that surrounded the enactment of the U.S.
Constitution. Following the drafting of the Constitution at the Constitutional Convention
in Philadelphia and during the ensuing debate, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison
give a concise explanation of the group, and its centrality to human society.119 Hamilton
held that the nature of the proposed Constitution with its increased centralization of
power and economic authority was going to affect economic and political class interests
114
115
Ibid., pp. 34-36.
116
John F. Manley, "Neo-Pluralism: A Class Analysis of Pluralism I and Pluralism II," American Political
Science Review 77 (1983) p. 370.
117
Gregor Mclennan, Pluralism (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1995) pp. 36-37.
118
119
Clinton Rossiter, The Federalist Papers (New York: NAL Penguin Inc., 1961) p. 78. “By faction I
[Madison] understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to a majority or minority of the whole, who
are united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights of other
citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the community…. We see them everywhere brought
into different degrees of activity according to the different circumstances of civil society.”
42
in the states, by restructuring local and state institutions and creating an overarching
federal government.120
For Madison the interest group or "faction" was a natural part of society that
needed as much as possible to be contained to not allow it to undermine the stability of
popular government and the public good. The faction was a natural part of society,
according to Madison, for men have different desires and concerns. Furthermore,
Madison states that society is composed of men with different skills and abilities. These
different skills and abilities proceed from different levels of knowledge. It is from these
differences that men acquire possessions in different degrees and thus develop different
perspectives on acquisition and protection of private property.121
In essence, society dissolves into varying groups with different socioeconomic
perspectives. These divergent socioeconomic interests seek to improve or preserve their
position in society with the aid of government. Naturally, their policy preferences
conflict as each interest views its needs from its own socioeconomic foundation.
Madison then, like Marx later, held that the most prevalent cause of factions and the
conflict they engender in historical societies "…has been the various and unequal
distribution of property."122 To cure the ill effects of factions, Madison proposes
representative democracy as the answer. By allowing the number of representatives to be
based on a set proportion of the state population and to increase or decrease with the
population, Madison held that no one state faction would be able to gain dominance and
the fixed nature of the representation would ensure that the representative would not
120
Clinton Rossiter, The Federalist Papers (New York: NAL Penguin Inc., 1961) pp. 33-34.
121
Ibid., p. 78.
122
Ibid., pp. 78-79.
43
become totally out of touch with his constituents. In the main, however, the various
societal factions in theory would have a voice in the government to express their desires
and concerns to.123
Noting the inevitability of interests groups forming, the framers of the
Constitution also laid the basis for interest group development in the Bill of Rights. The
First Amendment to the Constitution guarantees the right of assembly. This is a
necessary principle, which leads to the formation of interest groups. Madison believed
that it was not possible to develop a democracy and yet attempt to prevent the
establishment of factions. Factions develop from the fallible nature of man and the
diversity of opinions in the marketplace of free ideas.124 As opinions were natural,
interests were diverse, and human nature was prone to act from self-interest, factions
were an inevitable part of sociopolitical life.
Although Hamilton and Madison were among the first American political
theorists to address the concern of interests groups, John C. Calhoun provided the first
thoroughgoing defense of interest group politics.125 Calhoun's analysis would, by the
1950s, become the basis of the theory of pluralism and a succinct explanation of the
American political system. Calhoun agreed with Hamilton and Madison on the need to
control interests, but their system of representative government failed to accomplish this
for they did not realize the severity of the sectional strife that by Calhoun's day was
rampant and had begun to rear its head in the founding days of the republic. Additionally,
Calhoun theorized that Hamilton and Madison had a static view of interest groups, when
123
Clinton Rossiter, The Federalist Papers (New York: NAL Penguin Inc., 1961) pp. 82-83.
124
Ibid., pp. 78-79.
125
John C. Livingston and Robert G. Thompson, The Consent of the Governed (New York: The Macmillan
Company, 1963) p. 150.
44
in actuality interest groups were constantly changing and adapting to the political
climate.126
Indeed, in Calhoun's analysis Hamilton and Madison did not fully appreciate the
true nature and possibilities of political parties. Political parties were a vehicle that could
allow interests in society to coalesce around central uniting issues. Upon attaining a
majority in national politics, theoretically the party could gain control of the executive,
legislative and eventually the judicial branches of government. Thus, a tyranny of the
majority would be established, in which minority concerns would not only be
subordinated by but also eventually eradicated in favor of the policy concerns of the
majority.127 For Calhoun, there was no true public interest, nor was their any archetype, by
which the interests of the majority or minority could be judged. In Calhoun's analysis, all
interests existed in a relativist equilibrium: any interest was as good as another.128
For Hamilton and Madison, as well as the rest of the founding interests of the
American political system, government was a means to control and regulate interests,
manned by men of high caliber, elected by informed constituents with an economic stake
in the Union. Calhoun, on the other hand, saw government as the only institution, which
could moderate the natural state of chaos, which resulted from human conflict.
Reminiscent of Thomas Hobbes,129 Calhoun conceived of human conflict as natural and
expected for man was cynical and introverted, in short, asocial.130 Simultaneously,
126
Company, 1963) p. 150.
127
Ibid., p. 150.
128
Ibid., p. 151.
129
Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan (New York: Oxford University Press, 1998) pp.82-85.
130
Ibid., p. 151.
45
Calhoun, like Aristotle131 and John Locke132 before him, held that man was essentially a
social animal.133
Interest group theory as developed by Calhoun was an attempt to justify the
maintenance of the institutions, which perpetuated the enslavement of African-
Americans. Though eventually falling significantly short in his purported aim, Calhoun
in line with the vagaries of history, developed a theory of American government, which
would within one hundred years of its development become the conventional explanation
of the distribution of power in American political institutions. 134In the writings of 20th
century scholars such as Arthur F. Bentley,135 David Truman,136 Robert Dahl and Charles
Lindblom,137 Calhoun's theory of interest groups would be revived and updated,
eventually solidifying its place as the dominant explanation of American politics.
The rebirth of interest group theory in the United States occurred at the beginning
of the tumultuous 20th century. The Populist and Progressive Movements were sweeping
across the United States gaining ever increasing momentum, while galvanizing the
poor.138 The increasing consolidation of capital into large corporations, depressed
131
Carnes Lord, Aristotle The Politics (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984) pp.35-38.
132
John Locke, Two Treatises of Government (Vermont: Charles E. Tuttle Co. Inc., 1998) pp. 116-118.
133
Company, 1963) p. 151.
134
Ibid., p. 150.
135
Arthur F. Bentley, The Process of Government (Bloomington, Ind.: Principia Press, 1949)
136
David Truman, The Governmental Process (New York: Knopf, 1955)
137
Robert Dahl, Pluralist Democracy in the United States (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1967); Robert Dahl,
Who Governs? (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1961); Robert Dahl and Charles Lindblom, Politics,
Economics and Welfare (New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 2000); Charles Lindblom, Politics and
Markets (New York: Basic Books, 1977)
138
Margaret Canovan, Populism (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1981)
46
agricultural prices and the influx of unskilled immigrant labor into America were social
problems, which led to an upsurge in white grass roots political participation across
America. Excluded from the formal channels of politics through lack of political
organization and insufficient resources, these grass roots initiatives seized upon direct
action grass roots political and labor organizing and established a viable third party
political movement.139 Ridden with racism and nativism the Progressive and Populist
Movements excluded the majority of immigrant and native born disenfranchised
communities within the United States.140 These excluded groups, African-Americans
among them, in turn established sociopolitical organizations, such as the immigrant and
poor supported Socialist Party, the African-American controlled Niagara Movement in
1905 and the white dominated National Association of Colored People in 1909, and
engaged in nonviolent protest politics, i.e., boycotts, silent marches, and judicial
challenges to existing discriminatory laws.
Amid an atmosphere of mass pressure on existing political institutions, the
scholarly community scrambled to find adequate explanations of the prevailing mood. At
the time, the jurisprudence school of thought presented the dominant model. The Jurist
or legalist as they are also known considered the state as absolute and sovereign and
studied the laws enacted by the state to gain an understanding of the nature of political
participation. The political incidents of the period showed that this explanation of
political participation was insufficient. Influenced by Harold Laski, scholars began to
apply a modified version of the European model of pluralism to the American scene and
139
Michael Kazin, The Populist Persuasion: An American History (New York: Basic Books, 1995)
140
John Higham, Strangers in the Land: Patterns of American Nativisim 1860-1925 (New York: Atheneum,
1972); Richard Hofstadter, "The Paranoid Style in American Politics," in The Paranoid Style in American
Politics and Other Essays (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1965)
47
focused on interest group politics and the pressure they placed on the political
establishment.141
Arthur Bentley's study of American government in 1908, was the work that
revived Calhoun's theory of interest groups and updated it with "…the language of the
scientific method and value relativism."142 Even though, the period of the publication of
Bentley's study was one in which interest group pressure politics was predominant, his
work was not viewed at the time as a major scholarly work engendering a paradigm shift
from the jurist to pluralist model.143 It would not be until the 1950s that the theory of
interest groups would be resurrected in the works of Truman and Dahl and elevated to the
status of dominant theory in American political science.
Truman, Dahl and subsequent scholars144 provide the basic assumptions of
conventional pluralism. Conventional pluralism seeks to explain the enactment of public
policy as the outcome of interest groups and their access to and influence upon
government decision-makers. According to conventional pluralism, American society is

141
G. David Garson, Power and Politics in the United States ( Lexington, Mass.: D. C. Heath and Company,
1977) pp. 40-41.
142
Company, 1963) p. 155.
143
Ibid., p. 155.
144
Pluralism: Theory, Practice, and Ideology.” Journal of Politics 32, (1970) pp. 71-95; R.A. Dahl, Who
Governs? (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1961) and Pluralist Democracy in the United States Conflict
and Consent (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1967); Huey L. Perry, “Pluralist Theory & National Black Politics
in the United States.: Polity 33, (1991) pp. 549-565; Huey L. Perry and Wayne Parent ed., Blacks and the
American Political System (Gainesville: University of Florida Press, 1995); Nelson Polsby, Community
Power and Political Theory (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1963); John F. Manley, “Neo-Pluralism: A
Class Analysis of Pluralism I and Pluralism II.” American Political Science Review 77 (June 1983): pp.
368-383; Edward S. Greenberg, “Models of the Political Process: Implications for the Black Community,”
in Black Politics: The Inevitability of Conflict, ed. Edward S. Greenberg, Neal Milner and David J. Olson
(New York: Oxford University Press, 1971): pp. 3-15; Arnold M. Rose, The Power Structure (New York:
Oxford University Press, 1967); David B.Truman. The Governmental Process: Political Interests and Public
Opinion. (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1955); Robert Dahl and Charles Lindblom, Politics, Economics and
Welfare (New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 2000); Charles Lindblom, Politics and Markets (New
York: Basic Books, 1977)
48
composed of competing groups with varied interests. Groups organize for political action
because they understand that government affects the well being of individuals and groups
in society and they want to influence governmental policies and actions to advance their
interests. The logic of interest group formation to influence policymaking is that
collectivities of individuals having the same interests and are organized to advance
common interests can exert more influence on policy-making than individuals acting
alone.
In conventional pluralist theory, government serves as the mediator in settling
competing claims of interest groups attempting to influence policymaking. Contrary to
popular belief, the pluralist positioning of governmental institutions and officials as the
mediator of compromise and conflict among competing groups does not require
governmental officials to be neutral in the decision-making process. If agencies and or
governmental officials have positions on policy issues, those positions are part of the
constellation of interests that go into the formulation of public policies. Bargaining and
negotiation takes place between the interest groups and the relevant government agencies
in accordance with accepted rules.
The pluralist perspective on community power is also known as the decisional
approach,145 in part because of its focus on the political power structure and formal
decision-making. In short, conventional pluralism holds that organized groups are able to
influence the enactment of public policy by influencing decision-makers using the

145
Robert Dahl, Who Governs? (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1961) p. 361: “For more than a
century, indeed, New Haven’s political system has been characterized by well nigh universal suffrage, a
moderately high participation in elections, a highly competitive two-party system, opportunity to criticize
the conduct and policies of officials and citizens and surprisingly frequent alternations in office from one
party to the other as electoral majorities shifted.” Dahl’s analysis of New Haven found a pluralistic power
structure, with the elected officials such as the Mayor being major players in all issue areas, and being held
accountable through elections. Representative democracy was functioning in accordance with American
political theory.
49
resources available to group. Groups can exert even more influence on the policymaking
process when they form coalitions and use the additional resources available to their
representative interest-group coalition. These are important components of the
conventional pluralist model. Conventional pluralist theory posits that interest groups
can influence policymaking; and that interest groups’ policymaking influence is increased
when they are able to join with other groups having a similar position on a public policy
issue.
In sum, conventional pluralism views the state as originating in a social contract
established between the government and the governed. Consequently, the conventional
pluralism accepts democracy as the acceptable political ideology and considers
democracy as a representative form of government, which establishes equality of
opportunity amongst the governed. Groups are autonomous from the state, and maintain
a great deal of coercive resources, however, as members of the social contract, they agree
upon the purpose of government that declares it as an institution designed to prevent
anarchism, and ensure adherence to the philosophy of laissez-faire individualism.
Conventional pluralism was the dominant model in political science until the mid
1970s. Under pressure from Marxist class analysts, pluralist scholars began to note the
divergence between democratic theory and conventional pluralism.146 Because of this
reassessment of conventional pluralism by pluralist scholars, radical pluralism emerged,
primarily in the works of Dahl and Lindblom.147Dahl and Lindblom revise conventional
pluralism to provide a clearer and more accurate analysis of the American political
146
147
Robert Dahl and Charles Lindblom, Politics, Economics and Welfare (New Brunswick: Transaction
Publishers, 2000); Charles Lindblom, Politics and Markets (New York: Basic Books, 1977)
50
system. First, they hypothesize that American adherence to private enterprise is so
irrational that Americans cannot objectively analyze economic structures.148 American
attitudes are shaped by ideas and a political ideology that has elevated an economic
system-one among many-to the status of infallible dogma. Next, Dahl and Lindblom
conclude that who controls economic resources must be decided before the determination
of who owns the resources.149 Private or public control of resources has a direct effect on
who will or will not be allowed to obtain those resources. Having the means to acquire
resources or mobilize resources is not sufficient to ensure ownership, if the one that
controls those resources has a diametrically opposed agenda. Dahl and Lindblom further
contend that to achieve true democracy in America there must be "…a redistribution of
wealth and income."150 Income inequality necessarily leads to sociopolitical inequality.
Without equality in the former, there will be no equality latter.151
The fourth point made by Dahl and Lindblom is that government is more
responsive to the elite or haves, those at the upper end of the socioeconomic order, than to
148
Science Review 77 (1983) p. 371; Robert Dahl and Charles Lindblom, Politics, Economics and Welfare
(New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 2000) p. xxx.
149
Science Review 77 (1983) p. 371; Robert Dahl and Charles Lindblom, Politics, Economics and Welfare
(New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 2000) p. xxxiii.
150
Publishers, 2000) p. xxxvi.
151
Ibid., p. xxxv. Dahl and Lindblom make the point in this manner: "…wealth and income along with
many values that tend to cluster with wealth and income, such as education, status and access to
organizations, all constitute resources that can be used in order to gain influence over other people.
Inequalities with respect to these matters are therefore equivalent to inequalities in access to political
resources. Inequalities in access to political resources in turn foster inequalities in influence, including
influence over the government of the state. More concretely, the present distribution of resources in the
United States presents a major obstacle to a satisfactory approximation of the goal of political equality. We
cannot move a great deal closer to political equality without moving closer to equality in access to political
resources. We cannot move closer to greater equality in access to political resources without greater
equality in the distribution of, among other things, wealth and income. And if certain options like voting,
free speech, and due process have to be established as rights to make democracy work, so also does a fairer
share of income and wealth have to become a right."
51
the masses or general public, the have nots or those at the lower end of the socioeconomic
ladder. This situation leads to a continuation of the current cycle of inequality. For the
elite the political system is efficacious and for the masses, it is inefficacious.152In pluralist
societies, the role of the business organizations is more powerful than interest groups in
general. Business is both an interest group and an influentially integral part of the
government structure operating in the international and domestic arena. Government
provides an incentive system-for example, tax breaks-for business to act on behalf of
government interests. The very nature of the position of business in American politics
places it above the other interest groups and outside the normal parameters of interest
group competition. Hence, business maintains a position of privilege that is substantively
different from any other interest group.153 Dahl and Lindblom next state that the
consensus of the American system has a unique characteristic. In their words,
government "…endorses attitudes, values, institutions and policies..."154 which favor the
sociopolitical interests of the upper class over the lower classes. Schools, mass media,
social problem definitions, etc. meet the criteria established by the well off. Criteria
which in general are naïve and biased.
Finally, Dahl and Lindblom find that the American system is obstructionist in
nature. It consistently uses resources to prevent the establishment of genuine social and
political equality, curtails civil liberties, and perpetuates a cycle of economic inequality
by "…maintaining the corporate domain as a private preserve rather than into making its
152
Publishers, 2000) p. xl.
153
Ibid., p. xl.
154
Ibid., p. xlii.
52
public acts public."155 Thus, they conclude, as did Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.156 before
them that the American system must undergo substantial sociopolitical and
socioeconomic restructuring.157 Each of the tenets proposed by Dahl and Lindblom serve
as a means of revising conventional pluralism.
Conventional pluralism was viewed by critics and some adherents alike as being
an apology for and defense of the status quo. Change was incremental and at best
moderately reformist. Radical pluralism attempted to correct these deficiencies of the
model. In so doing, radical pluralism accepts the conventional pluralist positions on the
nature of state group relations and the efficacy of democracy, but rejects the conventional
pluralist position on laissez-faire individualism, in favor a hybrid collectivist,
individualist system, which guarantees and protects equality by a redistribution of wealth
and income and prevents the consolidation of socioeconomic power within the upper
levels of society.
Further analysis of conventional and radical pluralism reveals that both infer a
theory of history, economics, collective behavior, social movements and social change.
The importance of this aspect of pluralism and the other models utilized in this study can
not be overemphasized. African-American political participation encompasses each of
these delineated areas and by employing a sociopolitical methodology, it is paramount to
this study that each of these areas be explicated with regards to the given model-in this
155
Publishers, 2000) p. xliv.
156
David J. Garrow, Bearing the Cross Martin Luther King Jr. and the Southern Christian Leadership
Conference (New York: Quill William Morrow, 1986)
157
Publishers, 2000) p. xlv.
53
case pluralism-so as to delineate the concepts for a systematic analysis capable of
providing scientific clarification.
Conventional pluralism posits that groups compete in a state refereed political
system. A system where the number of possible groups in policy areas is theoretically
infinite. Unable to gain dominance and thereby ensure the implementation of their
interests' groups from coalitions. The coalitions increase groups resources, influence and
effectiveness. Once the coalition has been formed the groups focus on specific policy
interests and negotiate and bargain to obtain as much of their interests as possible. What
results is equilibrium in the political system or homeostasis-a uniform state of political
affairs.
Homeostasis158 describes the circumstances of a system, in this case a political
system, where the nature of the groups that enter the political process and their
relationships to one another is controlled by an inability to successful accumulate
resources to the point of establishing one groups predominance in the political process.
This state of interaction is such that any change in the nature of one group-increase in
constituency, economic resources or political contacts-or in the character of group to
group interrelations-break down of coalition due to policy initiative disagreement-will
result in other alterations within and between groups. These modifications of group
relations will decrease the impact and degree of the changes. As conventional pluralism
is a structural-functionalist theory, it holds that the political system to be effective must
158
George C. Homans, The Human Group (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1950): "A condition of a
system whereby 'the state of the elements that enter the system and of the mutual relationships between them
is such that any small change in one of the elements will be followed by changes in the other elements
tending to reduce the amount of that change.'" pp. 303-304, quoted in Richard P. Appelbaum, Theories of
Social Change (Chicago: Rand McNally College Publishing Company, 1970) p. 65.
54
maintain stability, and thus, the theory has a "…conservative bias against endogenous
structural change."159
Radical pluralism, though the theory proposes major structural reforms to the
political system, it stipulates that those reforms be carried out, within the accepted
political norms of the conventional pluralist system.160 This then creates the paradox of
reforming a political system within the rules of that system, which are by their very nature
established to prohibit modification from within. The conservative nature of the pluralist
system and its purpose of perpetuating the dominance of the status quo and increasing its
position relative to the rest of society, negates the ability of reforming the system
internally by establishing rules, roles and procedures to prevent such action.
The homeostasis of the political system under both forms of pluralism supports
the theory of economics embodied in the system. The theory of economics is laissez-faire
individualism. Laissez-faire economics is predicated upon extensive competition among
an infinite number of interests within the market-economy. The large number of
competitors prevents any one from gaining power over the supply or demand of goods
and services. Changes in the relative status of one competitor due-for example
technological innovation-will ultimately result in market wide adjustments of similar and
varied types and preserve the status quo. A point of equilibrium is reached by the bidding
up and down of the prices of goods and services. The state is seen as ensuring an
environment, governed by rule consensus, in which such activity can take place.
159
Richard P. Appelbaum, Theories of Social Change (Chicago: Rand McNally College Publishing
Company, 1970) p. 67.
160
55
Both conventional and radical pluralists pose social movements as the actions of
irrational elements in the body politic. Rational actors engage in the established norms of
conventional political participation; the participants in social movements, however, are
engaged in extra-political methods, and are motivated not from the rational self-interest
evident in the psychologically balanced political participant, but from the irrational,
ambiguous, emotionally disturbed pathological state of the psychologically unbalanced.161
The theory of social movements, which corresponds to this inference, is the classical
theory.
The classical theory of social movements consists of several theories,162 which
posit that social movements are the result of the failure of socializing institutions to
provide members of society with the knowledge, skills and abilities necessary to function
within the established parameters of societal norms. This breakdown in important social
structures causes the unsocialized members of society to experience emotional
disturbances. The emotional disturbance stems from the apparent contradiction between
the preachments of society and the unsocialized person's current psychological imbalance.
The classical theory of social movements, which is deduced from conventional
and radical pluralism, supposes a theory of collective behavior as well. Group theory
posits that people form groups to help in the achievement of similar interests. The
unsocialized psychologically unbalanced person will then, according to the classical
theory of social movements and conventional and radical pluralism seek out others with
characteristics, valuations and attitudes which are similar to their own. These actions
161
Doug McAdam, Political Process and the Development of Black Insurgency, 1930-1970 (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1999) p. 6.
162
Ibid., pp. 6: Some of the theories are "…mass society, collective behavior, status inconsistency, rising
expectations, relative deprivation, and the Davies' J-curve theory of revolution." McAdam postulates that
each of these theories has three common features: each specifies a structural weakness in society which
causes a psychologically imbalance in the individual which leads to social movements.
56
correspond with the attributes of the theory of collective behavior known as convergence
theory.163 As conventional and pluralist theory posit that participants in social movements
are irrational and psychologically unbalanced, the theories further hold that the actions of
said persons are little more than the actions of the crowd, hence, the applicability of
convergence theory. By viewing social movements as irrational conventional and radical
pluralism place the actions of movement members outside of the norms of society, thus
categorizing the actions of social movement members as deviancy and therefore, subject
to all forms of coercive social control.
The conventional and radical pluralist emphasis on homeostasis and the
concomitant theories of economics, social change, social movements and collective
behavior which grow from it are subsumed in a the pluralists progressive conception of
history.164 Conventional and radical pluralists by accepting the democratic ideal of
equality expounded by the nations' founders assumed a progressive view of history which
posited that the progress of society was not the result of state innovations and the
machinations of the elite; rather, it resulted from the interactions of the groups of society.
Man in his group interactions was sovereign. Bargaining and negotiation were
the means of historical control and the satisfaction of group interests within the political
order were the ultimate ends of all human action in history.165 Beyond these points, the
progressivist view of history subsumed within pluralist theory advances the idea of
163
Dennis Wegner and Thomas F. James, “ The Convergence of Volunteers in a Consensus Crisis: The Case
of the 1985 Mexico City Earthquake,” in Russell R. Dynes and Kathleen Tierney, Disasters, Collective
Behavior, and Social Organization (Delaware: University of Delaware Press, 1994)
164
Steven Alan Samson, "Models of Historical Interpretation," Contra Mundum 11 (Spring, 1994) p. 8; R.
G. Collingwood, The Idea of History ( New York: Oxford University Press, 1994) pp. 87, 99-104, 144-146.
165
Steven Alan Samson, "Models of Historical Interpretation," Contra Mundum 11 (Spring, 1994) p. 9.
57
historicism.166 From this perspective, all incidents of history are anomalous to given
periods and cultural groups. This difference in culture can occur within a cultural group
over time, as culture is dynamic. The differentiation of a given culture across time and
between cultures are best seen in relation to that cultures immediate past, keeping in mind
that cultural values are dynamic as well.167 Pluralism holds then that the uniqueness of
given political periods and the level of knowledge accumulation influence given
outcomes and are not susceptible to judgement by the standards of different eras.
The application of conventional pluralist theory to the African-American political
participation at the local and federal level has met with mixed results. Marcus D.
Pohlmann,168 and Minion K. C. Morrison,169 though their research was separated by nearly
30 years found the theory of no absolute utility in explaining African-American politics.
For Pohlmann, the nature of African-American politics was outside of the scope of the
pluralist model, while Morrison held that the pluralist perspective lacked pragmatic
applicability. Peter Bachrach and Morton Baratz170 find that pluralism presents half of the
analysis for African-American political participation. Bachrach and Baratz determine
elite theory to be no utility and then add that pluralist overlook how bias is mobilized in
institutions, and the importance of non-decisions. Harold L. Wolman and Norman
Thomas171 found the pluralist paradigm inadequate as an explanation of African-

166
Steven Alan Samson, "Models of Historical Interpretation," Contra Mundum 11 (Spring, 1994) p. 9.
167
Ibid., p. 9.
168
Marcus D. Pohlmann, Black Politics in Conservative America (New York: Longmann, 1960)
169
Minion K. C. Morrison, Black Political Mobilization: Leadership, Power and Mass Behavior (Albany:
State University of New York Press, 1987)
170
Peter Bachrach and Morton S. Baratz, "Two Faces of Power," American Political Science Review
(December, 1962) 56: 947-952.
171
Harold L. Wolman and Norman C. Thomas, "Black Interests, Black Groups, and Black Influence in the
Federal Policy Process," Journal of Politics (1970) 32:875-897.
58
American political participation in Federal Housing and Education policy of the 1960s.
The reason for the limited utility of the conventional pluralist paradigm according to
Wolman and Thomas is the limited resources of African-American organizations and lack
of effective access to policymakers. This finding presents conventional pluralism with
the dilemma of explaining why if the system is composed of decentralized power centers
are African-Americans facing this obstacle.172
Wolman and Thomas contend that African-Americans are not making use of the
power centers even though they are there and hold that this supports Mancur Olson's
contention that the rational self-interest assumption of pluralists is flawed. Wolman and
Thomas further hold that the proposition by pluralists that policymakers will satisfy the
demands of interests groups does not apply to African-American participation. To
provide proof of this they sight the continuance of socioeconomic discrimination against
African-Americans.173
Michael Lipsky's study174 of African-American use of protest as a resource to
effect the implementation of interest group policies also found problems with the
application of conventional pluralist theory. This study was focused on the local level
and found that African-American lack the resources necessary to engage in the system in
the conventional manner. Lipsky argues that African-American groups must motivate
their constituency with symbolic incentives, gain media attention and the attention of
172
Harold L. Wolman and Norman C. Thomas, "Black Interests, Black Groups, and Black Influence in the
Federal Policy Process," Journal of Politics (1970) pp. 32:894.
173
Ibid., pp. 894-895.
174
Michael Lipsky, "Protest as a Political Resource," American Political Science Review (December, 1968)
62:1144-1158.
59
third parties with the resources and influence necessary to effect change.175 These
contradictory tasks hamper the utility of protest as a viable resource for African-
Americans.
The powerlessness of African-Americans decreases the effectiveness of protest.
Conventional pluralism, as interpreted by Lipsky, does not work in this scenario for the
theory fails to separate symbolic from substantive rewards and the failure of the theory to
take into account whether a group will be heard by policymakers. Furthermore, even if
the group is heard the theory does not take into account that policymaker reactions may
not be directed towards the protest group but instead toward the wider public. In reacting
toward the wider public symbolic action that creates the perception that something has
been done to alleviate the concerns of the protest group is the response of the
policymakers.176
Huey L. Perry's research177 found conventional pluralist theory of utility in
explaining African-American political participation in federal civil rights legislation
during the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s. Perry began his analysis by
listing the major civil rights legislation of the civil rights era. Next, he delineated the
pluralist tenets through the use of which he would determine the validity of the pluralist
paradigm in his analysis. The propositions that he culled from the pluralist literature
175
Michael Lipsky, "Protest as a Political Resource," American Political Science Review (December, 1968)
62: 1144-1145.
176
Ibid., pp. 1157-1158.
177
Huey L. Perry and Wayne Parent, "Black Politics in the United States, " In Huey L. Perry and Wayne
Parent (eds.) Blacks and the American Political System. (Gainesville: University of Florida Press, 1995)pp.
203-224; Huey L. Perry, “Pluralist Theory and National Black Politics in the United States” Polity (Summer
1991) 33:549-565.
60
correspond to conventional pluralism. Perry then analyzes elite and Marxist class
analysis theory and determines their lack of utility for the subject matter.
After an analysis of African-American political participation, Perry presents the
events of the 1950s and 1960s, organizations involved and explain their participation in
the politics of civil rights, comparing the five conventional pluralist tenets with the
available evidence. Extending his analysis in to the 1980s Perry considers the
continuation of African-American political participation during the conservative era.
Perry contends that the incremental nature of the civil rights legislation implemented
meets the criteria of the pluralist proposition that policies are incremental. He further
holds that the effectiveness of African-American political organizations in gaining access
to the fragmented centers of power provides grounds for accepting the pluralist
contention that power is decentralized in the American system.178
The evidence marshaled by Perry suggests that African-American organizations
engaging in negotiation with other interest groups and policy-makers support the utility of
conventional pluralist theory in explaining African-American political participation.
Perry's research also presented findings that determined elite theory and Marxist class
analysis of no utility in explaining African-American political participation during the
same time period.179 In a later work,180
Perry extends the previous analysis by dividing African-American politics in the
20th century into three periods. In the first period from 1910 to 1955, judicial activism is
178
Huey L. Perry, “Pluralist Theory and National Black Politics in the United States” Polity (Summer 1991)
33:549-565.
179
Ibid., pp. 549-565.
180
Huey L. Perry, "A Theoretical Analysis of National Black Politics in the United States, " In Huey L.
Perry and Wayne Parent (eds.) Blacks and the American Political System. (Gainesville: University of
Florida Press, 1995) pp. 11-37
61
the primary method of political participation employed by African-Americans. The next
period identified by Perry consists of the years from 1955 to 1965, a period consisting of
African-Americans using protest politics. The final period described by Perry considers
of African-American Political Participation from 1965 to 1990. In a systematic manner
Perry analyzes the literature and reinforces his analysis of the utility of conventional
pluralism.181
Elite Theory. Although pluralism is the predominant theory used in explaining
policymaking in the American political system, a second and competing model, elite
theory has been used to explain the distribution of power in American political
institutions.182 Elite theory endeavors to explain the enactment of public policy as the
result of decisions made by a ruling class within society. As pluralism traces its
philosophical roots to the pluralist conceptualization of the universe dating to classical
African high culture, elitism is founded upon the monist philosophical traditions. The
roots of elitist theory extend back, as well, to the classical African high culture and the
point of depart from the complementary philosophy of the Memphite Theology was the
Greek interpretation of the monadic element in the treatise. The Grecian who lays the
foundation for the monistic tradition in the west is Socrates; his ideas on the elite being
recorded in the dialogues of Plato, one of his students.183
181
Huey L. Perry, "A Theoretical Analysis of National Black Politics in the United States, " In Huey L.
Perry and Wayne Parent (eds.) Blacks and the American Political System. (Gainesville: University of
Florida Press, 1995) pp. 15-32.
182
C.Wright. Mills, The Power Elite (New York: Oxford University Press, 1959); Floyd Hunter, Top
Leadership U.S.A. (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1959); Thomas Dye, Who's Running
America? Institutional Leadership in the United States (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.,
1976); David Ricci, Community Power and Democratic Theory: The Logic of Political Analysis (New
York: Random House, 1971).
183
Robin Waterfield, Plato The Republic (New York: Barnes & Noble Books, 1996)
62
The ideal form of government for Plato was the aristocracy, rule by the guardians,
who would be soldiers and philosopher-kings. In an aristocracy justice or the common
good was best served. A second form of government was timocracy-rule by the soldiers.
In this state soldiers reign and are given to glory and military conquest. Rule by both
classes of guardians-oligarchy were the third form of government. Under this system of
government the classes had forsaken their noble ideals of government for the common
welfare and instead, ruled for self-aggrandizement. Next, was democratic government
based on rule by all classes. Eventually it would degenerate into social anarchy as all men
would be free to do as their desires required. Lastly was tyranny, here the people, out of
fear of the ongoing internal anarchy and external foreign pressures under democracy,
choose a dictator to restore order.184 The resulting system is a repressive police state.
Plato surmised that since aristocracy-rule by the elite-was the most just form of
government, it was necessary to postulate how such a system could be established. To
begin his analysis Plato poses that society was naturally composed of classes separated by
a specialization of labor, social position being based upon the importance of the
occupation to the efficient operation of society. Examples of the occupations are
merchants, farmers, artisans, apothecaries and clothiers. To govern the society in manner
to preserve the public welfare, Plato proposed the creation of a managerial class-the
guardians.
The guardians would serve as adjudicators of internal conflict and as the military
establishment responsible for defense of the state against external threats. To ensure that
these two tasks are performed in an effective manner Plato stated that the guardians
184
W. H. D. Rouse, Great Dialogues of Plato (New York: Mentor Books, 1984) p. 123.
63
would be divided into a professional military class and a professional governing class.185
In Plato's state, the guardians existed solely to govern and defend the state. To prepare the
guardian class for leadership, Plato advanced the establishment of a system of elementary
and higher education.186 The education system would be designed to develop a
meritocracy. Merit would be the sole means of educational advancement.
The elementary training of the guardians consisted of basic intellectual
development, music and physical training. The literature that the guardians were to read
was to be heavily censored so as to prevent their imitating the base elements of society
represented in the popular media presentations designed for mass consumption. Plato
required the strict censoring of poetry, literature, mythology and drama. The educational
training at the elementary level would be used to select those pupils who possessed the
aptitude to become the leadership class of society. The elementary education would last
for twenty years. At the end of the allotted time those students who would continue on to
higher education would be selected and moved forward.187
Higher education studies would begin with the discipline of mathematics.
Mathematics would serve as the foundation discipline of the higher sciences. Arithmetic,
geometry and astronomy would be utilized to develop critical and abstract reasoning
skills in the future leadership class. Next the guardians would study begin their study of
wisdom and the application of abstract and critical thought-dialectics in the search for
genuine knowledge. As philosopher kings, their sole desire would be to govern justly and
seek out wisdom. The intent of this being to use their learning as a way of leading their
185
W. H. D. Rouse, Great Dialogues of Plato (New York: Mentor Books, 1984) pp. 118-119.
186
Ibid., p. 119.
187
Ibid., p. 119.
64
fellow citizens out of the cave of their dark existence into the light provided by the all-
powerful state. Lastly, the student would be apprenticed to guardians to learn the
operation and defense of government.188 The system of apprenticeship would give
practical training to the future leadership class, providing a genuine mix of theory and
practice.
Plato’s ideal state was stratified and elitist. For although the first guardians would
be chosen on merit, future guardians would be the offspring of the guardian class.
Discontent of the other classes at their socially immobile roles was remedied with the
myth that people have different abilities, which allow them to perform particular
functions. The guardians were, however, to receive no salary, own no property and live at
the government expense. He maintained that since they were naturally superior, they
were above the base human needs of material gratification. The guardians ruled out of
societies need for their skills not from a desire to rule.189
As the state was the beginning and end for all of society, Plato held that the elite
must possess wisdom, impartial judgement and the ability to discern truth. They were the
superior class and developed to lead, so these skills were necessary to the orderly
functioning of society. In turn, the soldiers must possess courage, the ability to carry out
their duty without concern for their personal wellbeing and be willing to defend the
society from internal and external enemies. Integrity to defend the state against all
enemies foreign and domestic-even if the enemy was a relation-was a requirement. The
labor classes must possess faith in their wisdom, total acceptance of the state as their
188
W. H. D. Rouse, Great Dialogues of Plato (New York: Mentor Books, 1984) pp. 317-333.
189
Ibid., pp. 121-122.
65
beginning and end and love of their position.190 The stability of the society rested equally
on the contentment of the masses; the most numerous of the state.
Elitism in its current American form developed from the works of European
scholars influenced by the writings of Plato. The most notable of these scholars being
Hegel. As noted previously, Hegel held a monistic view of history and the state.
According to Hegel, the great events of time were the result of ruling class conflict. He
exemplified his theory with the dialectic method. Furthermore, the state was the central
institution of society for Hegel and his philosophy was influential throughout the west
until the rise of the pluralist school. However, the rise of pluralism did not entirely
eclipse the monistic view handed down from the Greeks to northern European scholars.
In particular political theorists in Italy adapted the monistic tradition to their environment
and developed a body of writings that would become the elemental sources for American
elite theory.
The first Italian theorist of importance to the development of elite theory was
Niccolo Machiavelli. Machiavelli's writings191 continued in the monistic tradition by
positing the supremacy of the state and of the ruling class. In the writings of Machiavelli,
the state's purpose is to preserve its existence and to accumulate power.192 Moreover, the
ruling class of the state and the state itself were identified with one another. Brownoski
and Mazlich explain that 'state' is derived from the Latin term 'status' which means
position. The idea of state gradually progressed to meaning a political position of
absolute authority. The elite who attained the positions in government, due to the power
190
W. H. D. Rouse, Great Dialogues of Plato (New York: Mentor Books, 1984) p. 120.
191
Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince (New York: Penguin Books, 1988)
192
York: Harper Torchbooks, 1960) p. 37.
66
inherent in the position, sought to retain their office perpetually. In time the elite by virtue
of their monopoly on the government positions became identified with them and came to
be associated with and as the government.193 The elite became the 'status quo' in
theoretical and practical terms. This is a necessary outgrowth of the Platonic idea of
creating a guardian class, which would become the government.
According to Machiavelli, society is constructed from the top down, beginning
with the state is the supreme authority. The legislative element of the state dictates the
life of the citizenry and is subject to only one law that being the success or failure of its
actions.194 However, those actions are to be in the public interest and not to satisfy the
personal interests of the elite. The public consisted of the aristocracy-former nobility of
the feudal age-the merchant class-small and large business- and the masses. The
merchant class relished the existence of a strong state to ensure the protection of their
domestic and international trade concerns; whereas the nobility chaffed under the loss of
their former power from feudal times. The masses for their part were to subordinate all of
their concerns to the interests of the state.195 In do course the merchant and nobility would
merge in the pursuit of economic gain and in time would come to play a significant role
in the control of the state. It was in the light of these developments that Vilfredo Pareto
and Gaetano Mosca developed the modern elite model of politics.
As a first step in formulating his theory of elite rule, Mosca writes that the most
common occurrence in society is the struggle within and between classes for dominance.
All social classes are ridden with men engaged in social combat, a perpetual conflict of
193
York: Harper Torchbooks, 1960) p. 36.
194
George H. Sabine, A History of Political Theory (New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1937) p. 345.
195
Ibid., pp. 331-333.
67
rich against poor, man against woman, regardless of race, ethnicity religion or age. Each
drawing upon their most aggressive instinct to gain predominance in the contest for "…
higher position, wealth, authority, control of the means and instruments that enable a
person to direct many human activities, many human wills, as he sees fit."196 The masses
are those who did not succeed in this war of man against man, but for Mosca, this is not
an unbearable outcome for the masses, as they merely must make do with fewer material
resources of inferior quality. Furthermore, the most definite outcome of their failure in
the struggle for social preeminence is that they must make do with a truncated liberty.197
This is an acceptable outcome as natural selection has played its part in the evolution of
society.
The government of society for Mosca is not to be classified as absolute and
limited monarchies and republics-the typology of Montesquieu;198 nor using the
Aristotelian categories:199 monarchies, aristocracies and democracies. Indeed, Mosca
contended that Aristotle's idea of democracy was nothing more than an extended
aristocracy, and the reality of Greek polities, exhibited governments where influence was
held either by a single person or a wealthy group.200 Mosca further declares that the idea
of popular sovereignty, or mass political participation in government was first presented
in the philosophy of Rousseau. Moreover, in what becomes the heart of Mosca's theory of
196
Gaetano Mosca, The Ruling Class (New York: McGraw Hill, 1939) p. 30.
197
Ibid., p. 30.
198
Charles M. Sherover, The Development of the Democratic Idea: Readings from Pericles to the Present
(New York: Mentor, 1974) pp. 178-197.
199
Carnes Lord, Aristotle The Politics (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984)
200
68
elite rule, he states that all governments are a mixture of democratic, monarchical and
aristocratic elements.201
When explaining how a minority controls a majority, Mosca holds that the first
characteristic of minority rule is their organization. The elite organize because they are a
minority in the society. Their organization gives them aggregated strength against the
individualist philosophy of the masses. By being organized, they are able to pool their
resources and take advantage of the majorities primary weakness-their lack of
organization.202 A second characteristic of the elite rule is their purpose. The elite are
able to rule despite their minority status due to organized purposeful action. The
purposefulness of their activities stems from the perception that they are superior to the
masses.203
As a wealthy minority, the elite have a central concern, one reason for existing, to
acquire wealth and power and then to secure the means of maintaining their possessions
and position.204 Mosca also theorizes that the majority will face enormous obstacles in
attempting to organize to counteract the elite. One obstacle being the size of the majority;
as Mosca states, the larger the majority the greater adversity that must be overcome to
organize. This difficulty will only increase as the size of the population increases; for
there is an inverse relationship between the majority's greatest strength, size, and their
greatest need, organization.205
201
202
Ibid., p. 53.
203
Ibid., p. 53
204
Ibid., p. 53.
205
Ibid., p. 53.
69
In Mosca's theory, elite dominance has been the rule in all societies throughout the
history of man. From primitive to industrial society an elite has ruled by virtue of some
supposed higher quality and superiority.206 In primitive societies, the attribute was
military courage, but as industrial society developed with its focus on the accumulation of
private property, wealth becomes the main characteristic for control.207The democratic
theory that prevailed in Western Europe and the United States, was for Mosca, proven to
be false by his analysis of the history of government. Even more so, Mosca posited that
the western theory of democratic government could not stand before, his contention that
all governments are a mixture of forms studied by Aristotle. Mosca's research was an
important addition in the development of elite theory. Another contribution would come
from the works of Vilfredo Pareto.208
Pareto's theory of elite control of society added to Mosca by dividing the elite into
a public and private elite.209 The description of political and economic power controlled
by a public and private elite presented by Pareto was a part of his larger work on social
organization. To explain the social organization Pareto constructed a sociological model
designed to explain the functions and interactions of the two elite and the masses. The
heart of Pareto's theory was that society moved through periodic cycles. Pareto
postulated that as culture was dynamic, the values, norms and cultural paradigm from
which the political and economic elite and the masses perceive their environment would
206
Gaetano Mosca, The Ruling Class (New York: McGraw Hill, 1939) pp. 54-56.
207
Ibid., p. 57.
208
Vilfredo Pareto, The Rise and Fall of the Elites: An Application of Theoretical Sociology (Totowa, N.J.:
Bedminster Press, 1968); Vilfredo Pareto, The Mind and Society: Treatise of General Sociology (New
York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1935).
209
Jonathan H. Turner and Leonard Beeghley, The Emergence of Sociological Theory (Homewood, Ill.:
The Dorsey Press, 1981) p. 406.
70
periodically change.210 For Pareto's theory, the cycle of change was a given aspect of the
social structure.
Pareto further theorized that the economic and political elite were characterized by
persons who were either conservative or progressive. The conservative elite preferred the
maintenance of the status quo and were against change in society; whereas, the
progressive elite were the avant-garde. The progressive elite were the risk takers: they
favored the utilization of human ingenuity in an effort to expand the international prestige
of the state or to increase the productive potential of economic enterprises.211 In addition,
Pareto stated that because the elite shared the same nonmaterial culture, i.e., received the
same education, held similar economic philosophies, were akin in religious beliefs and
were consistent in their norms, they were a homologous group.212
To explain the cycle of elite, Pareto stated that the similar nature of the two elite-
the conservative were similar to each other and the progressive were alike-caused which
ever group was in control to ossify. Economic and political power had the effect of
causing, for example, the progressive economic and political elite to become
conservative. Once they acquired power, they set about to solidify their new position and
then to maintain it.213 The catalyst for the change in power is brought about by two
factors: when they resort to the use of state terror to retain their position and the degree
of their oppression and exploitation of the masses.
210
Jonathan H. Turner and Leonard Beeghley, The Emergence of Sociological Theory (Homewood, Ill.: The
Dorsey Press, 1981) p. 406
.
211
Ibid., p. 406
212
Ibid., pp. 406-407.
213
Ibid., p. 407.
71
During periods of exceptional economic growth, elite exploitation of the masses is
masked by moderate increases in mass income and consumption patterns. Periods of
extreme economic recession or severe depressions, expose the masses to intense
economic hardship; lessen mass acceptance to elite propaganda, and reveal in immoderate
terms the income gap between the elite and the masses. The upsurge in mass disaffection
with the ruling elite leads to increases in mass pressure on the elite for social change. As
elite attempts at pacification or co-optation of mass leadership decreased in effectiveness,
elite use of violence increases. At this moment the opposing elite group, which is out of
power steps forward in its progressive role, co-opts the mass leaders and/or their program
and with the backing of the masses assumes power. For Pareto, the interactions of the
two elite groups with the masses is dictated by economic events an this then accounts for
the cycle of the elite.214 With development of his theory of the cycle of the elite, Pareto
completed the basic paradigm of European elite theory.
Elite theory as developed in the works of Mosca and Pareto was decidedly anti-
democratic. Although both authors were formulating their theories in an effort to develop
a description of society that led away from the Marxian conception of society, their
writings did not assume the natural superiority of democracy. Their writings supported
an elite that was popular with the masses because of their recognizable higher nature and
exceptional intellectual skill.215 Indeed, the acceptance of the theory in the western
democracies was further hampered by the research of Roberto Michels.216 Michels adds
214
Vilfredo Pareto, The Mind and Society: A Treatise on General Sociology (New York: Dover
Publications, 1935) pp. 1422-1432.
215
G. David Garson, Power and Politics in the United States (Lexington, Mass.: D. C. Heath and Company,
1977) pp. 34-35.
216
Roberto Michels, Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern
Democracies (New York: Free Press, 1962)
72
another dimension to the elite theory by describing the phenomena of the rise of an elite
as a natural result of social hierarchy.
The subject of Michels research were the democratic socialist parties of Western
European democracies. Michels found that party leadership by virtue of their control of
the party apparatus and resources, especially, the economic resources, transformed the
party leadership from elected officers to a small oligarchy. The leadership controlled the
party media and hence, all party communication favored the positions of the leadership.
In addition, the leadership established networks of contacts outside of the party with
influential party supporters. The theory on the control of the party by a party oligarchy
developed by Michels became known to the scholarly community as the iron law of
oligarchy.217 Michels findings were generalized to the society at large and used to justify
the theory that society was dominated by an elite. A central weapon of their
predominance for Michels was their control of information: all forms of the
communication media were in their control and served as the medium to control the
thinking of the masses. Elite theory would remain in the anti-democratic guise developed
by Mosca, Pareto and Michels until the presentation of the ideas of Jose Ortega y
Gasset.218
Elite theory began to be reoriented towards support of democracy in Gasset's
work, due to his acceptance of the theory of elite control of society, but his rejection of
the utility of anti-democratic forms of government. For Gasset undemocratic forms of
government resulted from the creation of mass man. Mass man was man who could not
217
1977) p. 35.
218
Jose Ortega y Gasset, The Revolt of the Masses (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, Inc., 1960);
Man and Crisis (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, Inc., 1962)
73
govern himself, nor should he, for he was without the natural character required of
leadership.219 Gasset did not view society as being divided into social classes as did
Marxian theorists; instead, he stated that society was divided into men of leadership
ability and men of low quality.220 The Masses were given to anarchy and the
establishment of anti-democratic forms of government, which suited their base characters.
While the elite were the true protectors of the democratic tradition as they had
been throughout history.221 The mass man with all of his base characteristics, did not exist
to rule, but instead, to be ruled. When the mass man gained political power, the state was
in danger of collapse.222 The masses, the Marxian proletariat created totalitarian regimes
in the eyes of Gasset and not the elite. The elite struggle with the masses was in the work
of Gasset, necessary for the preservation of the democracy, the state and the masses
themselves. The failure of democracy in Gasset's Spain and the rest of Europe during the
1930s was to Gasset the result of the elite not subscribing to a democratic ideology.223 For
Gasset, democracy could not be established based on mass political participation. With
Gasset's reorientation of elite theory, it remained for Floyd Hunter224 and C. Wright
Mills225 to apply the model to the American political arena.
219
Jose Ortega y Gasset, The Revolt of the Masses (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, Inc., 1960)pp.
11, 14-15.
220
Ibid., pp. 15-16.
221
Ibid., p. 17.
222
Ibid., p. 115.
223
1977) p. 36.
224
Floyd Hunter, Community Power Structure. (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1953)
225
C. Wright Mills, The Power Elite (New York: Oxford University Press, 1956)
74
Elite theory as it was developed for application to the American political system
by Hunter and Mills was an outgrowth of the works of Mosca, Pareto, Michels and
Gasset. Hunter excepted many of the European elitist explanations on the nature of
society. For Hunter society was divided into two broad and distinct groups. The first
group was composed of a select members of the society, who have political and economic
power. On the other hand, the second group is composed of the majority of the members
of society, who separately have insignificant political or economic resources and thus, no
power or influence. The few with power are the elite who maintain a monopoly on the
economic and political organizations and the majority the masses. The elite were
composed of men who were not equally concerned with all areas of the society; the elite
formed subgroups with given policy interests. Here is the basic division of the American
community in this case of Atlanta, according to Hunter.226
Hunter held that the masses participated in the ongoing operation of the society;
however, it was the elite, who initiated social change in the community. Without the elite
impetus for change, society would continue in its normal operation and maintain the
status quo.227 The masses are believed to have less influence on the elite than the elite
have on the masses, consequently, public policy reflects the views of the elite rather than
the masses. Central to elite theory as presented by Hunter is the influence of corporate
wealth on government elite: the corporate elite would take a policy position, form a
coalition of community and political leaders then work to have the policy enacted. As
Hunter revealed in his study, the government elite was highly influenced by the corporate
226
Floyd Hunter, Community Power Structure. (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1953) pp.
62-74.
227
David Ricci, Community Power and Democratic Theory: The Logic of Political Analysis (New York:
Random House, 1971) p. 89.
75
elite. The corporate elite exerted dominant influence in local policymaking, whereas the
local government elite held a mid-level managerial role. 228 To determine who were the
members of the elite, Hunter contacted men who were held by the citizens of Atlanta to
be influential were contacted and a list of other influential men was developed from
conversations with this group. Thus, Hunter used a reputational method to determine the
elite; a significant difference from the methods of Mosca, Pareto, Michels and Gasset.
While Hunters study focused on local community power, Mills studied the
national power structure. To begin with Mills, nor Hunter before him, did not attempt to
construct a grand theoretical scheme to describe how societies had been divided
throughout history. Rather, Mills only sought to describe how the American power
structure was organized in his day.229 To begin his study Mills focused on institutions of
society, by doing so, he attributed power and influence not to individuals but to the
positions, they held in the major institutions of society.
The methodology used by Mills has since become known as the positional
method.230 For Mills the most powerful positions in American society were in the
economic, political and military institutions.231 The President, heads of major
corporations, high-ranking members of the Armed Forces, these men constituted the
228
Floyd Hunter, Community Power Structure. (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1953) pp.
66-86; “It is true that there is no formal tie between the economic interests and the government, but the
structure of policy determining committees and their tie-in with other powerful institutions and
organizations of the community make government subservient to the interests of these combined groups.
The government departments and their personnel are acutely aware of the power of key individuals and
combinations of citizens groups in the policy-making realm, and they are loath to act before consulting and
clearing with these interests.” pp. 100-101.
229
C. Wright Mills, The Power Elite (New York: Oxford University Press, 1956) p. 20.
230
231
76
power elite for Mills. The men at influential positions within the social hierarchy of these
institutions made the decisions that initiated social change and affected the lives of the
American public. The members of the Congress made up the next level of power in
Mills scheme followed by the heads of interest groups, which represented the masses.232
Mills further postulated that the elite heads of these institutions formed an "…
interlocking directorate."233
Mills view of the elite resembles that of Pareto: the elite have a class-
consciousness and adhere to the same nonmaterial culture. The influential members of
the powerful economic, political an economic institutions of America, generally hailed
from similar backgrounds, and maintained a consensus on acceptable values. To advance
up the elite hierarchy of these institutions the socially mobile aspirant had to accept their
nonmaterial culture. The very nature of the three centers of power served as a means of
transforming the new members of the institution into the ideal member. Those who are
chosen for leadership, therefore, will have the same values; they will have undergone co-
optation. Mills also stated that the leaders of the three power centers, at some point in
time will generally have served in leadership positions of the other institutions.234 Each of
Mills observations on the power-elite serve to complete the American school of elite
theory of politics begun by Hunter.
Elite theorist of Europe divided society into the elite and the masses; the elite
were such by nature-they were endowed to lead. The masses lacked the skills necessary
232
233
234
77
for self-government and were viewed as given total to the satisfaction of mans basest
desires. Government by the masses tended to anarchy and from there to dictatorship.
Democracy, on the other hand, was preserved by the elite for the benefit of all of society.
The masses had need of the elite to paternally guide them and prevent them from self-
harm. Notwithstanding these points, American scholars held that the elite were such as a
result of reputation or position in powerful institutions in society. For Hunter the
corporate interests were the most influential with regards to local politics. At the national
level, Mills determined that the military, economic and political institutions were the
most powerful and had circulating leaders. Where the European elite was born into its
position, the American elite were more representative of the society as a whole; however,
they had been co-opted into the nonmaterial culture of the elite. The acceptance into elite
circles required the acceptance of the elite world-view. The masses for both Hunter and
Mills participated in the maintenance of society; while the elite were the agents of social
change.
Thus with the foundation provided by the European elite theorists, Hunter, Mills
and later scholars235 erected the American school of elite theory. Like conventional and
radical pluralism, elite theory also contains a theory of history, economics, collective
behavior, social movements and social change. Elite theory emphasizes that the elite are
the center of society and the agents of change. Although the elite prefer stability and the
maintenance of the status quo, this is not a general characteristic of society for the elite
235
G. William Domhoff, The Higher Circle: The Governing Class in American (New York: Vintage Books,
1971; G. William Domhoff, Who Really Rules? New Haven and Community Power Reexamined (Santa
Monica, Cali.: Goodyear Publishing , Inc., 1978); Howard J. Erlich, “The Reputational Approach to the
Study of Community Power.” American Sociological Review (1961) 26:926-927; Thomas R. Dye,
“Community Power Studies,” In Political Science Annual, Vol. 2, ed. James A. Robinson (NewYork:
Bobbs-Merrill, 1970); Thomas R. Dye and L. Harmon Zeigler, The Irony of Democracy (Belmont, Cali.:
Duxbury Press, 1972); Peter Bachrach, The Theory of Democratic Elitism (Boston: Little, Brown, 1966);
William Kornhauser, The Politics of Mass Society (New York: Free Press, 1959)
78
though sharing the same nonmaterial culture are not a monolithic group. Instead, the elite
are as Pareto and Mills posited divided. Whether the classification is Pareto's
conservative and progressive economic and political elite or Mill's economic, political
and military elite , this division of the elite combined with economic concerns leads to
social change.
Pareto theorized that society was consistently moving through cycles of change
specifically moving between "…states of centralization, productive contraction, cultural
conservatism, and immobility, on the one hand, and decentralization, productive
expansion, cultural liberalism, and mobility on the other."236 The impetus for the change
is the inter-elite struggle for power and mass pressure on elite structures caused by
increased mass alienation. Each of these factors corresponds with Rahl Dahrendorf's
conflict theory of social change and Pitirim Sorokin's cyclic theory of social change.237
Sorokin postulated that social change was not the result of societies progressing
in an evolutionary fashion, nor of social decay; instead it was an outgrowth of social
culture.238 Social culture being dynamic progressed much like an organism from birth to
maturity to decay. Sorokin categorized culture into the following: sensate, ideational and
idealistic culture. Sensate culture is conservative and concerned with immediate material
reality only. Pareto's conservative elite maintain a sensate culture. Ideational culture is
moderate and centers on nonmaterial components of culture. The progressive elite by
virtue of their lack of power exhibit an ideational culture, which allows consensus with
the ruling elite. Idealistic culture is progressive and combines sensate and ideational
236
237
Pitirim A. Sorokin, The Crisis of Our Age (New York: E. P. Dutton, 1941)
238
Ibid., pp. 15-17.
79
culture to initiate social change.239 The masses once they become the catalyst for social
change adhere to the values of an idealistic culture; prior to this subscribe to sensate
culture. With progressive elite guidance of the masses, through leader co-optation, the
sensate will be synthesized with the ideational culture bringing about social change or
society wide adherence to the values of idealistic culture.
Dahrendorf hypothesizes that social change occurs perpetually in all societies, at
the same time all societies experience social conflict. Pareto's society changes between
progressive and conservative cycles. Furthermore, all elements of the society participate
in some fashion to social change. In the change that occurs in Pareto's model, all
members participate in social change-each elite group and the masses. Lastly, Dahrendorf
theorizes that all societies are founded on the exploitation, subordination of one group by
another.240 Pareto's society consisted of elite exploitation of the masses.
The elite model posited constant social change and ever-present social conflict.
Beyond this, the model holds that the masses need elite leadership to organize and affect
political institutions. These hypotheses lead to the resource mobilization theory of social
movements. This theory holds that due to the unresponsive nature of existing political
institutions to the concerns of the masses-a result of their lack of wealth and power- the
masses mobilize their resources and directly challenge the power structure. According
the resource mobilization model, the catalyst for mass mobilization is an increase in the
level of their resources.241 The increase in resources occurs as a result of Pareto's
239
Pitirim A. Sorokin, Social and Cultural Dynamics (Boston: Porter Sargent, 1957) pp. 697-701.
240
Richard P. Appelbaum, Theories of Social Change (Chicago: Markham, 1970) p. 94; Jonathan H.
Turner, The Structure of Sociological Theory (Homewood, Ill.: The Dorsey Press, 1974) pp. 92-96.
241
Doug McAdam, Political Process and the Development of Black Insurgency (Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1999) pp.20-21.
80
progressive elite manipulating the masses to further its own agenda. The progressive elite
funds the mass social movement, co-opts the movements leaders, implements the less
nocuous aspects of the mass reform program, eventually assume control of the
government and then ossifies.
By proposing, that social change is the result of conflict within a cyclical series of
events elite theory infers that collective behavior is the outcome of emerging norms
within the masses. The theory of social change that explains the transformation of norms
with the masses is emergent norm theory. Emergent norm theory states that mass action
for example, in the synthesis of sensate and ideational cultures, leads to the establishment
of new nonmaterial cultural values, such as social interaction patterns, norms, mores, and
political communication.242 The series of events, which lead to cultural change are not,
however, predetermined, on the part of the masses; they are more or less the outcome of
random, unanticipated phenomenon. This randomness however does not preclude the
social organization inherent in mass actions.
Like conventional pluralism, laissez-faire individualism is the economic theory
encompassed by elite theory. Laissez-faire individualism with its emphasis on economic
competition, government protection of the propertied class, the exploitation of cheap
labor, and the gradual dispersion of economic profits to masses-trickle down effect,
supports the maintenance of the status quo and continuation of elite dominance. Both
prerequisites elite theorist, American and European. The theory of history presupposed by
242
Kurt Lang and Gladys Lang, Collective Dynamics (New York: Crowell, 1961); Ralph H. Turner,
"Collective Behavior," in R. E. L. Faris, Handbook of Modern Sociology (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1964);
B. E. Aguire, E. L. Quarantelli, and Jorge L. Mendoza, "The Collective Behavior of Fads: The
Characteristics, Effects, and Career of Streaking," American Sociological Review 53 (1958); Norris R.
Johnson, "Panic at 'The Who Concert Stampede': An Empirical Assessment," Social Problems 34 (1987);
Norris R. Johnson, "Panic and the Breakdown of Social Order: Popular Myth, Social Theory, Empirical
Evidence," Sociological Focus 20 (1987).
81
elite theory is the cyclical theory, which presents history as the product of the
development, maturation, internal social decay and external political negation of elite
dominated civilizations.243
In assessing the utility of elite theory in explaining African-American political
participation Robert C. Smith244 found that as African-Americans transitioned from
protest politics to policy participation they became participants in the middle levels of
power in the American political system. Few African-Americans were in the
policymaking elite and generally, African-American interest groups were without access
at the federal policymaking arena. His findings further showed that in the intervening
period between 1960 and the 1980s an African-American interest voice at the higher
levels had come into existence as a result of the Black Power Movement.245 The interest
to this study is that Smith characterized the system as elite structured and found that it
explained African-American participation in a limited way. For his study he took the
elite nature of the system as a given.
Michael Parenti's analysis of African-American participation in Newark, New
Jersey was presented more findings in favor of the elite model.246 Parenti found pluralist
theory of no utility in explaining African-American political participation in Newark.
The Newark Community Union Project (NCUP) and the Students for a Democratic
Society (SDS) attempted to organize the community and build a local social protest
243
Steven Alan Samson, "Models of Historical Interpretation," Contra Mundum 11 (Spring, 1994) pp. 5-7;
R. G. Collingwood, The Idea of History ( New York: Oxford University Press, 1994) pp. 67-68.
244
Robert C. Smith, "Black Power and the Transformation from Protest to Politics," Political Science
Quarterly 96 (Autumn, 1981) pp. 431-443.
245
Ibid., pp. 441-443.
246
Michael Parenti, "Power and Pluralism: A View from the Bottom," Journal of Politics (August, 1970) pp.
501-530.
82
movement around the issues of housing, a traffic light and electoral representation. The
failure of the groups on these issues resulted from the unresponsive nature of the political
institutions to the NCUP and the SDS. Parenti concluded that the system may have a
variety of center of power, but, they were not open to organized African-American
interest. Where African-Americans were concerned the system reacted in the elite
fashion outlined earlier, discounted the large African-American group and showed the
futility of protest to groups lacking resources. These findings led Parenti to discount the
validity of pluralism not only for the poor in Newark but for all poor across the nation.247
The rise of elite theory resurrected the monistic tradition on American shores and
resumed its debate with pluralist school of thought. Elite and pluralist scholars, vied with
each other an effort to present an description of the power structure of the American
political system248 until the mid-1960s. The heated debate gave way to the development
of methodological approaches that attempted to combine the pluralist emphasis on the
decisional approach with the elitist reputational and positional approach.249 The
247
Michael Parenti, "Power and Pluralism: A View from the Bottom," Journal of Politics (August, 1970) pp.
501-530.
248
Herbert Kaufman and Victor Jones, “The Mystery of Power.” Public Administration Review (1954)
2:34-40; Nelson W. Polsby, Community Power and Political Theory. (New Haven: Yale University Press,
1963); Raymond E. Wolfinger, “A Plea for Decent Burial.” American Sociological Review (1962) 25:636-
644; William V. D’Antonio, Howard J. Erlich, and Eugene C. Erickson, “Further Notes on the Study of
Community Power.” American Sociological Review (1962) 27:848-853; Howard J. Erlich, “The
Reputational Approach to the Study of Community Power.” American Sociological Review (1961) 26:926-
927; Thomas R. Dye, “Community Power Studies.” In Political Science Annual, Vol. 2, ed. James A.
Robinson (NewYork: Bobbs-Merrill, 1970); Peter Bachrach and Morton S. Baratz, Power and Poverty:
Theory and Practice (New York: Oxford University Press, 1970).
249
Robert Presthus, Men at the Top: A Study of Community Power. (New York: Oxford University Press,
1964). Presthus found that both decisional and reputational methods revealed aspects of power in
Edgewood. The decisional method uncovered the visibly or overtly powerful and the reputational
uncovered the covertly powerful. Both methods gave a clearer perception of power in the community;
Delbert C. Miller “Decision-Making Cliques in Community Power Structures.” American Journal of
Sociology (1958) 64:299-310 and International Community Power Structures (Bloomington: Indiana
University Press, 1970); Delbert C. Miller and James L. Dirksen, “The Identification of Visible, Concealed
and Symbolic Leaders in a Small Indiana City: A Replication of the Bonjean-Noland Study of Burlington,
North Carolina,” Social Forces (1965) 43:548-555; Terry N. Clark, “Community Structure, Decision-
Making, Budget Expenditures, and Urban Renewal in 51 American Communities.” American Sociological
Review (1968) 33:576-593.
83
combination of pluralist and elitist perspectives led to a more in-depth understanding of
the complex nature of policymaking in American politics and to the development of the
plural-elite model.
Plural-Elite Theory. Plural-elite theory as explanation of American politics is an
outgrowth of early 1970s scholarly attempts to find a middle ground between the two
antagonistic models-pluralism and elite theory. Plural-elite theory asserts that the power
structure is composed of a plurality of elite, each with their own dominant sphere of
influence within different and multiple policy domains. Leaders of various organizations,
businesses and political institutions comprise the plurality of elite and maintain control in
policy areas of interest to them.
Plural-elite theory accounts for the presence of elite and pluralist elements, which
were found in the power structure by the mixed methodological studies of the power
structure;250 however, the mixed methodological studies made no distinction concerning
the nature of the influence of the plural-elite in specific policy areas. The rectification of
this problem began in the work of Theodore Lowi.251 To correct this problem Lowi
presented a typology of power and policy in American political institutions. The efforts
250
Robert Presthus, Men at the Top: A Study of Community Power. (New York: Oxford University Press,
1964).; Delbert C. Miller “Decision-Making Cliques in Community Power Structures.” American Journal of
Sociology (1958) 64:299-310 and International Community Power Structures (Bloomington: Indiana
University Press, 1970); Delbert C. Miller and James L. Dirksen, “The Identification of Visible, Concealed
and Symbolic Leaders in a Small Indiana City: A Replication of the Bonjean-Noland Study of Burlington,
North Carolina,” Social Forces (1965) 43:548-555; Terry N. Clark, “Community Structure, Decision-
Making, Budget Expenditures, and Urban Renewal in 51 American Communities.” American Sociological
Review (1968) 33:576-593.
251
Theodore J. Lowi, “American Business, Public Policy, Case Studies, and Political Theory,” World
Politics (July, 1964): 677-715; Theodore J. Lowi, "The Public Philosophy: Interest Group Liberalism,"
American Political Science Review Vol. 61, No. 1 (March, 1967) pp. 5-24; Theodore J. Lowi, The End of
Liberalism: The Second Republic of the United States (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1979)
84
would in time make a major contribution to the study of community power and to a
reappraisal of American democracy.
Lowi began his analysis by stating that there was a fundamental problem with the
early works written by pluralist, elite and Marxist/social stratificationist theoreticians.252
The problem was that these studies did not sufficiently provide for provision of results
that could be formulated into propositions for general use on events of related interest
across all of the power studies; and which could be tested through some type of
quantitative research experiment. Lowi clearly points out that these theories provide no
cumulative data. The data and the propositions of these theories had no observable
relation and as such should not even be called theories.253
Holding to this line of thought Lowi demonstrates how existing case studies,
which proved the validity of both elitist and pluralist models, contained methods of self-
assessment. The theory of history, social change, social movement, collective behavior
and economics subsumed by each of the models provided each theory with a method of
252
Who Governs? (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1961); Robert Dahl and Charles Lindblom, Politics,
Economics and Welfare (New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 2000); Charles Lindblom, Politics and
Markets (New York: Basic Books, 1977); Jose Ortega y Gasset, The Revolt of the Masses (New York:
W.W. Norton and Company, Inc., 1960); Man and Crisis (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, Inc.,
1962); G. William Domhoff, The Higher Circle: The Governing Class in American (New York: Vintage
Books, 1971; G. William Domhoff, Who Really Rules? New Haven and Community Power Reexamined
(Santa Monica, Cali.: Goodyear Publishing , Inc., 1978); Howard J. Erlich, “The Reputational Approach to
the Study of Community Power.” American Sociological Review (1961) 26:926-927; Thomas R. Dye,
“Community Power Studies,” In Political Science Annual, Vol. 2, ed. James A. Robinson (NewYork:
Bobbs-Merrill, 1970); Thomas R. Dye and L. Harmon Zeigler, The Irony of Democracy (Belmont, Cali.:
Duxbury Press, 1972); Peter Bachrach, The Theory of Democratic Elitism (Boston: Little, Brown, 1966);
William Kornhauser, The Politics of Mass Society (New York: Free Press, 1959); Vilfredo Pareto, The
Rise and Fall of the Elites: An Application of Theoretical Sociology (Totowa, N.J.: Bedminster Press,
1968); Vilfredo Pareto, The Mind and Society: Treatise of General Sociology (New York: Harcourt, Brace
& World, 1935)
253
Politics (July, 1964) pp. 677-715.
85
self-validation. Using the case study of Bauer, Pool and Dexter254 in conjunction with
the research of E.E. Schattschneider,255 Lowi showed how the two prevailing methods of
power distribution-pluralism and elite theory were inadequate, when applied to certain
types of policy arenas. Lowi’s critique of the Bauer, Pool and Dexter advances that while
it was the best case study to date, it did little more than disprove the two prevailing
theories. Using Schattschneider’s work Lowi shows first how existing case studies are
actually a mixture of pluralism and elitism and how they cannot explain all policy
phenomena without engaging in self-validation.
Next, Lowi developed a system of classification which both answers the question
of logical relationship between theory and proposition and which is cumulative in nature
while allowing the generation of related propositions that can be tested. To do this he
develops a typology or system of classification for public policies. The major
classifications are distribution policies, regulatory polices, and redistribution policies.
Distributive or promotional policies provide resources and facilities to the private sector
of society. These policies are individual governmental decisions as opposed to formal
policies enacted in the public legislative forum. In this policy arena, there are no real
antagonists to compete for policy preferences. Promotional policies are known as a policy
arena only in there accumulation. Generally, they are bestowed on private individuals or
business enterprises.
As distributive policies are considered such only in their aggregation, it is possible
to separate these decisions into individual policy. Examples of distributive policies are
254
Raymond A. Bauer, Ithiel de Sola Pool, and Lewis A. Dexter, American Business and Public Policy: The
Politics of Foreign Trade (New York: Atherton Press, 1963). This study analyzed the development of
foreign trade policy in the United States, with particular emphasis on the underlying political relationships
involved.
255
E.E. Schattschneider, Politics, Pressure, and the Tariff (New York: Atherton, 1935).
86
public works, land grants, unconditional licensing, defense procurement and research and
development grants. Each of these examples and the billions of dollars associate with
them, shed further light on the nature of distributive policies. Consider the area of
research and development for instance. Since World War II, research and development
has been an integral part of government spending, reaching an all-time high during the
U.S. and Soviet space race of the late 1950s and 1960s. The policies that are associated
with research and development are in effect decisions that bring immediate benefit to
such entities as the research arms of major universities and private companies.256 It was
with regard to the growing nature of these policies that President Eisenhower alluded in
his statements on the expanding military-industrial complex.
Regulatory policies, unlike distributive policies, constitute a true policy arena
individually, as opposed to, only in the aggregate. The purpose of regulatory policies is
to impose obligations and restrictions on given societal entities. These policies are
directly coercive and use sanctions to enforce particular standards of conduct. They
economic institutions of society is the primary area that these policies are designed to
enforce specific behaviors. Policies which are illustrative of regulatory legislation are
antitrust policies, food and drug purity regulations, policies which protect workers rights ,
licensing standards of professions such as medicine and law with the intention to enforce
set standards of operation or practice in these professions, and the policies implemented
to reduce racial, religious or gender discrimination.257
256
Theodore J. Lowi, “American Business, Public Policy, Case-Studies, and Political Theory,” World
Politics vol. 16, no. 4 (July 1964) pp. 677-715; "The Modernization of American Federalism," Public
Administration Review Vol. 3, No. 2 (Fall 1973);
257
Politics vol. 16, no. 4 (July 1964) pp. 677-715.
87
Akin to regulatory policies are redistribution policies. Redistribution policies are
macroeconomic level policies. The intent of redistribution policies is to manipulate the
existing social structure to create a more socially equitable situation. By altering the status
quo, through the restructuring of institutions, which create an inequitable distribution of
resources, these policies seek to control the socioeconomic environment in which the
manipulation is conducted. Policies which are representative of redistribution policies
are guaranteed income, progressive income tax measures, social security, social welfare
policies such as Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), corporate
subsidization by federal and state governments, the discount rate controlled by the United
States Federal Reserve, deliberate deficits or surpluses caused by government fiscal
policy.258
In order to explain how policies are formulated in each of the policy arenas, Lowi
associated the pluralist and elite theory with two of the policy arenas and then developed
the plural-elite model to explain the third policy arena. Distributive or promotional
policies correspond in the Lowi typology with plural-elite theory. This arena is
dominated by policymaking that is individualistic, centered on the congressional
committee that has jurisdiction and oriented to the policy clientele. Regulatory policies
correspond with the pluralist model. In this arena policy development is group
dominated, with the groups representing an extensive and diverse constituency. Intensive
negotiation and bargaining are the dominant methods of conflict resolution. Decision-
making of this type stems from the variety of interests represented and the relative
influence of the group constituency. This arena is congress centered, decentralized to the
258
Politics vol. 16, no. 4 (July 1964) pp. 677-715.
88
bureaucratic level and structured around coalitions. The formation of alliances and
coalitions among the vested interests dominates negotiation and bargaining sessions.259
Redistribution policies correspond with the elite analysis of power. Policymaking
is dominated by elite class interests, or peak associations, ideologically motivated and
centered on the elite controlled power institutions, such as Mill's political, economic and
military elite. All of these arenas are supported by a fourth intergovernmental arena,
constituency policy.260 Constituency policy addresses both the power distribution inside
the administrative institutions and with the ongoing operation of the bureaucracy. The
development of the political institutions of society, from which domestic and foreign
power is exercised and creation of the public budget are examples of constituency
policies. A bureaucratic elite are the controlling factors of this arena; leadership being
predicated on the control the process through which policy is implemented.261
Prior to the contributions of Lowi, the field of policy studies did not have a
typology nor was there an association established between policy arenas and policy
models. Thus, this major contribution by Lowi changed the field of policy studies by
making it possible for the study of public policy to become more scientific.
259
Theodore J. Lowi, “The Public Philosophy: Interest-Group Liberalism,” American Political Science
Review (March 1967), vol. 61, pp. 5-24. “American Business, Public Policy, Case-Studies, and Political
Theory,” World Politics vol. 16, no. 4 (July 1964) pp. 677-715; "The Modernization of American
Federalism," Public Administration Review Vol. 3, No. 2 (Fall 1973)
260
Theodore J. Lowi, "Four Systems of Policy, Politics, and Choice," Public Administration Review
(July/August, 1972) pp. 290-310; Douglas D. Heckathorn, and Steven M. Maser, "The Contractual
Architecture of Public Policy: A Critical Rconstruction of Lowi's Typology," Journal of Politics Vol. 52,
No. 4 (November, 1990) pp. 1101-1123.
261
Aaron Wildavsky, The Politics of the Budgetary Process (Boston: Little, Brown, 1984); Samuel Beer,
"The Modernization of American Federalism," Public Administration Review Vol. 3, No. 2 (Fall 1973);
David Stockman, The Triumph of Politics (New York: Harper & Row, 1986); Theodore J. Lowi, "Four
Systems of Policy, Politics, and Choice," Public Administration Review (July/August, 1972) pp. 290-310.
89
These developments corresponded with other developments in community power studies,
which served to reinforce his findings. Namely, in the development of his typology and
association of each policy arena with a power arena model, Lowi argued that one model
could not best describe all policy areas.
In the community power studies researchers were discovering, using comparative
research based on large samples, that neither pluralism nor elite theory was the best
model in all cases. For example, smaller communities were found to be more often than
not elite controlled, while larger communities were generally more pluralistic.262 With this
finding, it was no longer a matter of determining which model provided the best
explanation of power distribution in all cases, but rather which model fit in a particular
case.263 The research generated showed that American power structures are complex and
that they vary considerably with regards to the distribution of power. The complexity of
that permeates political institutions was also found a characteristic of the nature and type
of groups attempting to influence government. The theory of the groups in the writings of
the pluralist and elitist scholars264 assumed that all group members were acting from
rational self-interest. Mancur Olson265 would challenge this underlying assumption and
contribute further to the development of plural-elite theory.
262
Michael D. Grimes, Charles M Bonjean, J. Larry Lyon, and Robert Lineberry. “Community Structure
and Leadership Arrangements.” American Sociological Review (1976) 4:706-725.
263
Larry Lyon, The Community in Urban Society (Lexington: D.C. Heath and Company, 1989)
264
Who Governs? (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1961); Jose Ortega y Gasset, The Revolt of the Masses
(New York: W.W. Norton and Company, Inc., 1960); Vilfredo Pareto, The Rise and Fall of the Elites: An
Application of Theoretical Sociology (Totowa, N.J.: Bedminster Press, 1968)
265
Mancur Olson, The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups (Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1971)
90
Olson's work drew upon the prior group theory research based in the pluralist and
the elite schools of thought. That groups were a natural part of society was accepted
within his framework; furthermore, the variation in group sizes presented as a truism. It
was at the level of motivation for group action that Olson differed with previous scholars.
Prior research asserted that out of rational self interest group members would be
motivated to action. Olson contended that for large groups this was not the case; in fact,
for large unorganized groups with a common cause unless there was some incentive apart
from the common interest or method of compulsion the large group would not act.266
On the other hand, Olson found that small groups were able to mobilize and act in
their own interest without incentives apart from the common interest or compulsion. In
addition, since the common interest once attained is available to all group members
regardless of the size of their contribution to group action, Olson's findings showed that
the member with the smaller contribution benefited disproportionately to his
contribution.267 The findings of Olson verified the work of Gaetano Mosca,268 with
reference to the organizational ability of large and small groups and added the 'free rider'
problem into the debate. Moreover, Olson provided further data to support the contention
that the masses were in fact controlled by an elite. By virtue of their population size, the
masses were under Mosca and Olson alike, facing an uphill battle in attempting to
organize to protect their interests. Olson further added that the problem of free-riders
would hamper their organizing campaigns. Any organizing which did occur would be the
266
Mancur Olson, The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups (Cambridge,
Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1971) p. 2.
267
Ibid., pp. 33-36.
268
91
result of small coterie of concerned members of the masses, who upon entering the arena
of interest group politics, faced the possibility of co-optation mention by Pareto.269
The importance of Olson' work to plural-elite theory is not sufficiently expounded
upon in the leading work on the model by Lowi.270 Lowi held that American public
philosophy had been transformed from the limited democratic government, laissez-faire
capitalist theories associated with the industrial revolution to interest group liberalism,
where distributive politics has achieved paramount status.271 As stated by Lowi, the
capture of American institutions by interest groups has prevented the institutions from
functioning in their intended manner. Congress is no longer a law making body but
instead it is a 'consensual' organization mediating the actions of competing interests.
Furthermore, Congress has delegated more and more of its authority to the
bureaucracy; this level of government, since the New Deal at least, has continuously
acquired more and more power. Where the old social welfare policy of the state was
centered in state administration, the new social welfare policy engages in a devolution of
power down to the local level agencies and to interest groups purportedly representing the
agencies constituents. Lowi argues that this arrange has the effect of co-opting some
leaders of social movements and creating division between social movement leaders, thus
negating the social movement. This arrangement also creates rival power centers, which
serve to undermine the existing municipal powers.272 The municipal governments face a
269
Vilfredo Pareto, The Rise and Fall of the Elites: An Application of Theoretical Sociology (Totowa, N.J.:
Bedminster Press, 1968)
270
Theodore J. Lowi, The End of Liberalism: The Second Republic of the United States (New York: W. W.
Norton & Company, 1979)
271
Andrew S. McFarland, "Interest Groups and Theories of Power in America," British Journal of Political
Science 17 (1987) pp. 129-147; Theodore J. Lowi, The End of Liberalism: The Second Republic of the
United States (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1979) pp. 3-63.
272
Science 17 (1987) pp. 134; Theodore J. Lowi, The End of Liberalism: The Second Republic of the United
92
dwindling tax base and the increasing numbers of the impoverished in the municipality.
For Lowi, interest group liberalism transforms the government power structure into a
series of disjointed rival political fiefdoms, unable to constructively bring the resources of
the municipality to bear on the urban problems. The Federal government is unable to
coherently address the problems of the city because, "..Federal policy became a matter of
indemnifying damages rather than righting wrongs."273
Andrew McFarland advances the proposition that Lowi's work is an excellent
starting point for plural-elite theory, despite some inherent theoretical weaknesses. In
particular, McFarland states that Lowi does not explain how policy arenas are captured by
interest groups.274 McFarland's contribution to plural-elite theory, however, is his culling
of the literature and development of propositions that are the center of the model. First,
McFarland proposes that individuals with common interests will not organize for they
will engage in cost/benefit analysis and determine that the investment of time, finances
and effort necessary to organize outweigh any perceived benefits.275 Plural-elite theorists
further state that organized interests concerned with public goods will face the problem of
members not participating in the acquisition of public goods. Since the good is
collective, if it is achieved they will benefit with or without their effort. McFarland states
States (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1979) pp. 167-236.

273
Norton & Company, 1979) p. 199.
274
Science 17 (1987) p. 131.
275
Science 17 (1987) p. 131; Mancur Olson, The Logic of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of
Groups (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1971)
93
this is a problem large groups ultimately face and for small groups should it arise it can
plague the groups very existence.276
McFarland further holds that Plural-Elite scholars contend that due to the low
level of costs faced by small groups in relation to the benefits, they are more generally
able to organize, than are large groups, thus, their interests will be better represented in
policy arenas when compared to large group interests. This leads to the small generally
gaining preeminence over large groups.277 Another position of plural-elite theorists is that
the large groups confuse symbolic with substantive political actions. This proposition
posits that the elite, using media resources, present the image of solving a common
problem of large groups, thereby, formulating public opinion which is favorable to elite
interests. The problem is not solved or policy is not being implemented but the public
thinks it is for commissions have been formed and hearings held. On the other hand,
small groups as rational political actors, do not confuse token gestures with material
results and consistently obstruct large group interests which are detrimental to their
own.278
Plural-elite theorist also hold that the elite will shape the debate on any given
issue so as to remove all aspects of the issue which refer to a common interests. By
molding the context of an issue to suit their interests the elite prevent serious
consideration of certain issues as public problems; instead, they are defined as private
276
277
278
Science 17 (1987) p. 132; Murray Edelman, The Symbolic Uses of Politics (Urbana, Ill.: University of
Illinois Press, 1964)
94
problems of groups with a negative social construction or as areas where American
political tradition has defined as outside of the proper concerns of government.279
The fragmentation of power in American government is another area where
plural-elite scholars have theorized. Here plural-elite writers maintain that large group
interests are best represented by the three branches of the federal government, and small
group interests are most influential in the federal bureaucracy and in local and state
government and bureaucracy. The dispersed nature of government power combined with
the small group organization helps them to triumph over large group interests.280 A
related issue is the expansion of the federal bureaucracy and the increase in federal
regulations.
By expanding the administrative level of government, Congress increased the
level of confusion for the constituency. The resulting befuddlement of taxpayer leads
them to their congressman for help in navigating the federal bureaucracy and increases
the stature of Congress with them once they receive help. The members of the
constituency who do seek to navigate are small group interests. This scenario then
according to plural-elite writers has since the 1970s created the Washington
establishment: Congressmen, federal bureaucrats and special interest groups.281 The
Congressmen, bureaucrats and special interest combine to form sub-governments.
Congressmen serving on specific committees in conjunction with bureaucrats charged

279
Science 17 (1987) p. 132; E. E. Schattschneider, The Semisovereign People (New York: Holt, Rinehart &
Winston, 1960)
280
Science 17 (1987) p. 132; Grant McConnell, Private Power and American Democracy (New York: Knopf,
1966)
281
Science 17 (1987) p. 131; Morris P. Fiorina, Congress: Keystone of the Washington Establishment (New
Haven: Yale University Press, 1977)
95
with administering policy and special interest groups work together to control the policy
to benefit certain small group interests.
Executive level departments outside of the sub-government, which act on behalf
of large group interests, are frequently in conflict with the sub-government.282 In effort to
combat the power of the Washington Establishment or sub-governments, reform
movements, manned by public interest group coalitions, struggle with the sub-
governments in the media and during congressional hearings. These efforts eventually
swing public opinion in favor of the reform movement and lead to legislation designed to
remedy the situation. However, once public interest in the issue subsides and new sub-
government is formed.283
Plural-elite scholars further hold that enacted laws are obscure in meaning. The
equivocacy of the laws allows special interest groups the chance to manipulate the
execution of the policy and enhance their own interests. Furthermore, the expansion of
government subsidies specifically for ensconced interests has increased their power. To
maintain their status these groups hinder any policy that seeks system change and they use
their resources to hamper the effectiveness of new interests. They are able to do this for
282
Science 17 (1987) p. 132; Theodore J. Lowi, The End of Liberalism: The Second Republic of the United
States (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1979); E. E. Schattschneider, The Semisovereign People
(New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1960); Grant McConnell, Private Power and American Democracy
(New York: Knopf, 1966); Morris P. Fiorina, Congress: Keystone of the Washington Establishment (New
Haven: Yale University Press, 1977)
283
Science 17 (1987) pp. 132; Theodore J. Lowi, The End of Liberalism: The Second Republic of the United
States (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1979); Grant McConnell, Private Power and American
Democracy (New York: Knopf, 1966); Marver Berstein, Regulating Business by Independent Commission
(Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1955)
96
though some policy areas subscribe to pluralist mechanisms, others are elite controlled
with no real countervailing power.284
In short, plural-elite writers view American politics as consisting of fragmented
power systems. Each policy area and power center has controlled by special interests,
generally small groups. The diversity of interests and decentralized nature of power
containing an ideology of interest group liberalism, effectively prevents the formation of a
true public interest and prevent large group interests from mobilizing. This entire system
is supported by an ideology called interest group liberalism. Interest group liberalism
posits that all members of society are aware of their concerns, are able to mobilize and
form political interest groups and can successfully maneuver through the political system
engaging policymakers at all required level and influencing them to the point that their
interests will be satiated.285
A systematic analysis of plural-elite theory shows that it incorporates a theory of
history, economics, collective behavior, social movements and social change. Like
conventional and radical pluralism, plural-elite theory assumes a progressive view and
history and a homeostatic view of social change. Social movements, as far as plural-elite
theory are concerned, do not result from large group organization for the cost of their
organizing outweighs the benefits; instead, social movement stem from organized small
interest that have a common concern in breaking a given policy arenas sub-government.
284
Science 17 (1987) pp. 132-133; Theodore J. Lowi, The End of Liberalism: The Second Republic of the
United States (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1979)
285
Science 17 (1987) p. 133; Theodore J. Lowi, The End of Liberalism: The Second Republic of the United
States (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1979)
97
The coalition of elite directed small groups manipulates large unorganized
groups through symbolic actions, and mobilizes them to carry out small group aims.
Thus, the theory of social movements inferred from plural-elite theory is resource
mobilization theory. Collect behavior is explained by plural-elite theory as resulting from
elite manipulation of mass behavior. Mass behavior is the actions of large unorganized
groups when not in physical proximity. Plural-elite theory states that the elite use
symbolic politics to mold public opinion to conform with elite interests.286
By contending that American politics is manipulated by a plurality of elite small
group interests at all levels of government, plural-elite scholars suggest that the system
operates as a democracy for the organized small interest. Democracy for a plurality of
elite dominated small interest groups extends into the economy, where a great deal of
government regulation, and subsidization of small groups takes place. The regulation is
designed to provide protection of elite small groups from the uncertainties of the market.
The establishment of government regulation has brought about an increase in
administrative agencies manned by bureaucrats. The rise in bureaucratic elite within
government is mirrored in the private corporations and other special interest groups that
are concerned with the protection of their members from the vagaries of the market.287
Thus, the market is administered by sub-governments creating a quasi-socialist
economic atmosphere. The atmosphere here is argued as being quasi-socialist for
although there is a plurality of elite dominated sub-governments engaging in market
administration, the common interest is not being met. The Executive branch agencies of
286
Murray Edelman, The Symbolic Uses of Politics (Urbana, Ill.: University of Illinois Press, 1964)
287
Norton & Company, 1979) pp. 22-41.
98
government me represent in a general fashion large group economic interest, but it does
so under the guise of adherence to laissez-faire individualist economic philosophy. A
philosophy which according to plural-elite scholars is not functioning due to substantial
government regulation of the market; the inability of large groups to organize and protect
their interests. Hence the economic theory that plural-elite theory subsumes is
democratic socialism. For democratic socialism emphasizes the interests of the laborer
by seeking to protect their economic rights and attempting to ensure an equitable
distribution of wealth, while maintaining an atmosphere of equal opportunity.
Dianne Pinderhughes in her works has found that the plural-elitist model provides
a better explanation of African-American politics than does pluralist theory. In a study of
ethnic politics in Chicago,288 Pinderhughes found that race confounded the application of
pluralist theory to African-American politics. The issue of race "…provokes deep
political and economic divisions, it is too broad and controversial a matter to be the
subject of meaningful trading, or bargaining."289 Thus, since the over ridden problem for
African-Americans is race, a point which is supported by African-American experience
over time, Pinderhughes states that pluralist theory is of no utility in explaining African-
American political participation. Pinderhughes concedes the descriptive possibilities of
pluralist theory for some aspects African-American politics in a study of the 1982
extension of the Voting Rights Act.290 However, returning to her previous stance, since
pluralist analysis does not consider racial stratification in the system its utility is limited
288
Dianne Pinderhughes, Race and Ethnicity in Chicago Politics: A Reexamination of Pluralist Theory
(Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1987)
289
Ibid., p. 261.
290
Dianne M. Pinderhughes. “Black Interest Groups and the 1982 Extension of the Voting Rights Act.” In
Huey L. Perry and Wayne Parent (eds.) Blacks and the American Political System. (Gainesville: University
of Florida Press, 1995)pp. 203-224
99
in explaining racial politics. Pinderhughes finds that plural-elite theory, in particular
Olson's theory of groups,291 was of some utility in explaining the participation of
heterogeneous and homogeneous African-American groups.
The study considered two heterogeneous groups-a small group, the Congress of
Racial Equality (CORE), a large group, National Association for the Advancement of
Colored People (NAACP). In addition, two homogeneous groups were analyzed: the
National Association of Black Social Workers (NABSW) and the National Medical
Association (NMA). Olson's contention that small homologous groups face low costs
and have clear policy goals held up in the analysis. Further, his proposition that large
heterogeneous groups' face increased difficulties also held up when tested against
African-American groups.292
Marxist Theory. Marxist class analysis is derived from the social theory of Karl
Marx. Marx designed his social theory with the intent of determining the origins and
development of capitalism, how capitalism had been able to sustain itself overtime and
what would be the inevitable outcome of capitalist society. The theory of class analysis
attempted to present a method that combined theory and action by which the capitalist
system could be transformed. Marx's ideas were influenced by the George Wilhelm
Friedrich Hegel,293 Ludwig Feuerbach294 and Friedrich Engels.295 The essence of Marx's
291
Dianne Pinderhughes. “Collective Goods and Black Interest Groups” The Review of Black Political
Economy. 12 (Winter, 1983) pp.219-236
292
Ibid., pp. 219-221; 232-233.
293
George W.F. Hegel, The Science of Logic (London: Allen & Unwin, 1969); George W.F. Hegel, The
Phenomenology of Mind (New York: Macmillan, 1961); George W.F. Hegel, The Encyclopedia of
Philosophy (New York: Philosophical Library, 1959); George W.F. Hegel, The Philosophy of Right
(Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1942)
294
Ludwig Feuerbach, The Essence of Christianity (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1957)
295
Friedrich Engels, The Condition of the Working Class in England (Stanford, Cali.: Stanford University
Press, 1968)
100
thought, which was founded upon ideas drawn from these scholars296 encompassed a
social theory, which was comprised of a theory of history, economics, collective
behavior, social movements and social change.
From Hegel Marx derived dialectical method. Where Hegel used the method to
analyze all phenomena as lacking in physical substance and being mere creations of the
mind, Marx used the method to analyze the physical structures of the social system. The
dialectical method explains Marx's conception of history. For Marx all societies exist to
produce what its members need; this production results from a differentiation of labor and
the social structures of the system under which it occurs molds the consciousness of the
members. Furthermore, the needs of society increase as well, since as certain needs are
satisfied new ones are created. Marx held that in all societies throughout history some
small group of elite has controlled the methods of production and as a result the large
group of the society. Change occurs as technology has been improved and a new small
group of elite with control of the new technology challenges the old elite. The result of
the ensuing struggle is a revolutionary struggle between the two, which brings about a
new order of elite.297
Feuerbach provided Marx with his materialist conception of society and with a
means of connecting theory and action. Hegel wrote that the state issued forth from the
spirit of man and inferred that since man was from God the state was divine. Marx took
Feuerbach's materialist conception of society, which stated that religion was the result of
296
The Dorsey Press, 1981) pp. 114-135.
297
Ibid., p. 142.
101
people worshipping what they felt was good abut themselves. Therefore, Marx
determined that since religion was not divine neither was the state and if religion was
nothing more than the creation of man so also was the state. Hence, the state a man made
structure could be changed by human effort.298
Engels presented Marx with an understanding of the industrial society of the day.
In Engels Marx learned that capitalist society creates distrust between its members by
way of its emphasis on competition. Even more, the capitalist focus on competition led
to ever increasing levels of labor differentiation. The social conditions that resulted from
the capitalist system were exemplified in factory system, which concentrated labor in the
worst sections of cities, lacking in basic human necessities. The factory system further
aid the concentration of private property and wealth into the hands of a small elite; who
constantly exploited the wage earners.299
Marx elaborated on the ideas of Engels by stating that individuals in capitalist
society are separated from their productive actions and the product of their actions for
they do not own any of the material resources of the society nor do they have any input in
the decisions on the use of the final product. Further, no cooperation between wager
earners is possible, for there is an in built mechanism in capitalism, which requires
competition. An over riding concern with their well being will leave laborers indifferent
to the needs of others. The resulting alienation in turn affects the mental health of the
individual, creates a constant state of confusion and leaves the individual ignorant of the
298
299
Ibid., p. 130
102
true nature of their situation or of the labor groups inherent power.300 All of this furthers
their own exploitation.
Marx further maintained that the current social structure of society was an
outgrowth of the European feudal past. Beginning with ancient societies and continuing
into his day Marx determined that all societies had been constantly beset by class
struggle. Marx's means of determining class is predicated on the members of societies
relation to the production process. The bourgeoisie or owners of the means of
production-property, finance, equipment-are concerned with increasing economies of
scale, increased profits and the maintenance of low cost factors of production; whereas,
the proletariat, i.e., laborer has an overriding concern higher wages, at the least wages that
rise with inflation, compensation for injury, a work environment that is conducive to his
physical and mental well being, a finite work day and reasonable job security. These
incompatible interests are at the core of the class struggle.301
Marx theorized that the conditions described by Engels would be changed when
the labor class became conscious of its predicament. They would struggle to end the
historical tension that they existed within. The constant concentration of the labor class
in city slums would aid in their communication with one another and in their organizing
to change their situation. Rather than change being the result of opposing elite in control
of old and new methods of production, a revolutionary mass group directed social
movement would oppose the class of property owners. A further help would be the
increasing levels of education of the working class; the differentiation of labor required a
300
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto (New York: W. W. North & Company,
1988)
301
Bertrell Ollman, “What is Marxism? A Bird’s Eye View,” in Monthly Review (New York, April, 1981)
103
more educated workforce than had the agricultural country side in Marx's view. The
increase in education would lead to their becoming politically astute, and attempting to
improve their urban life.302
The two opposing groups the small elite group of capitalists and the masses would
employ their resources to achieve their desired ends. The laborers have the resources of
group size, potential political, trade and labor organizations. The capitalist resources
include their wealth, manipulation of the process of socialization through control of
social institutions, and their administration of the coercive power of the state. The elite
will use the state to suppress any dissent originating from the masses and or their elite
supporters that goes beyond symbolic social reform and attempts to initiate substantial
socioeconomic restructuring through revolution.
Furthermore, the state is the primary means that the elite has to protect their
property rights and control of the means of production. For Marx the conflict between
the elite propertied class and the labor class would cumulate in the mass seizure of the
apparatus of government, institution of a dictatorship of the worker, the abolishing of
private property and the institution of progressive taxation policies among other
reforms.303 Marx then surmises that eventually a socialist dictatorship of the working class
will develop into pure communist economic organization, where the state and all class
divisions are dissolved. The wants and needs of society are provided for each according
as he has need. An idea that is older than the formulations of Marx.304

302
303
Ibid., pp. 150-151.
304
Jean-Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract, (New York: Penguin Books, 1968); George Rude,
Robespierre, (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1967); Bertell Ollman, “What is Marxism? A
Bird’s Eye View,” in Monthly Review (New York, April, 1981); Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The
Communist Manifesto (New York: W. W. North & Company, 1988)
104
From the writing's of Marx,305 a number of economically centered propositions
can be drawn concerning the distribution of power in society. First, the degree of
technological innovation for the manipulation of environmental resources and the level
productivity of a society work in a converse manner. An increase in one inevitably leads
to an increase in the other. Next, an increase in levels of productivity increases the degree
of labor differentiation, which in turn increases productivity. In addition, increases in
productivity and labor differentiation lead to substantial population growth, which
subsequently increases the later. Furthermore, as population continues to increase the
degree of labor differentiation increases, society is more sharply divided between the
owners of production and the labor class, and power is concentrated in the hands of the
capital owning elite. In turn, the elite will use socialization institutions to control the
masses.306
A sixth proposition is that the elite propertied class and the mass labor class
interests will clash as a direct result of the concentration of social wealth in the propertied
class. The propertied class will exacerbate the unequal distribution of social wealth by
following measure to amass greater control of social resources and limiting the social
mobility of the labor class. As the propertied class engages in these policy initiatives,
they will further disrupt the well being of the labor class, who will gradually become
305
Karl Marx, A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy (New York: International Publishers,
1972); Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The German Ideology (New York: International Publishers, 1947);
Karl Marx, The Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844 (New York: International Publishers,
1964); Bertell Ollman, Alienation: Marx's Concept of Man in Capitalist Society (New York: Oxford
University Press, 1976); Bertell Ollman, “What is Marxism? A Bird’s Eye View,” in Monthly Review (New
York, April, 1981); Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto (New York: W. W. North
& Company, 1988)
306
105
aware of the nature of the problem they face. The disruption will be in the form of further
technological advancements which make labor class skills obsolete. This will cause the
labor class to begin to identify collective class interests.
The eighth proposition is that the urbanization of the labor class will increase their
access to education and communal associations. Depending on the degree of elite
control, these will aid in their developing a class consciousness, through the creation of a
class ideology and development of leaders. The ninth proposition holds that the presence
of a leadership within the labor class coupled the degree of antagonism with the ruling
class determines the level of violence in the class struggle. Finally, the degree of resource
redistribution and social restructuring is based on the intensity of the violence of the
conflict.307
Marx's class analysis theory is centered on an historical materialist philosophy.
All of the incidents of history have been determined by economic relations. The theory of
social change for Marx is based on the dialectic of change focused on the modes of
production. Social change is inherent in the history of society, which is a progression
from primitive social organization to communist organization. Thus, Marx provides and
explanation to Lewis H. Morgan's308 typology of the evolution of society. Where Morgan
stated that society progressed from lower status of savagery to a middle and upper status,
and from there to lower, middle and upper status of barbarism and finally to
civilization,309 Marx's class analysis theory explains the transition in an economic

307
308
Lewis H. Morgan, Ancient Society, or Researches in the Lines of Human Progress from Savagery
through Barbarism to Civilization (Chicago: H. Kerr, 1877)
309
Richard P. Appelbaum, Theories of Social Change (Chicago: Rand McNally College Publishing
Company, 1970) pp. 25-27.
106
determinist fashion and adds a hypothesized end to the evolutionary phenomenon: elite
capitalist industrial society transitions to socialist labor dictatorship and finally to
stateless communism.
William K. Tabb, a researcher using Marxist class analysis theory to explain
African-American political participation, found that Marxist theory provides a useful tool
for analyzing African-American political participation. Tabb writing from the Marxist
perspective determined that two aspects of Marxist theory shed light on African-
American political participation.310 The first point is that African-Americans are a
domestic colony, whose political and economic institutions are circumscribed appendages
of the larger community. In this respect, the African-American community resembles the
former colonies of western countries. Secondly, African-Americans are a surplus
unskilled labor class at the periphery of society and the white working class, totally
lacking in control of the modes of production. Tabb concludes that the sociopolitical
powerlessness of the African-American community is determined by their status as a
marginal surplus labor class.311
Robert L. Allen found African-American political participation to by a by-product
of economic exploitation.312 The capitalist system by marginalizing African-American
labor and encouraging the development of capitalism in urban African-American
communities was creating a ruling elite that would engage in established conventional
310
William K. Tabb, "Capitalism, Colonialism, and Racism," Review of Radical Political Economics
(Summer, 1971) pp. 90-105; William K. Tabb, The Political Economy of the Black Ghetto (New York:
W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1970) pp. 35-59.
311
(Summer, 1971) pp. 90-105.
312
Robert L. Allen, Black Awakening in Capitalist America (New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc.,
1969) pp. 275-284.
107
politics and protect the dominant class interests of elite white Americans. Allen's analysis
determined a need for African-American control of community institutions, the
establishment of an African-American based political party. The political party would
use conventional, direct action and violent political strategies when dealing with the
larger society and establish alliances with militant white organizations and with
developing countries.313
Doug McAdam's political process model314 is Marxist oriented and explains
African-American political participation as the outcome of changes in the power
distribution between the elite and the mass based group, group perspectives on the
probability of success and group organizational abilities. The model combines classical
pluralist emphasis on the psychological state of the group members with the elite oriented
resource mobilization focus on group resource potential. According to McAdam, these
factors are central to the motivation, shaping and degree of effectiveness of political
participation.315 McAdams found neither the pluralist oriented model nor the elite
oriented model accounted for African-American political participation. The Marxist
oriented political process model effectively explained African-American political
participation, by addressing the changes in African-American group cognitive
psychology; transformations in the power relationship of the African-American
community and the white society and the increase in organizational resources and ability
of the African-American community.316

313
Robert L. Allen, Black Awakening in Capitalist America (New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc.,
1969) pp. 280-284.
314
University of Chicago Press, 1999) pp. 36-59.
315
Ibid., pp. 58-59.
316
Ibid., pp. 230-234.
108
Huey P. Newton's dissertation research determined Marxist theory of utility in
explaining African-American political participation.317 Newton found that African-
American mass political participation was circumscribed by class oriented elite,
concerned with perpetuating the status quo. Mass focused political participation, which
challenged or sought to restructure the socioeconomic structure led to state sponsored
repression, according to the findings of Newton's analysis. Conventional politics were
acceptable means of participation providing the participant had assimilated dominant
class interests. Newton concluded that only continued mass pressure in the Marxist
perspective would lead to mass centered social change.318
Though not explicitly a Marxist interpretation Edward S. Greenburg's research
finds that neither elite theory nor pluralist theory with their emphasis of conventional
political participation are of utility in explaining African-American political
participation.319 According to Greenburg, elite theory posits a political system that is elite
oriented and places mass politics at a middle level ineffectual location. Any African-
American political participation is pointless.320 The pluralist model falls short with its
emphasis on resources which African-Americans lack, and bargaining which suggests
that a group has goods of exchange value to the other party. Further, the multi-layered
power structure provides access not just to African-Americans with grievances but to
white oppositional forces as well and the incremental nature of change is antithetical to
317
Huey P. Newton, War Against the Panthers: A Study of Repression in America (New York: Harlem
River Press, 1996)
318
Ibid., pp. 3-25.
319
Edward S. Greenberg, Neal Milner, and David J. Olson, Black Politics: The Inevitability of Conflict
(New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc., 1971) pp. 3-15.
320
Ibid., pp.5-8.
109
African-American needs. Greenburg concludes that emphasis must be on the social
restructuring to deal with unequal power distributions and institutional racism and on
unconventional politics.321 These conclusions coincide with certain Marxist positions on
reordering the social structure.
Protest Theory. The analysis of the previous models presented one major
conceptual concern, which led to the creation of the protest model. Elite, plural-elite, and
pluralist theory marginalizes African-American protest, where as Marxist class analysis
sees it as a major resource for social restructuring under Marxist guidance. Elite and
plural-elite theory explains African-American protest as the actions of the base elements
of society, which must be guided by a counter-elite. Pluralist theory explains African-
American protest as pathological activities of an irrational component of the political
system or as an ineffectual resource in the hands of a powerless group. Marxist class
analysis account for African-American protest by stating that it results from economic
exploitation and alienation by an economic elite. Marxist class analysis further disregards
the influence of non-economic racial segregation and presents protest as guided by a class
oriented mass based labor elite. In each theory, protest is a strategy-one among many
resources-used within a larger system and nothing more. Even more so, it is considered
by Elite, pluralist and elitist theorists as an ineffective method in the hands of the poor,
chosen out of social frustration and moral bankruptcy. Marxists view it as a central
resource only when utilized by a Marxist class consciousness and guided by a Marxist
elite.The protest model, however, describes the political system and explicates African-
321
110
American protest within the sociohistorical context of the African-American political
experience in the United States.
Generally, scholars have considered protest politics outside of the purview of
legitimate or conventional political participation.322 Nevertheless, protest has an extensive
history in the political philosophy of the American nation. The social contract theorist,
John Locke determined that the right to protest government actions and dissolve the
system by revolution were inherent rights of the citizens of political community. For
Locke government existed to protect the property of the governed and people formed
governments freely to accomplish this purpose.323 Man was naturally free and as such
retained the right dissolve the government, if the government extended its authority
beyond maintaining the collective welfare of the society.324 The causes that justified so
drastic an action were the enactment and enforcement of laws by persons not authorized
by the citizens to do so, or when the government assumes the absolute power to unjustly
determine the right of the citizen to life, freedom and economic prosperity. Locke
considered that the government by acting in such a manner had rebelled against the
people and was guilty of treason, whereas the people were acting justly in their own
defense, by reacting to the rebellion.325
322
Sidney Verba and Norman H. Nie, Participation in America: Political Democracy and Social Equality
(New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1972) pp. 3; M. Margaret Conway, Political Participation in the
United States (Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Inc., 1991) pp.167-169.
323
John Locke, Two Treatises of Government (London: Orion Publishing Group, 1993) p. 178.
324
Ibid., p. 180.
325
Ibid., pp. 222-233.
111
Early Americans, such as Thomas Paine and Thomas Jefferson held supportive
views of protest. For Paine government was a necessary evil,326 while Jefferson agreeing
with Locke on the right of people to sever their association with unjust government, also
wrote that "…what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from
time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? The tree of liberty must be
refreshed from time to time with the blood of Patriots an tyrants. It is the natural
manure."327 Furthermore, the United States was born out of protracted political protest
and armed revolution. It was this tradition of protest, which guided Ralph Waldo
Emmerson in the writing of his essays328 and Henry David Thoreau's view of the necessity
of civil disobedience.329 The writings of Locke, Paine, and Jefferson were written with an
eye to the general exclusion of African-Americans. However,
where African-Americans are concerned the utility of protest is indeed older than the
United States and maintains an equally illustrious philosophical underpinning.330 Indeed,
it can be said that "…the history of the black man's protest against enslavement,
subordination, cruelty, inhumanity began with his seizure in African ports and has not yet
ended."331
326
Martin van Creveld, The Encyclopedia of Revolutions and Revolutionaries From Anarchism to Zhou
Enlai (Jerusalem, Israel: Jerusalem Publishing House, Ltd., 1996) p. 323
327
Alvin Z. Rubinstein and Garold W. Thumm, The Challenge of Politics (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice
Hall, Inc., 1965) p. 285.
328
Brooks Atkinson, The Complete Essays and Other Writings of Ralph Waldo Emerson (New York:
Random House, Inc., 1950)
329
Henry David Thoreau, Walden and Civil Disobedience (New York: Penguin Books, 1986)
330
Jerome H. Skolnick, The Politics of Protest (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1969) "Black men in
America have always engaged in militant action. The first permanent black settlers in the American
mainland, brought by the Spanish…in 1526, rose up during the same year, killed a number of whites, and
fled to the Indians. Since that time… militant blacks have experimented with a wide variety of tactics,
ideologies, and goals." p. 128.
331
Joanne Grant, Black Protest: History, Documents, and Analyses 1619 to the Present (Greenwich, Conn.:
Fawcett Publications, Inc., 1974) p. 7.
112
Where pluralist, elite, plural-elite are group centered theories and Marxist class
analysis centers on social class, protest theory is firmly based in mass politics. By being
mass based protest theory is grass roots or people oriented. Mass politics consists of that
part of society, generally the majority, engaging in political activities, which are held to
be outside of acceptable political etiquette. Acceptable political actions are contacting
elected officials, voting, financial contributions to political campaigns, and lobbying.
Unacceptable political actions include all manner of civil disobedience, boycotts,
marches, violence and revolutions, or any activity designed to upset the operation of the
normal political order. Explanations of why protest is engaged in by the mass population
include mass alienation from the political system or a cognitive dissonance between
personal expectations and political reality.332
Protest scholarship has generally focused on African-American politics.333 A
leading work in the subject area is that of Jerome H. Skolnick.334 In studying mass
protest, Skolnick determined that not only must it be contextualized within the larger
332
M. Margaret Conway, Political Participation in the United States (Washington, D.C.: Congressional
Quarterly Inc., 1991) pp. 63-64.
333
Jerome H. Skolnick, The Politics of Protest (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1969); Joanne Grant, Black
Protest: History, Documents, and Analyses 1619 to the Present (Greenwich, Conn.: Fawcett Publications,
Inc., 1974); David O. Sears and John B. McConahay, The Politics of Violence: The New Urban Politics
and the Watts Riots (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1973); Edward S. Greenberg, Neal Milner, and David J.
Olson, Black Politics: The Inevitability of Conflict (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc., 1971);
Huey P. Newton, War Against the Panthers: A Study of Repression in America (New York: Harlem River
Press, 1996); Doug McAdam, Political Process and the Development of Black Insurgency, 1930-1970
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999); Richard C. Fording, "The Political Response to Black
Insurgency: A Critical Test of Competing Theories of the State," American Political Science Review
(March 2001); Richard C. Fording, "The Conditional Effect of Violence as a Political Tactic: Mass
Isurgency, Electoral Context and Welfare Generosity in the American States," American Journal of Political
Science (January, 1997) 41:1-29; James W. Button, Black Violence: The Political Impact of the 1960s
Riots (Princeton University Press, 1978); William A. Gamson, The Strategy of Protest (Homewood, Il.:
Dorsey, 1975); Michael Lipsky, Protest in City Politics (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1970); National Advisory
Commission on Civil Disorders, Report of the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders (New
York: Bantam Books, 1968); Michael Lipsky, "Protest as a Political Resource," American Political Science
Review (December, 1968) 62: 1157-1158.
334
Jerome H. Skolnick, The Politics of Protest (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1969)
113
parameters of the structure of American political institutions, but also in its political
characteristics. The reason for this is that African-American use of protest stems from
systemic defects in the socioeconomic and sociopolitical structure of American society,
and the leading impetus is institutional response to African-American demands.335
Without understanding the context of protest, imprecise analysis is the result.
Skolnick noted five reasons for the importance of considering context. The first
consists of elite control of media institutions. By controlling media, political elite
determine what actions are considered violent and they present all protest with inferences
of violence. Violent enters here for Skolnick explains that the media generally labels all
protest directed toward the status quo with violence laden language. In reality protest
includes: "…verbal criticism; written criticism; petitions; picketing; marches; nonviolent
confrontation, e.g., obstruction; nonviolent lawbreaking, e.g., sitting-in; obscene
language; rock-throwing; milling; wild running; looting; burning; guerilla warfare;"336 is
are mainly nonviolent and always begin peacefully with the outcome determined by
institutional response.
The second reason is that elite definitions of violence direct attention to the idea
that social order has broken down, but social order, i.e., law and order are politically
defined terms as well. Skolnick states that although the elite present society with the idea
that violent protest is destroying order and this is the worst of all conceivable situations,
destined to take the lives of the innocent in large numbers, the truth is that armed military
intervention and the economic violence caused by economic structures which perpetuate
inequality cost countless more lives and are accepted as apart of the normal order.337
335
Jerome H. Skolnick, The Politics of Protest (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1969) p. 4.
336
Ibid., p. 5.
337
Ibid., p. 5.
114
Next, violence is not always considered inhuman in the United States. Violence
carried out be institutional authorities against populations with a negative social
construction is accepted as legitimate. Also, the implementation of violent measures by
state institutions is a policy made in a highly charged political atmosphere. Skolnick
holds that ethical issues about the use of violence by the state are subordinated to
methodological issues on the effective use and means of delivery of violence. The fifth
point is that what elite called violence and view as negative is seen from the perspective
of the mass protest participant as political action designed to change power
distributions.338
Protest theory divides protest into violent political participation-revolutionary
oriented violence-and nonviolent civil disobedience. Nonviolent civil disobedience
encompasses the mass based strategies of boycotts, demonstrations, strikes, initiative
petition, sit-ins, passive resistance to unjust laws, the dissemination of passively critical
written or verbal political communications and marches. Violent political participation
consists of the dissemination of inflammatory written or verbal political communications,
riots, sabotage, guerilla warfare, state terrorism (use of violent methods to repress dissent,
the perpetuation of sociopolitical and economic structures which perpetuate poverty and
its concomitant problem of social dislocation), anti-state terrorism (domestic,
transnational, national-separatist and ideological) open revolution, and war.339 Also,
338
Jerome H. Skolnick, The Politics of Protest (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1969) p. 7.
339
Jerome H. Skolnick, The Politics of Protest (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1969) p. 5; Richard
Clutterbuck, Protest and the Urban Guerrilla (New York: Abelard-Shuman, 1974); Charles W. Kegley Jr.,
"Characteristics, Causes, and Controls of International Terrorism: An Introduction," in Charles W. Kegley
Jr., ed. International Terrorism: Characteristics, Causes Controls (New York: St. Martins Press, 1990) p. 5;
Fatima Meer, Higher Than Hope: The Authorized Biography of Nelson Mandela (New York: Harper
Perennial, 1990) p. 242.
115
protest theory explains riots, a prevalent form of violent protest, as resulting from mass
disaffection with the political order resulting from lack of socioeconomic and political
opportunities that allow for the development of a sustainable livelihood. Rioting and the
looting that follow simultaneously or in its wake are political acts as they are mass
aggression upon the primary institution of any economic system-elite property rights.340
The protest model holds that power is unevenly distributed between a white elite
and the African-American masses and that the nature of the power distribution is defined
by "…the expansion of white….politics, commerce, and culture over several hundred
years."341 Additionally, protest theory explains political participation as comprising four
methods: system preservationist methods, system deconstructionist methods, system
reconstructionist methods and system constructionist methods.342
System preservationist methods of political participation consist of those forms of
conventional politics designed to perpetuate the existing political system. They include
voting, campaign activity, particularized contacting, and community activity.343 The
system deconstructionist methods of political participation includes those activities
designed to evaluate the political system and designate system defects and to develop
mass consciousness. The methods incorporate written political communications issued
340
Robert Fogelson, Violence As Protest: A Study of Riots and Ghettos (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday &
Company, Inc., 1971) pp. 79-82; James N. Upton, A Social History of 20th Century Urban Riots (Bristol,
In.: Wyndham Hall Press, 1984) p. 39
341
Leon Friedman, Violence in America The Politics of Protest Violent Aspects of Protest and
Confrontation (New York: Chelsea House Publishers, 1983) Vol. IV, p. 105.
342
The deconstructionist, reconstructionist and constructionist methods are adapted from W. Curtis Banks
explanation of the development of Black Psychology. W. Curtis Banks, "Deconstruction falsification:
Foundations of a critical method in Black Psychology," in Enrico Jones and Sheldon Korchin (eds.)
Minority Mental Health (New York: Praeger Press, 1982) See also, Na'im Akbar, Know Thy Self
(Tallahasse, Fl.: Mind Productions & Associates, 1999) pp. 55-65.
343
Sidney Verba and Norman H. Nie, Participation in America: Political Democracy and Social Equality
(New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1972)
116
through electronic and paper sources, such as scholarly writings, editorials, opinion
pieces and other works of system iconoclasts and verbal political communications
including speeches, electronic media interviews and presentations.
Next, system reconstructionist methods are utilized. These are nonviolent civil
disobedience and violent methods of political participation, which rest on mass
mobilization of resources, and intends to rectify the system defects and restructure the
system so that socioeconomic and political egalitarian principles may be practically
instituted. The last method is system constructionist forms of political participation,
which intends to counter the counteractive forces, which arise to prevent system
reconstruction and to protect and extend the human, social, civil and political rights
garnered, while remaining oriented to towards the perpetuation of the collective welfare.
System constructionist methods incorporate all of the forms of political participation
listed in the previous three methods.
Since protest is a technique employed by a the masses with intention of rectifying
a perceived wrong, the protest model considers social change as the normal aspect of a
dynamic social system, which is constantly adjusting to the inherent tensions and strains
in complex, technologically developed multicultural societies. Because societies have a
high degree of diversity and technological intricacy, social movements are explained by
protest theory as resulting from the socioeconomic and political uncertainty faced by the
masses as a result of the uneven distribution of power. The protest model infers a system
of economics that adequately satisfies the economic concerns of a mass society, no matter
where capitalist or socialist or a mixture. Protest theory encompasses a theory of history,
which is centered on the constant struggle of mass and elite groups on society to establish
either a democratic egalitarian society or an oligarchy.
117
The research on the utility of the protest model for explaining African-American
political participation has generally arrived at the conclusion that mass political violence
yields some positive benefits for African-Americans. David J. Olson344 found that
African-American use of conventional political methods yielded prolonged enslavement,
Jim Crow segregation, lynching, psychological terrorism, economic exploitation and
political disenfranchisement. The utilization of political violence by the masses cut across
socioeconomic class lines and served as a catalyst for minor reforms
Olson's analysis of the work of H. L. Nieburg,345 Lewis Coser346 and Rahl Dahrendorf347
suggested that the use of political violence results in some positive rewards. The rewards
were not a restructuring of the social system but rather political modification and the
presentation of symbolic rewards.
Frances Fox Piven and Richard A. Cloward348 in a classic study of mass social
movements determined that mass insurgency led to positive social welfare policy
developments, while Larry Isaac and William R. Kelly's349 study resulted in findings that
mass political insurgency netted positive policy rewards for postwar American social
344
345
H.L. Nieburg, "Violence, Law and the Social Process," in Louis H. Masotti and Don R Bowen, Riots and
Rebellion: Civil Violence in the Urban Community (Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications, 1968) pp. 379-
387; H. L. Nieburg, "The Threat of Violence and Social Change," American Political Science Review
(December, 1962).
346
Lewis A. Coser, Continuties in the Study of Social Conflict (New York: Free Press, 1967)
347
Ralf Dahrendorf, Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University
Press, 1959)
348
Frances Fox Piven and Richard A. Cloward, Poor People's Movements: Why they Succeed, How They
Fail (New York: Vintage, 1971)
349
Larry Isaac and William R. Kelly, "Racial Insurgency, the State, and Welfare Expansion: Local and
National Level Evidence from the Postwar United States," American Journal of Sociology 86 (May) pp.
1348-1386.
118
movements. The research of Richard C. Fording350 reached the conclusion that
unconventional political participation by Africa-Americans resulted in positive outcomes
in social welfare policy. Fording compared the efficacy of the social control model and
the pluralist model of the state in explaining state reactions to African-American mass
political activities. Fording described pluralist theory by stating that the model explained
mass political protest as leading to access for movement members to policymakers which
results in the beginning of bargaining and negotiation. The social control theory holds
that the state responds to mass political protest by granting the protest demands in order
to maintain future system stability, repression or a synthesis of the two. His findings
determined that the social control model best explained the reaction of the state.351
350
Richard C. Fording, "The Political Response to Black Insurgency: A Critical Test of Competing Theories
of the State," American Political Science Review (March, 2001) pp. 1-26.
351
Ibid., pp. 16-18.
119
CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
The intent of this chapter is to delineate and discuss the quantitative and
qualitative methodology utilized in the determination of the efficacy of pluralist, plural-
elite, elite, Marxist class analysis and protest theory in explaining the politics of the
extent of African-American political participation in the enactment of national civil and
social rights policymaking in the United States from 1940 to 2000.
The Purpose of the Study
As mentioned previously, although several studies have been conducted which
have analyzed African-American politics qualitatively and quantitatively, those studies
have either focused on electoral politics and compared African-American political
participation to white political participation or have applied one or two of the models of
power distribution to a study of African-American political participation as a
marginalized aspect of the American electorate. To date most studies have argued either
that at best the models are of limited value in explaining African-American political
participation, or as in the case of the dominant pluralist perspective of no utility in
explaining African-American politics.
Recent research has suggested that a lack of interdisciplinary integration of
research findings combined with overemphasis on local community political participation
of African-Americans has maintained the theoretical impasse with regards to the models.
This dissertation intended to build on this line of inquiry by focusing on African-
American participation in national policymaking and conducting a rigorous systematic
analysis of the utility of the five models, something which to date has not been done; and
120
thereby, contribute substantively, methodologically and theoretically. The substantive
contribution was the addition to the research, which investigated African-American
political participation in the enactment of legislation designed to alleviate inequalities and
disadvantages faced by the African-American community. The methodological
contribution was the addition to the literature on mixed methodological approaches by
integrating sociohistorical interpretive policy analysis with time series analysis, in
inquiring into the convergence of African-American political participation and protest
politics and national civil and social rights policymaking. Theoretically, this study
contributed to the literature on the application of theoretical models to African-American
national politics by comparing the utility of five competing models.
Design
The purpose of this work was accomplished using a mixed methodological
design. The mixed methodological design encompassed a sociohistiorical interpretive
policy analysis and time series investigation of African-American political participation
in the enactment of civil and social rights policies from 1940 to 2000. First, a
sociohistorical interpretive analysis of African-American political participation in the
enactment of civil and social rights policies from the perspective of pluralist, plural-elite,
elite, Marxist class analysis and protest theory was performed. The data for the
sociohistorical interpretive analysis was federal and civil rights social policies from 1940
to 2000, congressional hearing testimonies, relevant scholarly studies, media reports and
articles, speeches, oral history documents and Supreme Court case laws.
Furthermore, in an effort to quantify the models and test their significance as an
explanation of the enactment of the civil and social rights policies, a time series analysis
was conducted. The dependent variable was the civil and social rights policies enacted
121
from 1940 to 2000, which included congressional legislation, presidential executive
orders, and Supreme Court decisions. The independent variables included the percentage
of African-Americans in eligible voter population, the percentage of African-Americans
in total population of registered voters and the number of African- American
congressmen.
Other independent variables were the number of violent and non-violent protests,
the percentage of Democrats and Republicans in the United States House of
Representatives and in the United States Senate, and the percentage of former colonies in
Africa and Asia attaining independence. The range of independent variables allowed for
the testing of whether the models, and their emphasis on conventional political
participation, has more effect than the unconventional political participation such as acts
of rioting, direct action techniques and United States foreign policy interests on the
enactment of civil and social rights.
The methodology herein employed runs counter to accepted practices used in the
policy sciences. Generally, studies show a strong bias in favor of quantitative methods in
order to meet empiricist notions of what may be considered scientific knowledge. The
contemporary predominance of the quantitative perspective of knowing, to the point
where quantitative analysis is used interchangeably with the western idea of the scientific
method, is an outgrowth of the positivist philosophical schools preeminence in the
western intellectual tradition. The beginnings of the positivistic hegemony in the
development of western learning are to be found, according to Auguste Comte, in the
1800s.352 During this time western man was moving from the metaphysical stage of
352
George Ritzer, Sociological Theory. (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1988) p. 14.
122
knowing, whereby the ultimate meaning of existence was to be found in a creative force,
nature or absolute God force to what Comte calls the positivistic stage.
At this point in western mans intellectual development man moves to a rational
observation of the world in which he exists. The scientific method which emphasizes
observations, hypothesis formulation, relevant data collection, hypothesis testing and the
drawing of conclusions from the findings is the methodology that western man employs
in an effort to know the world in which he lives in both its physical and social
manifestations. However, this manner of knowing is descriptive in nature and merely one
half of the process of knowing. Hence, a contemporary re-analysis of the assumptions of
the positivist school is required. In particular a reappraisal of the perspective concerning
man’s ability to formulate a rationally based objective science, complete with “…
standards, canons, or methods definitive of scientific or rational thinking.”353 Even so,
the contemporary predominance of the positivist based quantitative method has led to the
situation where scientific inquiry is placed in a position where it is monopolized by a
distinct cultural orientation, i.e., the western cultural paradigm.
Furthermore, under the hegemony of quantitative analysis, interpretive methods,
though an integral part of the process of knowing are referred to as aberrations along the
path of knowledge.354 The interpretive method is held as being outside of the pale of or
insufficient to the purposes of scientific inquiry, contrary to acceptable scientific norms
and values. By limiting scientific inquiry to positivistic methods composed primarily of
statistical tools and techniques' one is limited in the ability to deal systematically with the
353
Donald W. Fiske and Richard Swerder eds. Metatheory in Social Science: Pluralisms and Subjectivies.
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986) pp.17 quoted in Ritzer, Sociological Theory p. 16.
354
Dvora Yanow, “Interpretive, Qualitative, and Quantitative”, PS December (2001) p. 770.
123
subject under study. This has a negative effect in the social sciences where the central
subject under investigation is generally the focal point of society-humanity and human
institutional interaction.
Allowing for an over-reliance on positivist traditions and relegating the social
world to mere empiricism only leads to the neglecting or under-emphasizing of the
human element complete with all of the human uncertainty. The scientific method is a
system of knowing and quantitative analysis with its emphasis on empiricism and its
roots in the positivist philosophical tradition is only one half of the equation of knowing
with statistical analysis being mere tools and not the ends in and of themselves. The
other component is the interpretive method of analysis.
The interpretive approach to the study of public policy emphasizes the social,
cultural and historical contexts in which the public policy occurs. According to this
method, in order to explain the enactment of civil and social rights policies, the settings in
which they are developed is analyzed as well as the effects of cultural, gender and group
identity. This perspective also allows for the understanding of the policies as they exist
today by considering the historical roots of the events that caused their enactment. The
focus is placed on human actors and how they affect the social institutions that are used to
give rise to the policies. This emphasis tends to run counter to current positivist trends
which “tends to reify the social world and see it as a natural process.”355
355
George Ritzer. Sociological Theory. (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1988) p. 249. This study will hold
that the interpretive method like critical theory will “focus on human activity as well as on the ways in
which such activity affects larger social structures.” For, “…positivism loses sight of the actors reducing
them to passive entities determined by natural forces….Positivism is content to judge the adequacy of
means toward given ends,” it is, “…inherently conservative, incapable of challenging the existing system…
Positivism leads the actor and the social scientist to passivity.” p. 249 Jurgen Habermas, Knowledge and
Human Interests. (Boston: Beacon Press, 1971); Martin Jay, The Dialectical Imagination. (Boston: Little,
Brown, 1973)
124
A presumption of interpretive methodology is that the diversity of human agencies in the
society lead to a variegation of meanings in understanding the complexity of social
situations. Thus, no matter what the information or data under investigation it will
always be subject to disagreements as to meaning. Although scientific rigor is
achievable, the idea of a valueless, non-prescriptive research is not.356 Furthermore,
interpretive methods maintain that all knowledge acquisition is obtained by human
comprehension, which entails personal sense-making or subjective understanding. The
researchers socioeconomic, political and cultural experiences impact the researchers
assimilation of new knowledge. In addition, this holds true for all policy relevant actors.
The philosophical antecedents for interpretive methods both the
phenomenological and hermeneutic schools of thought account for this research
orientation.357 Consequently, interpretive methods to explain policy consider "…what
specific policies mean…. also how they mean-through what processes policy meanings
are communicated and who their intended audiences are, as well as what context-specific
meanings these and other readers make of policy artifacts."358 Interpretive methods,
further presents a method of analysis which is not biased in favor of elite conceptions of
policy. Elite bias method of analysis in politics is represented by emphasis on the
policymakers, elite reputation or position in society, elite roles, and configuration of the
political system, institutional arrangements and elite cultural values.359 Interpretive
methods, instead, focus policy characteristics that cut across stratification categories. The
356
Dvora Yanow, Conducting Interpretive Policy Analysis (Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 2000) p. 5.
357
Ibid., p. 6.
358
Ibid., p. 8.
359
Errol Anthony Henderson, Afrocentrism and World Politics (Westport, Connecticut: Praeger Publishers,
1995) pp. 5-8.
125
characteristics are "…psychological, behavioral, interactional, institutional,
cultural/national, intercultural/international, and global."360
To move beyond the positivist trend of reification of the social world, the
determination of the efficacy of five models for explaining civil and social rights
policymaking from 1940 to 2000 was carried out in part by using the sociohistorical
interpretive approach to the study of social science. Each of the five theoretical models,
used in this study, explains policy-making from different institutional perspectives. Each
theory also gives a different perspective on the importance of power, power distributions,
social change, collective behavior, economics and history as well as the effectiveness of
social mobilization. To determine which of the models best explains African American
participation in the enactment of civil and social rights policies, each of the tenets of the
theories was comparatively analyzed with available data to determine their fit with the
historical evidence examined. The tenets of the models were drawn from the scholarly
literature. Through the use of the interpretive method, the fit of the evidence to the
models’ tenets was determined. Ample evidence from the literature attests to the validity
and reliability of the interpretive method.361
360
Errol Anthony Henderson, Afrocentrism and World Politics (Westport, Connecticut: Praeger Publishers,
1995) p. 6.
361
Ann Shola Orloff and Theda Skocpol, “Why Not Equal Protection? Explaining the Politics of Public
Social Spending in Britain, 1900-1911, and the United States, 1880s-1920” American Sociological Review
(1984) 49: 726-750; Theda Skocpol and John Ikenberry, “The Political Formation of the American Welfare
State in Historical and Comparative Perspective.” Comparative Social Research (1983) 6:87-148; Theda
Skocpol and Margaret Somers, “The Uses of Comparative History in Macro-social Research,” Comparative
Studies in Society and History (1980) 22:174-197; Theda Skocpol, States and Social Revolutions: A
Comparative Analysis of France, Russia, and China (New York and Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1979); Theda Skocpol, ed. Vision and Method in Historical Sociology (New York and Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1984); Theda Skocpol, Peter Evans and Dietrich Rueschemeyer, eds. Bringing
the State Back In (New York and Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1985); James Mahoney and
Dietrich Rueschemeyer, Comparative Historical Analysis in the Social Sciences (New York: Cambridge
University Press, 2003)
126
However, to prevent falling into the opposing extreme of over-reliance on the
interpretive method to the exclusion of the valuable knowledge to be attained from the
positivist methods, a quantitative analysis of African-American political participation in
civil and social rights policy enactment was conducted as well. For the contention here is
that to separate or hold the quantitative and interpretive methods in a state of antagonism
is the equivalent of attempting to divest the left hemisphere of the human brain from its
complement the right hemisphere.
Although both hemispheres have different functions, both accomplish those
functions only in relation to the proper function of its complement. As Toldson and
Pasteur write, “The left hemisphere approaches tasks in a logical manner, examining,
comparing, and contrasting. Information is taken into it bit by bit, processed in a straight-
line, logical fashion…. Breaking things down into parts to the point of specificity is its
function…. It is responsive to material reality…. The right hemisphere perceives images
in holistic gestalts. Thinking abstractly, it processes information in a spatial an intuitive
way. It uses nonverbal modes of communication involving images, visual, tactile,
kinesthetic and auditory processes. Though it comprehends and uses words, they are
more pictorial representations….”362 Whereas the left hemisphere is linear in its
reasoning process (segregative, Cartesian, analytical, deductive)363, the right hemisphere
is multidimensional (synthetical, holistic, congregative).364 Each is not antagonistic but
rather complementary as they enhance man’s ability to know and understand.
362
Alfred B. Pasteur and Ivory L. Toldson. Roots of Soul: The Psychology of Black Expressiveness. (New
York: Anchor Press/Doubleday, 1982) pp. 18-19.
363
Ra Un Nefer Amen, Metu Neter: The Great Oracle of Tehuti and the Egyptian System of Spiritual
Cultivation. (New York: Khamit Corp, 1990) p. 10.
364
Ibid., p. 10.
127
Quantitative and interpretive methods work in much the same way. The
quantitative method is empirical and linear, where as the interpretive method is
multidimensional, i.e., it expands human understanding beyond the linear singular
thought process by incorporating multiple perspectives, a polyphony of voices
counterpoised but working in a mosaic harmony, at times even discordant (as jazz) at the
same time. In much the same way that one hears several tones at once in music
(irrespective of the harmonic or discordant nature of the composition), so too does the
interpretive method bring into the human purview the stochastic components otherwise
unseen.
Hence, both interpretive and quantitative methods engage in knowing, in scientific
inquiry, from different philosophical perspectives with complementary aims. In short, to
increase human understanding of the social system. As such the two should not be
judged according to the criteria of rigor and sophistication of the other. Each has its own
set standards of rigor and sophistication. Instead, each should be viewed in accordance
with how they increase human understanding of social phenomena.365 With this aim of
integration in mind, this study used both quantitative and interpretive methods to examine
the research question under investigation.
365
Dvora Yanow, “Interpretive, Qualitative, and Quantitative”, PS December (2001) p. 770. “Interpretive
methods are as scientific-as systematic-as those informed by positivist presuppositions. Because they are
based on a different understanding of human acts, including matters of control, they cannot be lined out in
as stepwise a fashion as the so-called scientific method. Yet they, too, depend on sustained observation
over time…Most research methods books used in political science courses portray interpretive (or
qualitative) methods as unscientific…This will continue to be the case as long as interpretive methods are
judged against the criteria of positivist presuppositions-assessed in terms of validity and reliability, which
have developed out of positivist epistemological and ontological ideas. When more political scientists
grasp the methodological-philosophical differences underlying the various methods used across the broad
range of our fields of inquiry, and expand the teaching of methods beyond statistics, interpretive methods
may come to be judged against the criteria of interpretive presuppositions.”
128
Population & Sample
The population of this study comprises the civil and social rights legislation
enacted between 1940 and 2000. A non-probability sampling technique was used to
collect the data for this dissertation. To assure that all of the policies relevant to the
agendas of the civil rights organizations are selected two documents, which encapsulate
the programs and policies sought by the organizations were utilized to establish the
criteria for inclusion in this study. The two documents are the Manual for the March on
Washington for Jobs and Freedom of 1963366 and the 1966 Freedom Budget.367 The
NAACP, SCLC, CORE, SNCC and the National Urban League were the major national
level civil rights organizations, which participated in the development of these
documents. Those policies that correspond to the agenda listed in these two documents
and which the civil rights organizations testified on behalf of were used in this study.
The legislation chosen addressed the following interest group concerns:
1) Civil Rights Agenda:
A) School Desegregation;
B) End to Police Brutality;
C) Protection of Right to Protest;
D) Substantive Civil Rights Extension: public accommodations,
decent housing, and the extension of the franchise.
2) Social Rights Agenda:
A) Full Employment;
B) Job Training;
366
Dona Cooper Hamilton and Charles V. Hamilton. The Dual Agenda Race and Social Welfare Policies of
Civil Rights Organizations. (New York: Columbia University Press, 1997) pp. 123-128,
367
Ibid., pp. 147-153.
129
C) Equal Employment Practices by Local, State and Federal
government, private sector employers, employment companies
and labor unions;
D) Protection of unskilled labor in jobs not covered by the Fair
Labor Standards Act;
E) Implementation of minimum wage standard;
F) Provision of guaranteed annual income;
G) Extension of health care coverage to economically
disadvantaged;
H) Rehabilitation of inner city neighborhoods;
I) Establishment of environmental standards to protect the
ecosystem.
These documents were chosen as they express unequivocally the interest group policy
goals of the civil rights organizations for the period 1940 to 2000 covered in this study.
The small population size of this group of legislation allowed for all of the policies that
correspond to the agenda listed in the1963 Manual for the March on Washington for Jobs
and Freedom and the 1966 Freedom Budget to be utilized in this dissertation. The
Congressional Research Service was the source from which the specific legislation was
drawn.368 The legislation and executive orders examined were:
1) Executive Order 8022 (1941): This order forbade businesses with defense
contracts from discriminating in hiring on the basis of race, creed, color or national
origin. The order created the Fair Employment Practices Committee (FEPC) to enforce
the its provisions.
2) Executive Order 9981 (1948): This order resulted in the desegregation of the
Armed forces and the establishment of a special council to enforce the action. It also
required the cooperation of all federal agencies with the council.
368
Leslie W. Gladstone, Civil Rights Protection in the U.S.: Brief Summaries of Constitutional
Amendments, Federal Laws, and Executive Orders (Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service,
1997)
130
3) Executive Order 10730 (1957): This order led to the end of obstructionist
behavior on the part of Arkansas governmental and community officials in the
segregation of Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas. The President of the United
States authorized the Secretary of the Defense to federalize the Arkansas National Guard
and use those soldiers to enforce the ruling of the United States District Court for the
Eastern District of Arkansas with regards to school desegregation.
4) Civil Rights Acts of 1957: This Act prohibited any person or persons from
preventing in any way other persons from voting in federal elections. It empowered the
Attorney General to initiate civil proceedings against a violator of this law on behalf of
the voter and established the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights to investigate and report
on the cases of alleged denial of Civil Rights. The Commission had no enforcement
powers.
5) Civil Rights Act of 1960: This Act mandates that federal election records be
retained for 22 months. The Attorney General is authorized to inspect them to determine
if there is a history discrimination against persons based on race. If this is determined to
be the case, the Attorney General is allowed to order that the person affected be registered
and allowed to vote, without recourse to a civil suit.
6) Executive Order 11063 (1962) as amended by Executive Order 12259 (1980):
Mandates that all federal departments and agencies dealing with housing prohibit
discrimination on the basis of race, color, creed, sex in the sale or rental of federally
owned or operated property.
7 ) Equal Pay Act of 1963 : This Act prohibited the discrimination in the paying
of wages based on sex in jobs requiring like ability and like working environments, based
131
on sex. Federal, state and private industry are covered by this legislation. The Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission is authorized to enforce this law.
8) Civil Rights Act of 1964: This Act allowed for the protection of the voting
rights of all U.S. citizens; prohibited discrimination in public accommodations; allowed
the Attorney General to seek suits to end desegregation of public facilities and in public
education; extended the existence of the Commission on Civil Rights to 1968; prohibited
discrimination in federally assisted programs; established the practice of equal
employment opportunity and created the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission;
allowed the Commission on Civil Rights to recommend to the Secretary of Commerce
that surveys be compiled on registration and voting statistics in certain geographical
areas; established the principle of intervention and procedure after removal in Civil
Rights Cases; and established the Community Relations Service.
Mandated that contractors and subcontractors in construction and non-construction
industries, who receive federal funds, not engage in discrimination in hiring practices and
implement affirmative action programs targeting minorities and underrepresented groups.
10) Voting Rights Act of 1965: This Act prevented a state from denying any
citizen the franchise on account of race or color. It provided broad powers to the
Attorney General to protect the right to vote of all U.S. citizens. Bypassing the court
case-by-case method, which was extremely slow and filled with loopholes that states and
local authorities routinely bypassed, this act allowed for immediate enforcement
procedures.
11) Executive Order 11365 (1967): This order established the National Advisory
Commission on Civil Disorders to study the civil disorders that had occurred during the
132
1960s, establish the cause of the disorders and make recommendations as to the most
appropriate measures to solve the problems.
12) Civil Rights Act of 1968: This Act listed penalties for persons who engaged
in psychological or physical intimidation or harm of persons involved in exercising their
federal right to vote, serve as a juror, use public accommodations, etc. It also prohibited
discrimination in the sale or rental of housing based on race. Exempted from this
requirement are retirement homes and single-family homes that are totally a private
transaction, lacking the services of a brokerage agency or public advertisement.
13) Jury Selection and Service Act of 1968: This Act mandates that federal
district courts use plans in jury selection which prevent discrimination on the basis of
race, color, sex, religion, economic status or national origin. This law is designed to
ensure that juries are representative of the community.
Prohibits federal departments and agencies from discriminating in employment on the
basis of race, sex, handicap etc., and requires the establishment of affirmative action
programs to address the imbalance resulting from past discrimination.
15) Intergovernmental Personnel Act of 1970: This Act mandates that state and
local government agencies receiving federal funding make the necessary steps to ensure
the elimination of discrimination on the basis of race, religion or color in its hiring
practices. The Office of Personnel Management is the agency charged with enforcing this
law.
16) Housing and Community Development Act of 1974: This Act prohibits
discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin, family status or
physical impairment in the denial of federal mortgage loans or federal insurance or
133
guaranty of such a loan or in the sale or rental of housing. The Department of Housing
and Urban Development has jurisdiction.
17) Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1974: This Act prevents discrimination
because of race, sex, etc. in the granting of credit. Enforcement is first handled by the
regulatory agencies that have jurisdiction over the credit firm. The Attorney General is
authorized by this law to seek enforcement through the federal courts in the event that the
previous method fails.
18) Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 : This law is designed to allow federal
agencies to examine the loan practices of lending institutions to determine of they are
adequately serving under served groups or are practicing red-lining, which is the act to
deny loans to certain racial or geographic areas. This federal assessment is conducted as
apart of the application process for authorizing the establishment of new institution
branches or company mergers.
19) Civil Service Reform Act of 1978: This Act requires that federal agencies and
departments establish programs to increase the number of minorities working in the
federal agency. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Office of
Personnel Management are to state, which minorities or underrepresented groups are to
be targeted.
20) Civil Rights Act of 1991: This Act protects private and public employees
from racial discrimination in employment contracts. It comprehensively covers all
aspects of contract negotiations. This act further addresses the issue of indirect
discrimination, impermissible employment considerations and consent judgments.
The congressional legislation will be categorized as symbolic legislation and
substantive legislation. Symbolic legislation are those policies which resulted in no
134
substantial change with regard to the problem addressed, whereas , substantive legislation
led to significant changes in the problem being dealt with. It is important to divide the
legislation in this manner as some of the legislation was merely symbolic, and its
enactment brought little substantive change to the problems that were being addressed
such as the 1957 Civil Rights Act. On the other hand some of the legislation, such as the
1964 Civil Rights Act or the Voting Rights Act of 1965 were substantive in that they
brought about an immediate change in problems that they were designed to rectify. The
division is as follows:
1) Symbolic Legislation:
A) Civil Rights Act of 1957

B) Civil Rights Act of 1960
C) Executive Order 11365
D D) Jury Selection and Service Act of 1968
E E) Executive Order 10730
2) Substantive Legislation:
A) Civil Rights Act of 1964, 1968, 1991

B) Voting Rights Act of 1965
C) Intergovernmental Personnel Act of 1970
D) Housing and Community Development Act of 1974
E) Equal Credit Opportunity Act of 1974
F) Community Reinvestment Act of 1977
G) Civil Service Reform Act of 1978
135
Specific Treatment of the Data for Each Sub-problem
1. The first sub-problem to be solved was the essential task of describing the
distinctive sociohistorical characteristics of African-American political
participation in the United States.
Data Sources
The data needed to solve this sub-problem were (a) scholarly studies on the civil
and social rights policies enacted from 1940 to 2000 and the actual legal statutes; (b)
speeches, magazine articles, press releases and editorials presented by the policy
communities associated with the legislation; (c) historical research on the antecedent
periods of African-American political participation, i.e., post-1940s;
(d) research that addressed the application of the five theoretical models to African-
American political participation; and (e) anthropological, statistical and sociological
studies on the African-American sociohistorical, socioeconomic and sociopolitical
experience, which give particular attention to cultural development, socioeconomic
barriers and means of adjustment to, and interracial interaction in the private and public
arena. All of the material was obtained from the Louisiana State University and Southern
University library periodical, reference and main circulation areas.
136
Variable Description
The variables required to solve this sub-problem were sociological,
anthropological, political and economic characteristics. In particular the sociological and
economic attributes of interest are group369 objectives, role stratification, group religion,
group values and norms, group membership requirements, method and style of group
communication, group relations to political, economic and military authority and patterns
of legitimacy, group position in good and service production and distribution and group
income and consumption patterns. The anthropological attributes of concern are group
worldview and the relation of that worldview to the dominant cultures social perspective
and group position in the world system. The political characteristics include group
relationship to the political order and the state in historical context, group perspectives on
freedom and the state and definition of group by the state and related policies.
2. The second sub-problem concerned the operationalization of each theoretical
model so that they may be employed in a systematic and rigorous qualitative
analysis of African-American political participation.
Qualitative Data Sources
The information required to address the qualitative component of the sub-
problem consisted of the academic research of pluralist, elite, plural-elite, Marxist class
analysis and protest theorists. The particular works were those political, psychological,
sociological and economic studies in which the scholars developed the theoretical
propositions of the models and those works where the models were utilized to explain the
369
The group here refers to the African-American ethnic group.
137
political system beginning with an ideal situation of political participation. These works
were obtained from the Louisiana State University and Southern University libraries
general circulation.
Theory Operationalization
To solve the qualitative component of this sub-problem the following propositions
drawn from the scholarly research will be used to operationalize pluralist, plural-elite,
elite, Marxist class analysis and protest theory.
1. Pluralist Theory Tenets:370
Ø T1: Interest groups are constantly changing and adapting to the dynamics
of the sociopolitical system.
Ø T2: When one interest group attains a majority in the government and
maintains a monopoly on state resources, the interests of the minority are
subordinated and a tyranny of the majority is established.
Ø T3: The purpose of the state is to moderate the ongoing political conflict
resulting from diverse and conflicting interests.
370
Pluralism: Theory, Practice, and Ideology.” Journal of Politics 32, (1970) pp. 71-95; R.A. Dahl, Who
Governs? (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1961) and Pluralist Democracy in the United States Conflict
and Consent (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1967); Huey L. Perry, “Pluralist Theory & National Black Politics
in the United States.: Polity 33, (1991) pp. 549-565; Huey L. Perry and Wayne Parent ed., Blacks and the
American Political System (Gainesville: University of Florida Press, 1995); Nelson Polsby, Community
Power and Political Theory (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1963); John F. Manley, “Neo-Pluralism: A
Class Analysis of Pluralism I and Pluralism II.” American Political Science Review 77 (June 1983): pp.
368-383; Arnold M. Rose, The Power Structure (New York: Oxford University Press, 1967); David
B.Truman. The Governmental Process: Political Interests and Public Opinion. (New York: Alfred A.
Knopf, 1955); Robert Dahl and Charles Lindblom, Politics, Economics and Welfare (New Brunswick:
Transaction Publishers, 2000); Charles Lindblom, Politics and Markets (New York: Basic Books, 1977);
Company, 1963)
138
Ø T4: State policymakers are not neutral in the mediation of group conflict;
instead, they maintain a position on policy concerns, with an eye to state
preservation.
Ø T5: The social, political, and economic resources of society are unequally
distributed among competing interest groups. No interest group holds a
monopoly on all available resources.
Ø T6: The policymaking process of the American political system is
distinguished by manifold centers of power, but none of the centers of
power assumes a sovereign position over the others.
Ø T7: The construction of the American political system, based on the social
contract theory, the doctrine of separation of powers and federalism allows
for multiple points at which organizations may influence the policymaking
process and thus possibly achieve their organizational goals.
Ø T8: The development of public policy in the American political system is
marked by bargaining and negotiation among organizations and
government agencies, each representing the varied interests of diverse
constituencies.
Ø T9: The general character of public policies produced by American
government is incremental as opposed to comprehensive in nature.
Ø T10: Under the social contract theory groups are autonomous from the
state and have a substantial amount of coercive resources; however, they
agree to adhere to the purpose and rules of civil society and submit to the
jurisdiction of government recognizing its coercive powers and legitimacy.
139
Ø T11: To increase their effectiveness in influencing policy decisions interest
groups form coalitions and pool available resources.
Ø T12: American adherence to the political ideology of free enterprise is
irrational and prevents an objective analysis of economic structures.
Ø T13: Control of social resources is determined before ownership of
resources. Public or private control of resources effects who will have
access to those resources, which in turn impacts social stratification and
influence.
Ø T14: Wealth and income are unequally distributed and prevent the
establishment of an egalitarian society.
Ø T15: Government is more responsive to the organized elite than to the
potential interests of the masses. This situation continues the cycle of
inequality.
Ø T16: Business is an interest group with a social role and privileges that
makes it an integral part of the sociopolitical system and places business
above other interest groups in influence and power.
Ø T17: American public consensus reflects the nonmaterial culture and
sociopolitical interests of the upper class. Socializing institutions skew
socialization in favor of upper class tastes.
Ø T18: The American political system is obstructionist. The government
uses its resources to maintain the status quo defined by socioeconomic
inequality and elite wealthfare and prevents sociopolitical and
socioeconomic restructuring.
140
Ø T19: The American government economic philosophy is laissez-faire
individualism, which marginalizes minority interest group concerns.
Ø T20: The American political system is homeostatic.
Ø T21: Social movements result from the failure of socializing institutions to
socialize the masses, thereby creating group psychological strain.
Ø T22: History is an accumulation of the progressive tendencies of group
interaction.
2. Elite Theory Tenets:371
Ø T1: Society has a social hierarchy that is dominated by an elite.
Ø T2: All social classes are divided against themselves and ridden with
conflict in the competition for higher social status and its accouterment.
Ø T3: American government is a mixture of democratic, monarchial and
aristocratic elements.
371
C.Wright. Mills, The Power Elite (New York: Oxford University Press, 1959); Floyd Hunter, Top
Leadership U.S.A. (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1959); Thomas Dye, Who's Running
America? Institutional Leadership in the United States (Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.,
1976); David Ricci, Community Power and Democratic Theory: The Logic of Political Analysis (New
York: Random House, 1971); Robin Waterfield, Plato The Republic (New York: Barnes & Noble Books,
1996); Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince (New York: Penguin Books, 1988); Gaetano Mosca, The Ruling
Class (New York: McGraw Hill, 1939); Vilfredo Pareto, The Rise and Fall of the Elites: An Application of
Theoretical Sociology (Totowa, N.J.: Bedminster Press, 1968); Vilfredo Pareto, The Mind and Society:
Treatise of General Sociology (New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1935); Roberto Michels, Political
Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracies (New York: Free
Press, 1962); Jose Ortega y Gasset, The Revolt of the Masses (New York: W.W. Norton and Company,
Inc., 1960); Man and Crisis (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, Inc., 1962); G. William Domhoff,
The Higher Circle: The Governing Class in American (New York: Vintage Books, 1971; G. William
Domhoff, Who Really Rules? New Haven and Community Power Reexamined (Santa Monica, Cali.:
Goodyear Publishing , Inc., 1978); Howard J. Erlich, “The Reputational Approach to the Study of
Community Power.” American Sociological Review (1961) 26:926-927; Thomas R. Dye, “Community
Power Studies,” In Political Science Annual, Vol. 2, ed. James A. Robinson (NewYork: Bobbs-Merrill,
1970); Thomas R. Dye and L. Harmon Zeigler, The Irony of Democracy (Belmont, Cali.: Duxbury Press,
1972); Peter Bachrach, The Theory of Democratic Elitism (Boston: Little, Brown, 1966); William
Kornhauser, The Politics of Mass Society (New York: Free Press, 1959)
141
Ø T4: Elite rule is maintained by a sense of purpose and organizational skill.
Ø T5: The mass organization is hindered by the size of the masses.
Ø T6: The elite are composed of an economic, political, military and social
elite, who are either progressive or conservative.
Ø T7: Mass disaffection results in mass pressure for social change, which
leads to elite efforts to pacify and co-opt mass leadership.
Ø T8: The elite controls mass media and shape public opinion.
Ø T9: Elite rule does not lead to a tyranny of the minority it leads to
representative democracy; mass rule leads to a tyranny of the majority.
Ø T10: The masses participate in the operation of society under elite
guidance. All change results from elite actions.
Ø T11: The economic elite exercise influence over the state and shape policy
in their interests, under a philosophy of laissez-faire individualism.
Ø T12: The elite adheres to the same nonmaterial culture and have a
consensus on group interest or class-consciousness.
Ø T13: The elite represents mainly the upper socioeconomic classes of
society. Other classes of society are represented through a method of
selective social mobility and group assimilation.
Ø T14: The elite initiate social change, which results from conflict between
progressive and conservative elements of the elite.
Ø T15: Social movements result from elite manipulation of mass resource
mobilization.
Ø T16: The state is the center of society designed to preserve elite position
and protect elite interests.
142
Ø T17: History is the record of the conflict of competing elite for social
dominance over the apathetic masses and moves through cycles.
Ø T18: There is no monolithic mass group only divided and competing
individuals. Social wealth and values is distributed fairly by the elite
according to market rules.
3. Plural-Elite Theory:372
Ø T1: Where public goods are involved, some individuals will not organize
even if it is in their best interests for the costs outweigh the perceived
benefits.
Ø T2: All groups face the problem of some members not participating, when
they will receive the benefits regardless.
Ø T4: Small groups are better able to organize than large groups. Thus, their
interests are better represented and they dominate the large groups.
372
Politics (July, 1964): 677-715; Theodore J. Lowi, "The Public Philosophy: Interest Group Liberalism,"
American Political Science Review Vol. 61, No. 1 (March, 1967) pp. 5-24; Theodore J. Lowi, The End of
Liberalism: The Second Republic of the United States (New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 1979);
Raymond A. Bauer, Ithiel de Sola Pool, and Lewis A. Dexter, American Business and Public Policy: The
Politics of Foreign Trade (New York: Atherton Press, 1963); E.E. Schattschneider, Politics, Pressure, and
the Tariff (New York: Atherton, 1935); Samuel Beer, "The Modernization of American Federalism," Public
Administration Review Vol. 3, No. 2 (Fall 1973); Theodore J. Lowi, "Four Systems of Policy, Politics, and
Choice," Public Administration Review (July/August, 1972) pp. 290-310; Douglas D. Heckathorn, and
Steven M. Maser, "The Contractual Architecture of Public Policy: A Critical Rconstruction of Lowi's
Typology," Journal of Politics Vol. 52, No. 4 (November, 1990) pp. 1101-1123; Mancur Olson, The Logic
of Collective Action: Public Goods and the Theory of Groups (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University
Press, 1971); Andrew S. McFarland, "Interest Groups and Theories of Power in America," British Journal
of Political Science 17 (1987) pp. 129-147; E. E. Schattschneider, The Semisovereign People (New York:
Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1960); Grant McConnell, Private Power and American Democracy (New York:
Knopf, 1966); Morris P. Fiorina, Congress: Keystone of the Washington Establishment (New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1977); Marver Berstein, Regulating Business by Independent Commission (Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press, 1955)
143
Ø T5: Large groups confuse symbolic political actions with substantive
actions.
Ø T6: The elite shape the debate on all public issues, so as to remove all
inferences to common interests, and thereby determine what is defined as a
social problem.
Ø T7: The federal government best represents large group interests.
However, the fragmentation of power in the American system allows small
group interests to be best served. This aids small groups in their
dominance of large groups.
Ø T8: Congressional expansion of the bureaucracy increased the
fragmentation of power and has created oligarchic power centers in
different policy arenas that are dominated by small interest groups, the
bureaucratic elite and congressional committee members.
Ø T9: Federal government departments and interest group coalitions lead
reform movements to break the oligarchic power centers, through the
media and in congressional hearings. However, after the reform
movement succeeds a new power center emerges.
Ø T9: Enacted laws are ambiguous in meaning, because of the ambiguity
interest groups are able to manipulate policy implementation.
Ø T10: Government subsidization of interest groups provides these groups
with the resources to prevent challenges to the existing power
arrangements.
144
Ø T11: Social movements are the result of small group coalitions and their
manipulation of the large group through the provision of resources for
mobilization and media messages.
Ø T12: The democracy of the American political system is a democracy for
small group interests, which extends the congressional, bureaucratic elite
and special interest oligarchic power centers into socioeconomic policy
areas and hence into market regulation. Therefore, the market has a
democratic socialist orientation.
Ø T13: Social change results from small group efforts to change existing
oligarchic power arrangements in their favor.
Ø T14: Although sociopolitical and economic institutions and organizations
divide power and compete among themselves, this does not ensure that
political equality will result for society as a whole.
Ø T15: Many government policies that affect the welfare of the masses are
made by a private elite that are not directly accountable to the masses.
Ø T16: Select members of the large groups may rise to positions of power in
small groups only after accepting the values and world-view of the elite.
Ø T17: History is the chronicle of the results of small group interaction and
conflict in a desire to maintain elite control of socioeconomic resources
and the masses.
Ø T18: The purpose of the state is to protect small group interests and
maintain social stability through coercive control of the masses.
145
Ø T19: The resources of society are evenly distributed among those interests
that have chosen to organize. If an interest has not organized it has chosen
not to look out for its own concerns.
4. Marxist Class Analysis Theory:373
Ø T1: The degrees of technological innovation and productivity have an
inverse relationship.
Ø T2: An increase in the level of productivity increases labor differentiation
and productivity.
Ø T3: Increases in productivity and labor differentiation lead to population
growth, which then increases productivity and labor differentiation.
Ø T4: Population growth leads to sharper class divisions between the owners
of the factors of production and the producing class.
Ø T5: The elite use socialization institutions to control the masses and
maintain socioeconomic inequality and the concentration of power in elite
circles.
373
The Dorsey Press, 1981) pp. 114-187; Friedrich Engels, The Condition of the Working Class in England
(Stanford, Cali.: Stanford University Press, 1968); Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The Communist
Manifesto (New York: W. W. North & Company, 1988); Bertrell Ollman, “What is Marxism? A Bird’s Eye
View,” in Monthly Review (New York, April, 1981); Karl Marx, A Contribution to the Critique of Political
Economy (New York: International Publishers, 1972); Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The German
Ideology (New York: International Publishers, 1947); Karl Marx, The Economic and Philosophical
Manuscripts of 1844 (New York: International Publishers, 1964); Bertell Ollman, Alienation: Marx's
Concept of Man in Capitalist Society (New York: Oxford University Press, 1976); William K. Tabb,
"Capitalism, Colonialism, and Racism," Review of Radical Political Economics (Summer, 1971) pp. 90-
105; William K. Tabb, The Political Economy of the Black Ghetto (New York: W.W. Norton & Company,
Inc., 1970) pp. 35-59; Robert L. Allen, Black Awakening in Capitalist America (New York: Doubleday &
Company, Inc., 1969) pp. 275-284.
146
Ø T6: Concentration of wealth in the hands of the elite causes conflict
between the elite and labor classes.
Ø T7: The elite will enact measures to increase their share of power
resources and limit labor class social mobility.
Ø T8: The actions of the elite in the effort to protect their interests will
naturally disrupt the welfare of the labor class.
Ø T9: Technological innovation will make certain labor class skills obsolete
and begin the process of the formation of a collective class interest.
Ø T10: Labor class urbanization will increase access to education and
communal organizations.
Ø T11: The degree of violence in class conflict depends on the presence of a
mass leadership and the degree of antagonism with the elite class.
Ø T12: The degree of resource redistribution and social restructuring is a
function of the intensity of the violence of the class conflict.
Ø T13: All of history is shaped by socioeconomic class conflict.
Ø T14: Social change is natural and is the result of the class struggle for
control of the factors of production.
Ø T15: Society is evolving from primitive stages of savagery to stateless
communism.
Ø T16: Social movements result from labor class disaffection with elite
control of social resources.
Ø T17: Collective behavior is economically determined, rational and directed
towards the restructuring of socioeconomic institutions.
147
Ø T18: Racial minorities within a country are a domestic colony serving as
marginalized appendages to the larger societies socioeconomic
institutions. Their status as a domestic colony and as marginal labor
explains their mass powerlessness.
Ø T19: Class divisions extend beyond national borders and racial divisions.
Consequently, class identity and class-consciousness bonds are stronger
than race consciousness and nationalism.
5. Protest Theory Tenets:374
Ø T1: The masses engage in protest because of alienation and cognitive
dissonance.
Ø T2: The masses utilizes protest because of systemic defects in the
socioeconomic and sociopolitical structures of society.
Ø T3: The impetus for the utilization of protest is negative responses or non-
response by institutions to group demands.
374
Jerome H. Skolnick, The Politics of Protest (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1969); Joanne Grant, Black
Protest: History, Documents, and Analyses 1619 to the Present (Greenwich, Conn.: Fawcett Publications,
Inc., 1974); David O. Sears and John B. McConahay, The Politics of Violence: The New Urban Politics
and the Watts Riots (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1973); Edward S. Greenberg, Neal Milner, and David J.
Olson, Black Politics: The Inevitability of Conflict (New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc., 1971);
Huey P. Newton, War Against the Panthers: A Study of Repression in America (New York: Harlem River
Press, 1996); Doug McAdam, Political Process and the Development of Black Insurgency, 1930-1970
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999); Richard C. Fording, "The Political Response to Black
Insurgency: A Critical Test of Competing Theories of the State," American Political Science Review
(March 2001); Richard C. Fording, "The Conditional Effect of Violence as a Political Tactic: Mass
Isurgency, Electoral Context and Welfare Generosity in the American States," American Journal of Political
Science (January, 1997) 41:1-29; James W. Button, Black Violence: The Political Impact of the 1960s
Riots (Princeton University Press, 1978); William A. Gamson, The Strategy of Protest (Homewood, Il.:
Dorsey, 1975); Michael Lipsky, Protest in City Politics (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1970); National Advisory
Commission on Civil Disorders, Report of the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders (New
York: Bantam Books, 1968); Michael Lipsky, "Protest as a Political Resource," American Political Science
Review (December, 1968) 62: 1157-1158; Robert Fogelson, Violence As Protest: A Study of Riots and
Ghettos (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1971); James N. Upton, A Social History of 20th
Century Urban Riots (Bristol, In.: Wyndham Hall Press, 1984)
148
Ø T4: The masses when engaging in social protest utilizes violent and non-
violent methods of protest.
Ø T5: Power is unevenly distributed between an elite and the masses.
Ø T6: The masses are not apathetic and do influence elite policymaking.
Ø T7: Social change is the result of politically marginalized groups attempts
to restructure society and redistribute power and resources equally.
Ø T8: Social movements are the outcome of marginalized groups acting out
of logical collective interest to improve collective status.
Ø T9: History is the constant struggle of mass and elite groups to establish
democratic egalitarianism or an oligarchy.
To facilitate the analysis of African-American political participation with the five models
seven comparative topics will be utilized. These topics will be the nature of the
sociopolitical process of state and group interaction; the models position on the efficacy
of democracy; the models theory of history; the models theory of economics; the models
theory of social change; the models theory of social movements; and, the models theory
of race relations.
149
Table 1: Models/Comparative Topics & Expected Explanatory Power
Comparative Pluralist Elitist Plural-Elitist Marxist Class- Protest Theory

Topics Theory Theory Theory Analysis
Nature of + - - - -
State/Group
Interaction
Efficacy of + - - - -
Democracy
Theory of + - - - -
History
Theory of + - - - -
Economics
Theory of + - - - -
Social Change
Theory of + - - - +
Social
Movements
Theory of Race - - - - -
Relations
150
3. The third sub-problem concerned the operationalization of each
theoretical model so that they may be employed in a systematic and
rigorous quantitative analysis of African-American political participation.
Quantitative Data Sources
The data needed to quantitatively operationalize the theories were (a) civil and
social rights policies enacted from 1940 to 2000, (b) congressional hearing testimony
transcripts, (c) number of violent and non-violent protests per year from 1940 to 2000,
(d) number of African American congressmen and women per year from 1940 to 2000,
(d) percentage of Democrats in the House and Senate per year from 1940 to 2000, (e)
percentage of African Americans in total voter population per year from 1940 to 2000, (f)
percentage of former African and Asian colonies attaining independence per year from
1940 to 2000, (g) scholarly works which attempt to quantify and apply the four theoretical
models to political participation in the United States. The data was culled from scholarly
works, and the academic and government web sites, and research organizations listed
below.
Civil and Social Rights Policies. The Federal Depository at Southern University
and Louisiana State University libraries in Baton Rouge are the sources of the
representative sample U.S. civil and social rights policies enacted by congress and
executive orders enacted by the President for the years 1940 to 2000.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. The U.S. Bureau of the Census Internet site was the
source of the percentage of African American in total voter population variable. The
Bureau of the Census has collected the number of registered African American voters for
each year from 1940 to 2000.
151
The Congressional Registry. The Congressional Registry was the source for the
number of African American congressmen and women. The Congressional Registry has
collected the number of African American congressmen and women from 1940 to 2000.
The Office of the Clerk, U.S. House of Representatives. The Office of the Clerk,
U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate Historical Office will be the source of the
percentage of democrats in congress variable. The Office of the Clerk and the Senate
Historical Office have collected this data for every year from 1940 to 2000.
Federal Depository at LSU and SU. The Federal Depository at Southern
University and Louisiana State University will be the source of congressional hearing
transcript testimony in favor or against civil and social rights legislation. The Depository
maintains congressional transcripts for all legislation.
The New York Times Index. The New York Times Index, the Minorities at Risk
Project Database at the Center for International Development and Conflict Management,
University of Maryland, and the Lemberg Center's Civil Disorders Database formerly at
Brandeis University, now at University of Notredame, and other scholarly sources will be
the source of the number of violent protests (racial riots) and non-violent protests
(marches, sit-ins) variables. The data on both variables was collected from the index, the
two databases and scholarly sources for each year from 1940 to 2000.
CIA World Factbook. The CIA world fact book was the sources used to obtain
the percentage of former African and Asian colonies obtaining independence from 1940
to 2000. The CIA World Factbook has maintained this information for each year from
1940 to 2000.
152
Variable Descriptions
This research utilized the United States House and Senate political context,
violent and non-violent protests, international political context, and African-American
political participation variables as a measure of civil and social rights policy enactment
from 1940 to 2000. The measurement and variable explanation are as listed as follows.
Percentage of African-Americans in Total Voter Population. The percentage of
African-Americans in total voter population represents the number of African-Americans
in eligible voter population for each year from 1940 to 2000. This variable will be
expressed in the form of a continuous variable.
Percentage of African-Americans below Poverty Level. The percentage of
African-Americans below the poverty level represents the number of African-Americans
living below the poverty level for each year from 1940 to 2000. This variable represents
Marxist class analysis theory as a quantitative operationalization of African-American
class interests. The percentage of African-Americans below the poverty level will be
expressed in the form of a continuous variable.
Number of Violent Protests. The number of violent protests represents the
number of violent racial protests that are recorded in the New York Times Index and
other scholarly works. The number of violent protests represents the protest model and is
a quantitative operationalization of mass political power expressed in protest theory. This
variable will be expressed as a discrete variable.
Number of Non-Violent Protests. The number of non-violent protests represents
the number of non-violent racial protests that are recorded in the New York Times Index
and other scholarly works. The number of non-violent protests is the quantitative
153
operationalization of pluralist theory and represents the major interest group resource
utilized by African-American civil rights groups and their coalition partners from the
dominant group. This variable will be expressed as a discrete variable.
Percentage of Democrats in both Houses of Congress. Percentage of Democrats
in both Houses of Congress represents the number of democratic Senators and
Representatives from 1940 to 2000. Elite theory is represented by this variable, which is
the quantitative operationalization of elite theorist contentions that all policies result from
elite interests. This variable will be expressed as a continuous variable.
Number of African American Congresspersons. The number of African American
congresspersons represents the number of Black elected senators and representatives in
both Houses of congress for the years of 1940 to 2000. The number of African American
congresspersons represents the plural-elite model and is the quantitative
operationalization of the plural-elitist contention that a multiplicity of elites within and
outside of government drive the development of policy. The organization through which
this elite operates is the Congressional Black Caucus. This variable will be expressed as
a discrete variable.
Percentage of African and Asian Colonies attaining Independence. Percentage of
African and Asian former colonies attaining independence represents the number of
former African and Asian colonies becoming independent nations from 1940 to 2000.
This variable will be expressed in the form of a continuous variable.
Civil and Social Rights Policies. The civil and social rights policies variable
represents the civil and social rights legislation enacted as well as presidential executive
orders, which address civil and social rights for each year from 1940 to 2000. This
variable is expressed in the form of a discrete variable.
154
The following information lists the statistical model with variable abbreviations
and explanations. Next, level of measurement of the variables expected signs of the
variables and variable sources are provided in tabular form.
The Statistical Model:
CSt = β0 + β1VPt-2 + β2NVPt-2 + β3 TDEMCONGt +
β4 AAPOVt + β5 AACt + β6EVPAAt +
β7COLOID + β10 et
Where,
CS = Civil and Social Rights Policies enacted from 1940 to 2000
VPt-2 = Number of Violent Protests in year t - 2: Number of violent protests was
lagged Two years based on the assumption that any policy legislation
resulting from the Protest would not be enacted until the next legislative
session. The protest would Theoretically result in debate and discussion
by policy leaders and interest groups through the media on the Floor of
congress, during congressional hearings, etc. Only after a prolonged series
of protests and the escalation of the grievance to the level of a social
problem, would the issue be given series consideration for inclusion on
the agenda and from there beginning the journey through the policy
process.
NVPt-2 = Number of Non-violent Protests in year t - 2: The rationale used for
Lagging violent protest was utilized with non-violent protest as well.
TDEMCONG = % Democrats in of the Senate and House
AAPOV= % of African Americans living below the Poverty Level..
AAC = Number of African American Congressmen
155
EVPAA = % of African Americans in total voter population
COLOID = % of African and Asian colonies gaining independence.
The rationale underlying the model is that African-American utilization of
conventional and unconventional political participation: violent and non-violent protest,
and voting, partisan control of the United States House of Representative and of the
Senate, the number of African-Americans in the United States Congress and United
States Foreign policy interests in the developing world have informed the enactment of
civil and social rights policies during the last sixty years. The size of the African-
American electorate, the percentage of African-Americans living below the poverty level
and American Foreign Policy interests are held to be major factors in the enactment of the
policies.
The number of African-Americans in congress, and non-violent protest are held to
have a negative impact. The over reliance of African-American politicians on symbolic
rewards and moral victories for their constituency, concentration in the Democratic party,
susceptibility to congressional district challenges under the Voting Rights Act of 1965,
lack of representation in key positions and in sufficient numbers on important
congressional committees and the issue of deracialization are the rationale behind the
hypothesis that they will have a negative impact on policy enactment. Violent protests
are hypothesized to have a positive impact on the enactment of the legislation. The
rationale for this hypothesis originates from the historical literature which presents
evidence that African-American progress in the United States has occurred during times
of crisis.
The rationale behind the hypothesis that non-violent protest will have a negative
impact stems from the conservative nature of the strategy and its willingness to subscribe
156
to system preservation and the overall conservative nature of the status quo. Previous
literature as already mention, has shown that the method rests on the success of the
strategy in varying arenas where it seldom meets the criteria. Furthermore, the middle
class orientation of the method leaves its leadership open for status quo co-optation as the
literature previously mention also determined. The historical antipathy of the American
government to the poverty level in the African-American community outside of a few
senators in the past 150 years is the rationale for hypothesis that the African-American
poverty level variable will have a negative impact on the enactment of civil and social
rights policies from 1940 to 2000. The positive impact hypothesized for the colonial
independence variable stems from the increase in the foreign policy interests of the
United States in the developing world during and after the Cold War.
157
Table 2: Variables and Expected Signs
Variable VPt-2 NVPt-2 TDEMCONG AAC EVPAA AAPOV COLOID
Hypothesis + - + - + - +
Table 3: Definition, Level of Measurement and Source of Variables
Variable Definition Measurement Level Source

Civil & Social Rights Number of enacted Discrete Congressional Research Service
Policies legislation and executive
orders from 1940 to 2000
Violent Protests Number of Violent Discrete New York Times Index
[Protest Theory] Protest per year from
1940 to 2000
Non-violent Protests Number of Non-violent Discrete New York Times Index
[Pluralist Theory] Protests per year from
1940 to 2000
Political Context - Percentage of Democrats Continuous Office of the Clerk U.S. House of
Democrats in House in the House & Senate Representatives &
& Senate Senate Historical Office United
[Elite Theory] States Senate
Political Context - Percentage of African- Continuous Office of the Clerk U.S. House of
African-Americans in Americans in Congress Representatives & Senate
Congress Historical Office United States
[Plural-Elite Theory] Senate
Total Voter Percentage of African- Continuous U. S. Census Bureau
Population - Americans in total voter
African-Americans population
Poverty Rate- Percentage of African- Continuous U. S. Census Bureau
African-Americans Americans living below
[Marxist Class the poverty level
Analysis]
International Political Percentage of African Continuous CIA World Factbook
Context - and Asian colonies
Decolonization in gaining independence
Africa and Asia 1940 to 2000
158
Validity and Reliability
The concerns of validity and reliability in the scientific enterprise grow out of the
demand for objectivity in scholarly research. Objectivity in scientific research is of two
kinds. The first deals with a point of view, which explains the physical world and all
social endeavors in terms of cause and effect. The second concerns itself with the
construction of hypotheses that contain the possibility of being wrong. In this view of
objectivity, scientific knowledge is accumulated in a research environment permeated
with risk takers.375 Sociohistorical interpretive policy analysis, and most qualitative
research focuses attention on the second meaning, 376 while time series analysis and most
quantitative research address the causality based first method. This research utilizes both
methods to address this most fundamental problem objectivity generally encountered in
qualitative and quantitative research.
Previously it was mentioned that the research atmosphere has been dominated by
a strong overemphasis on the positivist position that empirical reality is the only means
from which to gaining meaning of empirical reality, giving no regard to any other
possible explanations.377 Furthermore, the point was made that hermeneutics and
phenomenology the basis of interpretive approaches add to the understanding of empirical
reality by addressing subjective concerns such as human interaction and the existential
375
Jerome Kirk and Marc L. Miller, Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research (Beverly Hills, Calif.:
Sage Publications, 1986) pp. 10 -11.
376
Ibid., pp. 11. Kirk and Miller cite Karl Poppers explanation of the use of deductive methods when testing
hypothesis as an example of the second sense of objectivity. For a full discussion see, Sir Karl Popper, The
Logic of Scientific Discovery (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1959) pp. 27-56.
377
Sage Publications, 1986) p. 14.
159
basis of human meaning development, but that an over reliance on the interpretive
method leads to extremism in the opposite direction. To begin to achieve a balance and
allow the methods to complement each other the fact that both seek to build a body of
scientific knowledge of utility across all fields is the beginning point from which to
understand the methodological commitment to objectivity.378
The problem between the two methods centers on the theoretical explanation of
the necessity for the use of the measurement methodologies employed. As Kirk and
Miller further state, the acquisition of scientific knowledge stems from the ability of the
analysis to yield previously unknown facts and details that are labeled by established
theory as such.379 Quantitative methods are organized to investigate hypothesis, however,
the research of social science which addresses human based phenomena requires the use
of interpretive methods that address human subjectivity, something sociohistorical
interpretive policy analysis as utilized in this study does. As the two methods
complement each other and yield a fuller picture of the data, they both then, are subject to
objectivity in its component forms of validity and reliability.
Validity. Validity is the degree that a research method provides a reliable finding.
There are three types of validity: apparent, theoretical and instrumental validity.380
Apparent validity is concerned with a methods natural fit with the subject of the
experiment. The fit may seem to be of such a nature that it is definitely yielding valid
results. Instrumental validity occurs when the findings of the analysis using one method
are verified by the results of another investigation, which utilizes a method that is
378
379
Ibid., p. 15.
380
Ibid., pp. 21-22.
160
accepted as valid. Methods have theoretical validity, which is the foundation of the other
two, when the fit between the subject of the research and the paradigm used are supported
by ample proof.381 This research addresses the three types of validity by meeting the
criteria for theoretical validity, for as Kirk and Miller state, "…apparent validity can be
chimerical, and may not signify theoretical validity. Instrumental validity is ultimately
circular, and cannot assure theoretical validity unless the criterion itself is theoretically
valid. Theoretical validity, unfortunately, is difficult to determine by methods other than
qualitative research. Testing hypotheses against explicit alternatives cannot guard against
unanticipated sources of invalidity."382
To address the issue of theoretical validity this research adds to the quantitative
based time series analysis, the sociohistorical interpretive analysis. Sociohistorical
interpretive policy analysis utilizes methods, which have inherent methods for gauging
theoretical validity. To begin with, quantitative and qualitative analysis is subject to three
types of errors. Type I Error results when the research findings lead the one to incorrectly
dismiss the null hypothesis. Type II Error emanates from the findings leading the
research to dismiss a true proposition. These two types of errors are correctable,
however, most validity errors generally stem from a third type of error. Type III Error
occurs when the investigator asks the wrong question and the use of a multiplicity of
research methods provides a sufficient means of addressing this type of error.383
381
Sage Publications, 1986) pp. 22-23.
382
Ibid., pp. 24-25.
383
Sage Publications, 1986) pp. 29-32. See also, H. Raifa, Decision Analysis (Reading, MA: Addison-Welsey,
1968); E.J. Webb, D.T. Campbell, R.D. Schwartz and L. Sechrest, Unobtrusive Measures (Chicago: Rand
McNally, 1966)
161
Sociohistorical interpretive policy analysis with its focus on the historical
chronology of the research material to contextualize the data, the communities of
meaning and their material and nonmaterial culture, policy actors and group interaction as
revealed in acts, language, objects, speeches, etc all of which carry meaning, within an
institutional context diversify the research and address Type III Error as well as Type I
and II. Furthermore, the method provides a hedge against the inherent problems of using
newspaper sources, which is a problem of reliability.
Reliability. Reliability concerns the degree to which a method results in the same
answer each time the experiment is performed.384 The three type of reliability are quixotic,
diachronic, and synchronic. Quixotic reliability deals with a single iteration that yields the
same answer. Diachronic reliability addresses the permanence of a given research finding
historically and synchronic reliability focuses on the stableness of the research results in
one time-period. Quixotic and diachronic assumptions are generally avoided in the social
sciences. Quixotic or single iterations require generalization from one occurrence to an
entire population and has obvious defects for the scientific endeavor. Diachronic
assumptions run counter to the history of social society and its dynamic processes.
Synchronic assumptions focus on a given time period and is the type addressed in this
study.
The use of newspaper data as the sole means of measuring violent and nonviolent
protest, or any data for that matter, encounters many methodological problems which
include reporter bias, or lack of historical legitimacy of the story as being worth reporting
at the time, all synchronic reliability issues. The research on this subject is extensive and
384
162
consistently points out the methodological hazards involved.385 However, as McAdam
has pointed out, this method is replicable and when using sources such as the New York
Times Index, provides a fertile source of national level data. In addition, the Index is the
basis of government level studies.386 To address the problems of synchronic reliability,
complementary methods are used-time series analysis and sociohistorical interpretive
policy analysis-and second the New York Times Index was supplemented with the
Minorities at Risk Project Database at the Center for International Development and
Conflict Management, University of Maryland, and the University of Notredame
Lemberg Center's 1967 Data.387
Following the analysis of the third subproblem the conclusion will address the
analyzed data developed in the three previous sub-problems and pertinent and selected
385
M. Herbert Danzger “Validating conflict data.” American Sociological Review (1975) 40:570-584;
David Snyder and William R. Kelly, “Conflict Intensity, Media Sensitivity and the Validity of Newspaper
Data.” American Sociological Review (1977) 42:105-123; Robert W. Jackman and William A. Boyd,
"Multiple Sources in the Collection of Data on Political Conflict." American Journal of Political Science
(1979) 23:434-458; Franzosi, Roberto Franzosi, "The Press as a Source of Socio-Historical Data: Issues in
the Methodology of Data Collection from Newspapers." Historical Methods (1987) 20; John D. McCarthy,
Clark McPhail, and Jackie Smith, “Images of Protest: Dimensions of Selection Bias in Media Coverage of
Washington Demonstrations, 1982 and 1991.” American Sociological Review (1996) 61:478-499; Peter
Hocke, "Determining Selection Bias in Local and National Newspaper Reports on Protest Events." pp. 131-
163 in Dieter Rucht, Ruud Koopmans, and Friedhelm Neidhardt (eds.). Acts of Dissent: New Developments
in the Study of Protest. (Berlin: Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin Fur Sozialforschung, 1998); Carol Mueller,
"Media Measurement Models of Protest Event Data" Mobilization: An International Journal (1997)2: 165-
184. Carol Mueller “International Press Coverage of East German Protest Events, 1989.” American
Sociological Review (1997) 62:820-32; Pamela E. Oliver and Daniel J. Myers, "How events Enter the
Public Sphere: Conflict, Location, and Sponsorship in Local Newspaper Coverage of Public Events."
American Journal of Sociology (1999) 105: 38-87
386
University of Chicago Press, 1999) pp. 235-237.
387
Governmental Units Analysis Data, 1960: Urban Racial Disorders, 1961-1968 [Machine readable data
file]. Principal investigator, Seymour Spilerman. 1st DPLS ed. 1970. Madison, WI: Seymour Spilerman,
University of Wisconsin, Department of Sociology [Producer], 1970. Madison, WI: University of
Wisconsin, Data and Program Library Service [Distributor], 1970. 2 data files (676, 676 logical records),
plus accompanying documentation; Seymour Spilerman: "The Causes of Racial Disturbances: A
Comparison of Alternative Explanations" American Sociological Review 35 (1970): 627-649 Seymour
Spilerman "The Causes of Racial Disturbances: Tests of an Explanation" American Sociological Review 36
(1971): 427-442; Congressional Quarterly, Civil Disorder Chronology 1961-1966 Special Report 36 (1967)
163
secondary data culled from the literature review. The tenets of the five models will be
weighed against the historical chronology of the selected civil and social rights polices to
contextualize the data, the communities of meaning, policymakers and group interaction
within an institutional context. Areas of congruency and dissimilarities were pointed out
and corresponding and contradictory findings from the literature were extracted and
discussed. The time series analysis will be run using SPSS data analysis software, the
beta coefficients were listed, time series related problems addressed, and miscellaneous
findings presented. The data will be interpreted by utilizing the beta coefficients in an
explanation of the independent variables impact upon civil and social rights policy
enactment.
164
CHAPTER IV
THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF AFRICAN-AMERICAN POLITICS
The purpose of this chapter is to describe the sociohistorical context of African
American politics. In so doing the first hypothesis will be addressed which specifies the
necessity of presenting the distinctive characteristis of African-American politics in their
social and historical settings. The chapter is organized into the following topics: African-
American politics and the political models and the African-American sociopolitical
community. The topic of the African-American sociopolitical community is divided into
the subheadings of the West African political background; African-American society
1526 to 1940; African-Americans and social welfare policy; the African-American
worldview; African-American population growth; African-American socioeconomic
organization; and African-American political culture.
African-American Politics and Political Models
The five models of power distribution seek to explain the nature of policymaking
with a specific emphasis on the influence of social groups in the political system. Each of
the models with their varying perspectives on group power, social change and social
movements, provide an understanding of group influence developing overtime and
resulting in incremental changes in policy, as opposed to wholesale change. These
models, however, are rooted in and have been primarily focused upon Anglo-American
majority group political actions. In America the dominant group paradigm which is
shaped according to White Anglo-Saxon Protestant traditions, has served as the standard
from which material and nonmaterial cultural aspects of group actions are defined. Ideas
165
on social organization, views of the proper function of the social structure, cultural
paradigm, social norms, the social status and roles of societies members are all defined
from Anglo-American view points. The resulting outcome being the maintenance of
Anglo-American dominant group position through their utilization of the instruments of
social control.
The subjects of this study, though are African-Americans. African-Americans are
defined as a subgroup in American society; racially categorized and numerically a
minority. As a racial minority subgroup, that has been historically segregated and
marginalized in religious, social, political and economic society, they have developed a
particular subculture that, though it draws from the dominant culture, differs in many
significant ways. The position held here is that to effectively test the utility of the five
models in explaining African-American political participation, the distinctive
sociohistorical characteristics of African-American politics based in racially
circumscribed numerical minority group concerns must be delineated; along with the
sociopolitical context within which African-American political activism has occurred.
The African-American Sociopolitical Community
In American political philosophy, the social and political orders are differentiated
one from the other. Social contract theorists, such as John Locke and American
revolutionary theorist Thomas Paine both accounted for government as a basic
requirement for the protection of private property, that is a necessary burden on the
governed. Hence, the contractual agreement between the governed and the government.
Government was view as an institution that could become tyrannical and was naturally
not to be trusted. As such government had to watched, and safeguards instituted to
protect the citizenry. Society on the other hand was a natural response by man to provide
166
and safeguard human needs in a world defined by scarcity. Man was naturally social and
could not provided all of his needs in his natural free and equal state; therefore, society
was formed to meet these human necessities. However, man once he had accumulated
power tended towards political corruption and so could not be trusted to rule ethically.
The state and society were then considered out of necessity as two distinct entities.
The separation of the social community and the political community in American
political philosophy has implications for public policy formation. The American view
that the two are distinct on from another and that government is to be feared and guarded
against implies that there are areas where government should have power to legislate and
areas where government should not be able to infringe upon individual rights. In the
United States the social philosophy of American individualism and its economic
counterpart of laissez-faire liberalism are under girded by the notion of an antagonistic
relationship existing between government and society. Policy debates in the United States
often hinge upon the question of the true sphere of influence for government; a debate
which is as old as the republic itself.
The idea of the relationship of society and the state, however, as apart of
American political philosophy, was defined by the particular circumstances of British
political history and the nature of the colonial relationship between the American colonies
and the British imperial government. The nature of this relationship was shaped by
British colonial foreign policy during the years of 1607 - 1776. Where African-
Americans are concerned, their explanation of the nature of the relationship of the state
and society grows out of the West African political tradition, intermixed with later
adaptations of French, Spanish and English political ideas formulated during more than
three centuries of constant political struggle. The uniqueness of the African-American
167
experience has therefore, shaped contemporary African-American politics. At the heart
of the African-American political experience is an understanding of the indivisibility of
society and government.
West African Political Background
The sociopolitical institutions of precolonial western Africa played an important
part in shaping African-American political philosophy and activism in the Americas
during the sixteenth century and continued to influence African-American political
participation from the seventeenth century to the present. African-Americans are an
amalgamation of over 100 of the more than 2000 ethnic groups of Africa.388 The primary
geographical area from which African-American's originate encompasses the land from
northwestern to southwestern Africa. The modern day countries that are located in this
area are Mauritania, Senegal, Gambia, Guinea-Bissau, Guinea, Sierra Leone, Liberia,
Ivory Coast, Ghana, Togo, Nigeria, Benin, Cameroon, Equatorial Guinea, Mali, Burkina
Faso, Niger and Chad.389
Although the area from northwest to southwest Africa is composed of a multitude
of ethnic groups the high degree of regional complementarity stemming from trade
relations lead to a significant level of similarity in sociopolitical institutions.390

388
The ethnic groups include the Moors, Bambara, Mandinka, Mende, Dogon, Fulani, Mossi, Asante, Ewe,
Fon, Yoruba, Igbo, Hausa, Wolof, Fante, Edo, Serere, Luba, Congo, Ibibio, Ijaw, Sherbro, Mbundu,
Ovimbundu, Fon, Bariba, Senufo, Soninke, Bobo, Dyula, Lobi, Fali, Fang, Bamum, Bamileke, Bakota,
Bapounou, Mpongwe, Mamprusi, Akan, Kissi, Kpelle, Susu, Tukolor, Balanta, Manjaco, Baule, Kru, Mole-
Dagbane, Bassa, Dan, Grebo, Ma, Songhay, Kanuri, Tiv, Wodaabe, Yakurr, Temne, Limba, Kono, and
Temba. See, Molefi Kete Asante, "The Contours of African American Culture,"
(http://www.africawithin.com/asante/contours.htm, 2003); Nancy Bailey, Paul Copperwaite, Margaret
Doyle, Moria Johnston, and Ian Wood (eds.), Encyclopedia of African Peoples (New York: Diagram
Group, 2000); Hugh Thomas, The Slave Trade: The Story of the Atlantic Slave Trade 1440-1870 (New
York: Simon & Schuster, 1997) pp. 804-805.
389
Nancy Bailey, Paul Copperwaite, Margaret Doyle, Moria Johnston, and Ian Wood (eds.), Encyclopedia
of African Peoples (New York: Diagram Group, 2000)
390
John G. Jackson, Introduction to African Civilization (New York: Carol Publishing Group, 1994) pp.
196-231; Kevin Shillington, History of Africa (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1995); Basil Davidson, A
History of West Africa 1000-1800 (London: Longman Group Limited, 1977)
168
Representative kingdoms and states from which African-Americans hail were the
Sultanate of Kanem-Borno, the Hausa city-states, the Tukolor Empire, Kingdom of
Dahomey and Oyo, the Asante Kingdom, Kingdoms of Ife and Benin, Kingdom of
Kongo, the Lunda Empire and the Kingdom of Imbangala.391 The various ethnic groups
that composed these states and kingdoms ranged from preliterate to literate societies.392
Preliterate societies such as the Kru did not have a written language, where as the Vai
maintained a written alphabet. Other ethnic groups throughout the region utilized the
Arabic alphabet and have a long written tradition that was utilized by some African-
Americans during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries.
The social structures of the African-American native societies include hunting and
gathering societies, simple and advanced horticultural societies, simple and advanced
agrarian societies, simple and advanced herding societies and fishing and maritime
societies, or some admixture of the various types.393 The basis of this classification rests
on the level of technological innovation utilized in satisfying basic social needs. The
degree of intricacy in the social structure increases as the level of technology so that
advanced agrarian societies are more advanced than horticultural, fishing and maritime
societies. Each of these societies were maintained with a high degree of citizen
391
Kevin Shillington, History of Africa (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1995); Basil Davidson, A History of
West Africa 1000-1800 (London: Longman Group Limited, 1977) pp. 170-241.
392
Examples of the written scripts used are the Arabic alphabet, the Vai alphabet, Manding writing system,
the Bassa Alphabet, and the Mende and Nsibidi script. See, Saki Mafundikwa, "Afrikan Alphabets,"
(Harare, Zimbabwe: http://www.ziva.org.zw/afrikan.htm November, 2000); Africana Library, "African
Writing Systems," (Cornell University: http://www.library.cornell.edu/africana/Writing_Systems ); K. Hau,
"The Ancient Writing of Southern Nigeria," Bulletin de l'IFAN Series B. No. 1 (1973); K. Hau, "Pre-
Islamic writing in West Africa," Bulletin de l'IFAN 29, (1-2), (1973) pp. 150-185; Clyde A. Winters,
"Manding Scripts in the New World," Journal of African Civilization 1 No. 1 (1979) pp. 61-97; Clyde A.
Winters, "The Ancient Manding Script," in Ivan van Sertima (ed.) Blacks in Science: Ancient and Modern
(New Brunswik: Transaction Books, 1983) pp. 208-214.
393
Gerhard Lenski, Jean Lenski, and Patrick Nolan, Human Societies (New York: McGraw Hill, Inc., 1991)
pp. 69-84.
169
participation in the governance of the society. Egalitarianism and group maintenance
were the norm; both are hallmarks of social democracy. The sustainable development of
the group assumed priority over self-centered individual economic concerns. These are
the types of societies from which African-Americans come and as was stated previously
these sociopolitical institutions are the basis and continue to impact African-American
political participation by way of the delineation of the nature of the relationship of the
state and society.
In West African society, the state and society were not separate antagonistic
entities. Instead, each was seamlessly interwoven into the fabric of the other. West
African states were composed of executive, legislative, judicial, and bureaucratic
institutions. The executive institution served as the agency from, which all state power
and authority derived and provided the only accepted location of coercive power.
However, social institutions played a substantive role in the political process utilizing
state resources to meet social needs. In many instances, the executive was the origin of
state power and not necessarily the absolute welder of such power. A check on the
executive institution was a representative council of state elders to which the executive
turned to for counsel. The bureaucracy was the department through which authority was
delegated to provincial representatives.394 Social institutions, which were integrated into
the state apparatus were religious institutions, the age-grade and decent systems. Religion
was not separated from the state but served as the moral compass of the nation. The King
was considered the embodiment of the soul of the nation and the prime symbol of the
394
Paul Bohannan and Phillip Curtin, Africa and Africans (Prospect Heights, Illinois: Waveland Press, Inc.,
1988) pp. 147-167.
170
religion.395 The age-grade system was determined by the year in which a person was born
and was the basis of education, rites of passage and other social requirements such as
military service. The descent system established lineage ties, which created social
networks that provided the foundation for social stability.396
The decentralized nature of power, and social checks upon the government as well
as social utilization of state power are the foundations of the social democracy that
existed in varying degrees in the kingdoms and states of the region. As can be deduced
the citizens were the beginning and ending of state power and thus the state and society
were one and not antagonists. The epistemological concerns of the state place the group
above the individual-as defined in the west. In West Africa, the individual defined
oneself in relation to the group. The decent system allowed for the elder of each extended
family to serve as a representative in the legislative institutions of the government. The
state was viewed as a party in the western sense of politics that is composed of different
factions, which are allowed to voice and defend their positions. All members of society
were guaranteed enough land to maintain their social welfare, and this land could be
passed from generation to generation. Social, political and economic egalitarianism
stemming from social democratic principles were apart of the traditions that were
transported across the Atlantic Ocean in the holds of cargo ships. The West African
social democratic political philosophy would shape and impact the egalitarian nature of
African-American politics in colonial, antebellum and twentieth century America.397
395
John G. Jackson, Introduction to African Civilization (New York: Carol Publishing Group, 1994) pp.
293-295.
396
Chancellor Williams, The Destruction of Black Civilization (Chicago: Third World Press, 1987) pp.
162-165.
397
Ibid., pp. 170-173.
171
African-American Society and American Government
Unlike immigrant groups from Europe and Asia, the African-American presence
in North America resulted from the forced migration of approximately fifteen million
West Africans during the transatlantic international trade of the sixteenth, seventeenth
and eighteenth centuries. Though according to Aristotle and Locke man is social by
nature and will seek out the comforts of community, African-American society on the
North American continent was formed almost exclusively by external pressures of elite
entrepreneurs and plantation owners protected by first the British and colonial
governments and later by the federal and state governments of the United States.
Generally, this state of affairs rendered African-Americans powerless in the sociopolitical
arena. The shape and nature of African-American society, which resulted had an impact
on the relationship of African-Americans to the larger community as well on African-
American political behavior. That being said, over the course of the past one hundred
and fifty years African-American society has undergone substantive structural changes,
which have created superficial alterations in sociopolitical power relationships with the
United States government.
African-American Society 1526-1940. African-American society in North
America began in 1526 when the Spanish colonial officer of Hispaniola, Lucas Vasquez
de Allyon made an abortive attempt at establishing a colony with five hundred persons
mainly west Africans. The colonists landed at St. Elena and moved near what is now
James River, Virginia and established the San Miguel colony. The hundred or more
Africans revolted slew many of the Spaniards and took refuge with the Native American
nations in the region establishing one of the earliest maroon communities.398 Here then is
398
Dorothy Schneider and Carl J. Schneider, An Eyewitness History of Slavery in America From Colonial
Times to the Civil War (New York: Checkmark Books, 2001) pp. 51-65; J. A. Rogers, Africa's Gift to
172
the earliest Common Era instance in North American of African-American politics, in
this case by violent means. The next group of Africans would arrive in 1619 near the
same area and would be classified as indentured servants, however by the 1640s perpetual
servitude on the part of African-Americans was well on its way towards legal recognition,
through judicial decisions and by the 1660s it would be universal law in colonial
America.399 Conservatively speaking, in all from 1492 to 1776 of the 6.5 million persons
who migrated to the New World, 5.5 million were West Africans who were forcibly
transported across the Atlantic and into enslavement on plantations in the Americas. An
estimated 450,000 of them were sent to North America and endured the deprivations of
perpetual enslavement. The situation of African-American legal enslavement would last
for nearly two and a half centuries until the 1860s.400
The fact of forced West African migration, legal and humanistic reduction to
economic property and perpetual enslavement based upon socially defined racial factors
all contributed to the early formation of African-American society and shaped the
relationship of African-Americans to American government. In the West African
tradition, the age-grade and decent system, which established kinship rules defined
citizenship into the nation. During enslavement, particularly in the North American
colonies and later the United States, African-Americans were denied the right to overtly
perpetuate West African kinship systems and were excluded from all protection and
recognition of social, political or human rights of citizenship in the political communities
of North America. Under the colonial governments and eventually under the U. S.
America (St. Petersburg, FL.: Helga M. Rogers, 1989) p. 67.
399
August Meier and Elliot M. Rudwick, From Plantation to Ghetto An Interpretive History of American
Negroes (New York: Hill and Wang, 1969) pp. 36-39.
400
Howard Dodson, Jubilee: The Emergence of African-American Culture (New York: National
Geographic, 2003)
173
government all political rights were denied as African-Americans were defined as chattel
property. This helped to alter the old West African community arrangements to a point.
Had the African-American community been totally isolated from all external
influences then the system of enslavement would have produced and efficient labor force.
However, with the constant influx of newly enslaved West Africans, the creation of an
westernized educated African-American free community and the influence of sympathetic
paternalistic minded whites, the African-American societies power relationship with the
America government remained in a state of constant conflict. The
new arrivals from Western Africa and the West Indies, brought their memories and desire
for freedom, and long unbroken tradition of complex social organization and a lack of
awe or fear of whites. The attitudes and actions undoubtedly had an effect on aspects of
the African-American community even if they were several generations removed from a
tangible knowledge of freedom. As one plantation owner put it African-Americans of all
ages no matter their background maintained a strong desire for freedom and thus posed a
constant problem to the system of enslavement.401
The westernized African-Americans who had obtained freedom and education
imbibed the rhetoric of American democracy. Individuals such as David Walker and
Henry Highland Garnet, waged a tireless political communication battle against
established enslavement interests, indifferent northern whites and African-Americans that
accepted the pseudo-scientific analysis of African inferiority in an effort to create a new
consciousness amongst the enslaved population and the semi-free class of African-
Americans. Other African-Americans, for example, Richard Allen and James Forten
401
Kenneth Stampp, The Peculiar Institution Slavery in the Ante-Bellum South (New York: Vintage Books,
1964) p. 88.
174
organized African-American congresses, which began the convention movement among
African-Americans. The congresses discussed issues of importance to African-Americans
and developed position statements on concerns such as colonization in Africa and the
cruelties of enslavement.
Sympathetic whites established antislavery organizations, published papers,
arranged for the publication of the biographies of former enslaved African-Americans,
funded education initiatives and supported the American Colonization Society in its
efforts to repatriate African-Americans to Sierra Leone and Liberia. The influence of
these three groups caused enslaved African-Americans to petition legislative assemblies,
bring civil suits in court on their own behalf and with the aid of sympathetic whites, self
starvation, self-mutilation, and infanticide, running away, engage in acts of sabotage such
as the destruction of crops, work slow downs, feigning ignorance or illness and arson.
Other methods employed were armed insurrections and guerilla actions, poisoning of the
oppressor class, and the establishment of maroon communities.402 The reaction of the
government was the codification of stringent laws designed to regulate every aspect of
African-American life and prevent interracial cooperation. At the heart of the conflict
serving as a motivating force for African-American political participation, in an effort to
alter existing power relationships was freedom as defined by African-American religious
interpretation.
In the West African background of African-Americans, religion permeated all
aspects of life. As evidence, the most prominent structures throughout West Africa,
indeed beginning with classical Egypt and Ethiopia, were religious monuments and cities
402
Times to the Civil War (New York: Checkmark Books, 2001) pp. 194-219; Kenneth Stampp, The Peculiar
Institution Slavery in the Ante-Bellum South (New York: Vintage Books, 1964) pp. 86-140.
175
were religious centers for ritual and ceremonial observances. Although separated from
the West African environment, segregated from the mainstream American society, and
distributed into communities of diverse West African ethnic groups, while being
prohibited from all overt expressions ethnic traditions, the centrality of religion was
sustained by African-Americans under the most oppressive and mitigating circumstances.
While some plantation owners prohibited all religious expressions by African-Americans,
some allowed the spreading of a variation of the Christian religion.403 Even so, African-
American religion was not a mere imitation of White Anglo-Saxon Protestant religious
practices, nor was the expression of African-American religion devoid of West African
dogma or ritual.404 African-American religion rested upon an emphasis on the concepts of
reciprocity, truth, justice, righteousness, order, harmony, and balance. Reciprocity in all
human endeavors, truth of word and right action in the light of a God ordained social
order provided balanced state that reached the height of perfection in the harmonious
ordering of the Kingdom of God encapsulate the African-American religious experience.
In human and social interaction, these concepts outlined the African-American
value system. As African-Americans were prevented from all participation in the
sociopolitical and economic apparatus of society and were forcibly segregated in living
conditions and circumscribed by legal sanctions, their interpretation and understanding of
American legal jurisprudence and national government foundational documents such as
the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were shaped by their religious
perceptions. The secular nature of American society was not a general or predominating
403
Gold Refined Wilson, "The Religion of the American Negro Slave: His Attitude Toward Life and
Death," Journal of Negro History 8, No. 1 (January, 1923) pp. 41-71.
404
C. Eric Lincoln and Lawrence H. Mamiya, The Black Church in the African American Experience
(Durham: Duke University Press, 1990) pp. 1-19; Melville J. Herskovits, The Myth of the Negro Past
(Boston: Harper & Brothers, 1941)
176
characteristic of African-American society. The biblical Old Testament emphasis on
Divine retribution and preparation for a divinely guided future were the subjective basis
for the sociopolitical and economic actions of a significant portion of the African-
American populace and mass chosen leadership.
Even the African-American idea of freedom has highlighted the idea of the
removal of all hindrances, which may interfere with the African-American communion
with God.405 The idea of liberation as expressed in the New Testament recording of the
mission of the Christ informed African-American perspectives on sociopolitical and
economic liberation of the African-American group.406 Where mainstream American
society placed the individual over the group, the African-American society by virtue of
the West African tradition of individualism as expressed in conjunction with the
collective good of the group, the American setting of group segregation based on racial
characteristics and the religious determination of the individual as a mirror of group
members-the Christian ethic of each member being responsible for the well being of all of
the members-the primary focus of African-American sociopolitical and economic activity
has centered on group socioeconomic advancement. Furthermore, the African-American
church was the only institution in which African-Americans were able to carve out an
existence for themselves and develop group centered leadership, as such its tenets
predominated in all social activities. The church was and to a great extent remains the
405
C. Eric Lincoln and Lawrence H. Mamiya, The Black Church in the African American Experience
(Durham: Duke University Press, 1990) p. 4.
406
Reverend Cain Hope Felder (ed.) The Original African Heritage Study Bible King James Version
(Nashville: The James C. Winston Publishing Company, 1993) p. 1069: "The Spirit of the Lord God is
upon me; because the Lord hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath sent me to bind
up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are
bound; to proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord, and the day of vengeance of our God; to comfort all
that mourn."
177
primary institution in the development and preservation of African-American
socioeconomic and political welfare.
Socially defined as a separate inferior race African-Americans faced an
atmosphere where racial inferiority was used to justify the existing socioeconomic
hierarchy, political power relationships, privileges accorded to whites ethnic groups and
rights denied to African-Americans. Furthermore, during the period of enslavement from
roughly the 1640s to the 1860s, the foundations of racism were established. The
methodical degradation of African-Americans was justified through the influence of
sociopolitical philosophy on the value premises of European biological scientists and by
way of the prevailing ideologies. The sociopolitical and economic institution of slavery
with legal protection ensured elite profiteering from African-American labor and capital
accumulation. However, African-American reaction informed by West African and
African-American religious tenets encompassed a wide variety of methods of resistance.
One method was to escape to havens of safety by running away. For a time when
the foreign interests of the Imperial powers-France, Spain and England-clashed and led to
protracted war, African-Americans found refuge in places such as Spanish Florida from
1687-1819. As the United States began to expand and Great Britain outlawed African
enslavement, African-Americans found refuge in Canada. In an effort to aid, their
successful escape from enslavement the institution known as the Underground Railroad
developed under the auspices of nominally free African-Americans and white
abolitionists.407 Government responses included the passage of the Fugitive Slave Act of
1793 and 1850, the enactment of state and local codes which regulated all aspects of
407
Times to the Civil War (New York: Checkmark Books, 2001) pp. 139-156.
178
African-American social life-the establishment of curfews for free African-Americans
and the requirement of passes when not in the company of ones owner for enslaved
African-Americans. Important Supreme Court cases which provided constitutional
legitimization of the 1793 and 1850 acts were rendered in the cases of Prigg v.
Pennsylvania and Jones v. Van Zandt.408 The utilization of vigilante groups to patrol the
communities, including all wooded areas and roads and the public recognition of the
profession of the bounty hunters, who sought fugitive African-Americans were other
government policies formulated to curtail the situation.
African-Americans also employed the more violent measures of suicide,
individual confrontations with overseers and plantation owners and mass based
insurrections. From 1526 to 1861 hundreds of insurrections were organized and carried
out by African-Americans with varying degrees of success. African-American religions
influence on the insurrections is best expressed by a song of the period that maintained
that freedom in the grave was preferable to living with enslavement409 and an African-
American proverb of the time stated that " yuh mought as well die wid de chills ez wid de
fever,"410 meaning that one would do just as well being murdered trying to escape to
freedom as dying enslaved.
408
Times to the Civil War (New York: Checkmark Books, 2001) p. 150. In Prigg v. Pennsylvania the
Supreme Court ruled that an owner had a legal right to use what ever methods possible to recover his
property including extreme violence and in Jones v. Van Zandt the Supreme Court ruled that the 1793 Act
was constitutional and that persons who aided escaped African-Americans could be sued for damages.
409
J. Mason Brewer, "Old-Time Negro Proverbs," in Allan Dundes (ed.), Mother Wit from the Laughing
Barrel Readings in the Interpretation of Afro-American Folklore (Englewood Cliffs, N. J. : Prentice Hall,
Inc., 1973) p. 248.
410
Ibid., p. 248.
179
A second popular proverb held that "De quikah death, de quickah heaven,"411
expressing a disregard for death in the light of the day to day happenings in enslavement.
The tactics of armed insurrection and flight from slavery were related to the establishment
of maroon communities by African-Americans. African-American maroon communities
were established in North and South Carolina, Virginia, Louisiana, Florida, Georgia,
Mississippi, and Alabama in remote unsettled areas and in inaccessible locations such as
swamps. Communities such as Fort Mose in Spanish Florida and African-American
maroon communities who were assimilated into the Native American based Seminole
nation waged unrestricted warfare with surrounding plantations and attracted fugitive
African-Americans. The maroon communities were a constant source of problems for
plantations in varying degrees until the Civil War.412
With the successful conclusion of the Civil War, the Federal government enacted
laws, which outlawed slavery, however, this period was defined by the maintenance of
the socially established practice of African-American segregation. In urban centers,
African-American social segregation led to the development and perpetuation of ghettos
with separate cultural values and ideological outlooks on American society. Social
control of African-Americans was maintained by skewed legal pronouncements, biased
court decisions, socioeconomic coercive pressures, political disenfranchisement and the
violent act of lynching.
The end of African-American enslavement in the United States after the Civil
War caused the southern states to attempt the re-implementation of a system of

411
J. Mason Brewer, "Old-Time Negro Proverbs," in Allan Dundes (ed.), Mother Wit from the Laughing
Barrel Readings in the Interpretation of Afro-American Folklore (Englewood Cliffs, N. J. : Prentice Hall,
Inc., 1973) p. 248.
412
Times to the Civil War (New York: Checkmark Books, 2001) pp. 204-205.
180
subordination among African-Americans. The Black codes or slave codes, as they had
been formerly known, provided a legal basis for returning African-Americans to as near
as possible a state of enslavement. The Black Codes were most prevalent in the deep
south states of the former Confederate States of America. In the Northern United States,
these laws existed on a de facto basis, custom had dictated African-American segregation
in northern cities such as Philadelphia and New York and periodic race riots and the
social atmosphere they engendered gave segregation social stability. The sole purpose of
this action was to continue to maintain socioeconomic control of African-Americans by
providing only the most basic requirements of life. Unreformed southern confederates
having regained control of southern state governments set about enacting laws that would
legalize the separation of white southerners and African-Americans in all aspects of
social life. The laws enacted were known as the Black Codes and were generally the old
Slave Codes. These laws would in time be the foundation for the disenfranchisement of
African-Americans during the sociopolitical era called Jim Crow.413
After the Civil War, former confederates were re-admitted into the Union in
accordance with the very lenient reconstruction plan of President Lincoln. Lincoln's
reconstruction policy was continued by Vice-President Johnson after Lincoln's
assassination. The Joint Committee on Reconstruction headed by Radical Republicans
would eventually engage in a struggle with President Johnson over the direction that
Reconstruction in the former Confederacy should take. In an effort to rest control of
reconstruction from the executive branch, the Joint Committee set out to assess the
prevailing situation in the former Confederate States. The Radical Republican
413
C. Vann Woodward, The Strange Career of Jim Crow, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1974);
W.E.B. Dubois, The Souls of Black Folk, (New York: Dover Publications, 1994)
181
Representative Thaddeus Stevens and Senator Charles Sumner moved to the forefront of
the political climate by taking control of the reconstruction of the Union following the
blistering report and testimonies presented to the Joint Committee. They spearheaded the
enactment of the Thirteenth, Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments as well as the Civil
Rights Acts of 1866 and 1875. These policies enfranchised millions of African American
men and altered the political landscape of the south.
To provide aid to African-American freedmen and white war refugees in 1865
Congress established the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen, and Abandoned Lands or the
Freedman's Bureau in the War Department of the federal government. The Freedman's
Bureau was the earliest and largest social welfare agency to that time and worked in
conjunction with private philanthropic organizations to address the problems created by
the Civil War throughout the former Confederacy.414 One author remarks that the agency
was a "…Urban League, WPA, CIO and War on Poverty all wrapped up into a
prototypical NAACP."415Originally the Bureau was founded with the intent of
redistributing the abandoned lands among the freedmen creating yeoman farmers at least
this was the policy preference of both the freedmen, African-American leadership and
Radical Republicans. However, the lenient reconstruction plan of Lincoln and Johnson
and the speed at which former Confederates acceded to the plan along with the failure of
any congressional appropriations to carry out the redistribution prevented the
implementation of the policy. The Freedmen's Bureau, during its period of operation
from 1865 to 1872, did aid poor African-Americans in helping them in the establishment
414
W.E.B. Dubois, Black Reconstruction in America (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1935)
415
Lerone Bennett, Jr., Before The Mayflower: A History of Black America (New York: Penguin Books,
1993) p. 218.
182
of African-American colleges and work with African-American legislators in southern
state houses in the establishment of the first free school system of the south, provide legal
help to freedmen before courts and advised freedmen in the establishing of legal contracts
with former plantation owners. Administrative corruption, hostile southern and northern
interests and congressional partisan conflict and eventual disaffection by the general
public with the idea of stewardship of African-Americans through the Freedmen's Bureau
led to its eventual demise.416
African-American Suffrage and political power was short-lived, however, for by
1876 the former Confederates were reaping the fruits of their war of attrition against
African-Americans and northern political interests to take back control of the Southern
states. Through the use of terrorist tactics and organizations they assassinated African
American leaders and prevented African Americans from exercising the political
advantages bestowed on them during Reconstruction.417 This situation was further
facilitated by the Compromise of 1877 regarding the unresolved presidential election of
1876.
During the presidential election of 1876, the closest disputed election in American
history until the 2000 presidential election, the states of Louisiana, Florida and South
Carolina had two contending groups-radical republicans and democratic redeemers-
claiming the state house in disputed gubernatorial elections in the states and the right to
send electoral college delegates to Washington, D. C. to vote in the 1876 presidential
election. If the Democratic contingent was accepted, than Samuel J. Tilden, the
416
W.E.B. Dubois, "Of the Dawn of Freedom," in The Souls of Black Folks (New York: Dover Publications
Inc., 1994) pp. 9-24.
417
Allen W. Trelease, White Terror The Ku Klux Klan Conspiracy and Southern Reconstruction, (New
York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1971)
183
democratic candidate, would be elected President of the United States. On the other hand,
should the Republican contingent be recognized and its votes accepted, then Ohio
Governor Rutherford B. Hayes would become President. To complicate the matter
certain Democrats in the House filibustered to prevent the counting of the electoral votes,
when the Republican delegations were sure to be chosen, Hayes elected and presumably a
continuance of the federal presence maintained. The acceptance of the Republican
delegations over the Democratic stemmed from the level of overt, blatant violence and
chicanery associated with the Democratic redeemers in the disputed states. The filibuster
engendered thoughts on the part of prominent men and the lay public of chaos and the
possibility of armed conflict.418
So chaotic a scenario led to the compromise in which Democrats agreed to call of
the filibuster if the Republican candidate Hayes acquiesced to the withdrawal of Federal
troops from the south and the adoption of a hands off federal policy with regards to the
southern atrocities and legal enactment's concerning African-Americans. In short, in
exchange for the removal of federal troops from the South southern politicians agreed to
support Rutherford B. Hayes in his Presidential bid for the White House. The granting to
Hayes of the disputed electoral votes handed him the presidency and ensured southern
victory in their campaign of southern redemption. It further guaranteed African-
American disfranchisement, which would last for nearly a century. By 1877, all of the
former confederated states were back under the control of the former confederates and by
1900, African American disenfranchisement was ensconced in law and their
418
1993) pp. 250-254.
184
representation on the local, state and federal levels of government was nearly
nonexistent.419
The political climate of the late 1800s defined by confederate redemption of the
southern state governments, was solidified when the Supreme Court ruled in the
Slaughterhouse Cases of 1873, that the federal government was not bound by any moral
or legal agreement to protect citizens of a state from the actions of that state's
government. In effect, this ruling stated that the Fourteenth Amendment did not bar state
government from discriminating against blacks, nor did it leave any binding rationale for
federal government intervention on their behalf. By this ruling, the Supreme Court held
that the Fourteenth Amendment applied only to the federal government. Later, in the
Civil Rights Cases of 1883, the Supreme Court ruled the Civil Rights Act of 1875 was
unconstitutional. This act made the practice of discriminating against African Americans
in public accommodations and private businesses illegal.
The series of cases which challenged the Civil Rights Act of 1875 were the United
States v. Stanley from the U. S. Circuit Court Kansas District, United States v. Ryan from
California, United States v. Nichols from the Western District of Missouri, United States
v. Singleton from the Southern U. S. Circuit Court District of New York and Robinson
and Wife v. Memphis and Charleston Railroad Company from the U. S. Circuit Court
Western District of Tennessee. Each of the cases show the extent of discrimination
against African-Americans nationwide and rested upon suits brought as a result of the
denial of African-Americans services because of race. The Supreme Court held that the
419
Kenneth Stamp, The Era of Reconstruction 1865-1877, (New York: Vintage Books,1965); Eric Foner,
Reconstruction Americas Unfinished Revolution, (New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1988); C. Vann
Woodward, Reunion & Reaction: The Compromise of 1877 and the End of Reconstruction (Garden City,
N.Y.: Doubleday Anchor Books, 1956)
185
Fourteenth Amendment applied prohibited state governments and agencies from
discriminating and not private individuals and that the punishment of discrimination
under the Amendment applied only to state agencies.420 Finally, in 1896 in the case of
Plessy vs. Ferguson, the Supreme Court ruled that the separation of the races in public
accommodations was not prevented by the Fourteenth Amendment, and thereby
established the doctrine of separate but equal accommodations and facilities in all aspects
of socioeconomic and political life and nullified that last obstacle to the complete legal
segregation of the races.421 This decision was followed by the enactment of residential
codes advocating residential segregation in the North and South, segregation in all
professional and recreational activities, public transportation, health services and in
educational facilities. African-American political rights were severely curtailed and
public expressions of protest met with violent repercussions.
The economic life of African-Americans during this period was marked by the
sharecropping and tenant lease system, which relegated the majority of African-
Americans to a state of quasi-serfdom. Near perpetual debt peonage prevented African-
American socioeconomic advancement on any appreciable scale measuring group
advancement. For African-American women the socioeconomic situation forced large
numbers into the work force as domestics; however, the lose of the franchise only applied
to African -American men as women were disenfranchised to begin with. The lack of the
420
Henry McNeal Turner, The Barbarous Decision of the United States Supreme Court Declaring the Civil
Rights Act Unconstitutional and Disrobing the Colored Race of All Civil Protection. The Most Cruel and
Inhuman Verdict Against a Loyal People in the History of the World. Also the Powerful Speeches of Hon.
Frederick Douglass and Col. Robert G. Ingersoll, Jurist and Famous Orator (Atlanta, GA.: Bishop H.M.
Turner, 1893) pp. 7-10.
421
C. Vann Woodward, Reunion & Reaction, (New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1956); Vincent
Harding, There Is a River: The Black Struggle for Freedom in America (New York: Harcourt, 1993);
Manning Marable, Race, Reform and Rebellion: The Second Reconstruction in Black America (Jackson,
Miss.: University Press of Mississippi, 2000) pp. 3-12.
186
franchise on the part of African-American women was little helped by the women's
movement of the period as it was ridden with racism which would show up as the
political atmosphere began to change and go against African-American socioeconomic
and political concerns.422
In time women's rights advocates would turn their backs on African-Americans
and come to define women's rights solely on the basis of white women and their interests.
Though African-American churches would take a major and central role in the
development and maintenance of the African-American community during this period,
African-American women were pushed into a subordinate role within and without the
church. Many of the African-American colleges of the period were supported by the
Church and white philanthropic foundations and adhered to a philosophy of African-
American inability to succeed at certain technical professions and excluded African-
American women from most professions outside of secondary education. African-
American women found this period to be a continuation of the denial of their human, and
sociopolitical rights that had begun with the reprehensible denigration of their bodies by
white and on occasion African-American men alike during the period of enslavement.
Their economic dilemma mirrored the sexual employment equality that existed during
slavery and existed in conjunction with rising Victorian social standards being imbibed
by African-Americans and the concomitant requirement of women remaining
homebound.423
422
Paula Giddings, When and Where I Enter: The Impact of Black Women on Race and Sex in America
(New York: William Morrow & Company, 1996) pp. 57-74.
423
Ibid., pp. 57-74.
187
The restrictions placed upon African-American socioeconomic and political rights
that began in 1877 occurred simultaneously with and increase in the number and barbarity
of the lynching of African-Americans across the country. Between 1880 and 1930 the
lynching of African-Americans would become a community spectacle throughout the
country but primarily in the south and Midwest.
Ida B. Wells-Barnett recorded that in 1892 alone 241 lynchings were reported,
160 of these being African-American. African-American women and children were not
excluded from these heinous acts.424 Wells-Barnett in an effort to combat the terrorist
actions of lawless whites wrote fervently on the issue and helped to organize the British
Anti-lynching Committee. In 1901 Congressman George Henry White, the last African-
American representative, for nearly half a century and formerly enslaved, presented an
anti-lynching bill that was soundly defeated. By 1919 lynching was once again in the
headlines of major newspapers-it was always well reported by African-American media
outlets. The impetus was the lynching of returning African-American soldiers from the
battle fields of World War I and an overall upsurge in lynching incidents nation wide.
The NAACP published data documenting the problem and continued its lead role in the
fight against lynching and efforts to get anti-lynching legislation enacted.425
The next significant attempt at the passage of an anti-lynching bill would come in
1935 when Robert F. Wagner and Edward Costigan drafted the Costigan-Wagner Anti-
lynching Act with the support of First Lady, Eleanor Roosevelt. President Roosevelt
refused to speak out in favor of the bill for fear of the damage that taking an anti-lynching
position would do to his re-election campaign efforts in the south. The bill was defeated
424
Ida B. Well-Barnett, Lynch Law in America (Chicago: Barnett, 1900)
425
NAACP, Thirty Years of Lynching in the United States: 1889-1918 (National Association for the
Advancement of Colored People, 1919)
188
in congress through the efforts of Southern congressmen. Though these and other efforts
would be made to enact legislation to prohibit lynching none would ever be enacted and
the use of this terror method would continue unabated into the 1950s with sporadic
incidents occurring into the twenty-first century.
To combat lynching and other social problems afflicting African-Americans
organizations such as the National Afro-American League of 1890-1898, the National
Afro-American Council of 1898-1902, the National Association of Colored Women
formed in 1896, the Niagara Movement of 1905-1909 begun by W. E. B. Dubois, Ida B.
Wells-Barnett and William Monroe Trotter, the National Association for the
Advancement of Colored People, organized in 1910 by Mary White Ovington, Joel
Spingarn with participation by W. E. B. Dubois, Ida B. Wells-Barnett and William
Monroe Trotter and others and the National Urban League formed in 1911 whose
forerunners were the National League for the Protection of Colored Women and the
National League on Urban Conditions Among Negroes, agitated on behalf of African-
American sociopolitical interests.426 The NAACP, in particular, would go on to
spearhead a concerted effort on the part of African-Americans and reform minded whites
to challenge the legal foundations of southern and northern overt segregation and racism
in the judicial system of the country and with the use of political communication in the
NAACP magazine, the Crisis, edited by Dr. Dubois for nearly thirty years.
The year 1900 also witnessed the continuation of the internationalization of the
African-American struggle427 with the establishment of the Pan-African Congress under

426
1993) pp. 283; Kwame Anthony Appiah and Henry Louis Gates, Jr., (ed.) Africana: The Encyclopedia of
the African and African American Experience (New York: Basic Books, 1999)
427
African-American leaders, such as Edward Wilmot Blyden, Martin Delaney and Henry McNeal Turner
had long advocated the internationalization of the African-American struggle, by associating their fight for
socioeconomic and political rights with the efforts with of other Africans in the Diaspora and on the
189
the aegis of Henry Sylvester Williams of Trinidad with the support of the Tuskegee
Machine and input from Anna Julia Cooper and W. E. B. Dubois. The conference would
be held in 1919, 1923 and 1927. In 1919 peace delegations would attempt to enter the
peace conferences meeting in Paris at the end of the first world war and represent the
position of oppressed African and Asian peoples worldwide. Each of the subsequent
conferences would increase its demands on European colonial powers for African
independence and humane treatment of Africans on the Continent and in the Diaspora.
The final Congress of 1945 would be attended by several African representatives, such as
Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe, Jomo Kenyatta and Dr. Kwame Nkrumah, who would later go on
to lead their respective countries to independence and Nkrumah would spearhead the
movement for a United States of Africa and strong Pan-Africanism.
To fight for African-American economic interests the period saw the formation of
the Colored National Labor Convention in 1869 and the Colored Farmers Alliance and
Cooperative Union of 1886. The Colored Farmers Alliance and Cooperative Union
would represent African-American interests along with smaller more regionally focused
organizations during the populist movement of this period. From 1890 to 1914 the
country would be permeated with reformist legislation and gradual extension of
democracy to the masses of society. Legislation that resulted from the populist
movement addressed problems of child labor, compulsory school attendance, workers
compensation, and measures to improve public health and the workplace. African-
American participation in the extension of social welfare rights however, was minimal
due to the prevailing political climate at both the state and national levels. A climate rife
with overt nativist racism directed against all immigrants, Native Americans and African-
Continent, who were engaged in the same actions against the same interests.
190
Americans and fed by the philosophy of Social Darwinism, which explained social life as
following the natural guidelines of survival of the fittest.428
African-American national interests were represented by the accommodationist
oriented Tuskegee Machine headed by Booker T. Washington, who also supported
African-American legal attacks on segregation and lynching. Beginning with his Atlanta
Compromise Address in 1895, Booker T. Washington assumed a nearly unchallenged
position of national spokesman and power broker for African-Americans until 1915.429
From 1900 to 1913 the accommdationist philosophy was being vigorously opposed by W.
E. B. Dubois. First, because Booker T. Washington espoused a doctrine of African-
American denial of political rights and secondly because the accommodationist doctrine
left African-Americans defenseless to physical and psychological terrorism exhibited by
whites during lynchings and race riots.
After 1877 the terrorist organization, the Ku Klux Klan had receded into the
background of northern perceptions of southern political life, but with the migration of
African-Americans from the rural south to the North from 1900 to the 1920s, and
increase in immigration and an upsurge in racist American nativist sentiments, along with
the release of D. W. Griffin's revisionist movie Birth of a Nation, based on Thomas
Dixon's book, The Ku Klux Klan, which glorified the Klan terror of the 1870s, there was
a resurgence in interest in the Klan organization not only in the south but nationwide.
The Klu Klux Klan would become a powerful national organization numbering into the
428
Margaret Canovan, Populism (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanoch, 1981); Michael Kazin, The Populist
Persuasion: An American History (New York: Basic Books, 1995); John Higham, Strangers in the Land:
Patterns of American Nativism 1860-1925 (New York: Atheneum, 1972); Richard Hofstadter, "The
Paranoid Style in American Politics," in Richard Hofstadter, The Paranoid Style in American Politics and
Other Essays (New York: Alfred A Knopf, 1965); David H. Bennett, The Party of Fear: The American Far
Right From Nativism to the Militia Movement (New York: Vintage Books, 1988)
429
Manning Marable and Leith Mullings, Let Nobody Turn Us Around: Voices on Resistance, Reform and
Renewal (New York: Rowman and Littlefield, 2000) pp. 181-230.
191
millions with sociopolitical influence extending far beyond its numbers. The resurgence
of the Klu Klux Klan and the spread of its ideology through sympathetic media sources
would lay the foundation for the political rhetoric and program of right wing political
organizations and prepare the ground work for President Nixon's silent white majority.
Until the late 1920s the Klan would play an important role in state and national politics,
electing state executives and congressmen at the state and national levels, with former
members attaining judgeships at all levels.
The period between 1916 and 1923 would also see the establishment and demise
of the largest African based socioeconomic and political organization, the Universal
Negro Improvement Association of the Jamaican born Marcus Mosiah Garvey. Garvey's
organization emphasized African-American self-reliance and world wide African
Diaspora and Continental cooperation in the development and elevation of Africa.
Though the organization would collapse in the mid-1920s amid Federal government
investigations of mail fraud, controversy with the NAACP, and organizational
bureaucratic ineptitude, at its height the UNIA would publish The Negro World to
provide connective political communication for the African Diaspora and the Continent,
the Black Star Line shipping company, the Negro Factories Corporation and a cadre of
Nurses. In the United States alone the organization would found over 700 chapters.
The influence of the Marcus Garvey and the UNIA would be felt years afterward
in the Black Nationalist philosophy of Malcolm X, the Economic philosophy of the
Nation of Islam and the Pan-African philosophy and foreign policy of Dr. Kwame
Nkrumah, President of the Republic of Ghana from 1957 to 1966.430 In the 1920s and
430
Vincent Harding, The Other American Revolution (Atlanta, GA.: Institute of the Black World, 1980) pp.
107-113.
192
1930s the prevalent doctrine of Black Nationalism and racial pride and solidarity
presented by the UNIA would serve as a hindrance to communist attempts to organize the
African-American community. Communists party ideology rejected religion and religion
was the foundation of the African-American urban and rural community. Class interests
were held to be the overriding element for the development of social consciousness and
the focus of all social problems. This position denied the relevance race and racial
solidarity as exhibited in the African-American community by virtue of social segregation
on the basis of race. Finally, the communist party was a white controlled organization
that constantly relegated African-American issues to the margins of party ideology and
policy. Each of these reasons hindered Communist organizing in the African-American
community limiting Communist party affiliation to a select few intellectuals, and it was
the Garvey movement and its international program that solidified the race conscious
political philosophy for the young generations of the 1920s and 1930.431
The influence of the Garvey movement and the commitment of its adherents in
the 1930s would be felt in the support rendered by African-Americans to Ethiopia during
the Italian invasion of Ethiopia in the mid 1930s. African-Americans provided financial
resources for the Ethiopian military, attempted to organize and Ethiopian Expeditionary
force to go and fight alongside the Ethiopian military. A move that was effectively
blocked by the United States government, a reversal of policy considering U.S. allowance
for Americans to go and fight in the Spanish Civil War during the same period and even
431
115-121.
193
earlier in allowing citizens to go and fight in Europe during World War I prior to United
States entry.432
The Great Depression of the 1930s hit the African-American community
especially hard due to their status of holding low paying unskilled jobs. As national
unemployment rose to epidemic levels, African-Americans were displaced from low
paying jobs, which were assumed by whites. The Depression, however, do not lead to a
whole sale migration of African-Americans into the communist party circles. Instead,
African-Americans, especially in the urban areas, held to the Garvey and NAACP
tradition and engaged in direct action campaigns to force businesses operating in African-
American neighborhoods such as Harlem in New York City and the south side of
Chicago to hire African-Americans. This period saw a resurgence in African-American
direct action politics and militant political rhetoric. Leaders during this period in the
direct action activities of African-Americans were future congressman Reverend Adam
Clayton Powell and a militant A. Philip Randolph.433 Increased African-American
militancy eventually exploded into racial riots such as the Harlem riot of 1935, where
African-American militancy, clashed with police brutality and white countervailing
forces.
The various Great Depression agencies such as the Agricultural Adjustment
Administration (AAA), had a mixed impact on alleviating African-American social
problems, which were only heightened during the Depression and not caused by it.
Racism was still rampant and in the south the AAA as often as possible took advantage of
poor, illiterate sharecroppers and misappropriated funds intended for their relief. These
432
124.
433
Ibid., pp. 124-125.
194
actions on the part of farm landlords were not however limited to underhanded dealings
with African-Americans only. Poor whites were targeted by unscrupulous landlords as
well. One important piece of legislation during the Great Depression, which had an
opportunity to do the most good for the majority of African-Americans was the Social
Security Act of 1935, which provided skilled industrial laborers with old age insurance
and unemployment income.434 However, since the act only covered industrial workers
and the majority of African-Americans worked as unskilled farm labor and domestics
they were left without old age and unemployment insurance.
African-Americans were instead covered by local programs which provided social
assistance to the needy. This placed African-Americans under the jurisdiction of the
same racist public organizations and individuals that had perpetuated their situation and
left their economic wellbeing in precarious way. Where the benefits for the Social
Security Act of 1935 were guaranteed to constituents that met the eligibility criteria for
social security insurance, unemployment compensation and for Aid to Dependent
Children, the local agencies were in many cases lacking in the resources to serve African-
Americans even if they wanted to and eligibility requirements were without the strong
federal guarantee.435 Other agencies and programs such as the Tennessee Valley
Authority, Rural Electrification Administration, the Federal Land Bank, the Farm
Security Administration, and the Home Owners Loan Corporation all to limited degrees
provided aid to African-Americans, but each still was still saturated with institutional
434
Jill Quadagno, The Color of Welfare: How Racism Undermined The War on Poverty (New York:
Oxford University Press, 1994) p. 19.
435
Ibid., pp. 19-22.
195
racism and the relief provided by the agencies and programs was not in substantive
proportions to African-American needs.436
African-Americans & Social Welfare Policy. The period of 1954 to 1975 is
perhaps one of the most important times in all of the African American sociopolitical.
This was a time that was marked by momentous changes in the social and political
spheres. During this period the federal government of the United States of America was
forced to enact laws that sought to rectify peculiar ironies in the American democracy.
The ironies under assault were many and glaring. In a country founded on the high ideals
of all men are created equal and have been provided by their creator with certain rights
that can not be repudiated- rights which include life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,
the ideals of the American consciousness and the practices of day to day American life
which make reality were quite far apart.
The force that caused the ironies to be brought to the forefront and legally
addressed was the faith of the African American. Through the use of mass civil
disobedience tactics, pressure was brought upon the federal government to legally address
a situation that had plagued the country since its inception, that being the social, political
and economic status of the African American in society. This period from 1954 to 1975
saw the federal government at the behest of a coalition of some of its constituents extend
voting rights to African Americans, end racial segregation in public facilities start the
process of school desegregation and attempt to solve the problem of poverty in American
society.
436
John Hope Franklin and Alfred A. Moss, Jr., From Slavery to Freedom: A History of African Americans
(New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1994) pp.395-401.
196
The problem of poverty was considered by some as almost an oxymoron in a
nation that was unsurpassed in wealth. But the problem did exist and for a vast majority
of Americans. In an attempt to solve the problem of poverty, Lyndon B. Johnson stated
to the nation that his administration intended to bring about a Great Society in the greatest
country on earth. And in order to ensure the birth of the Great Society, a War on Poverty
had been declared. This war was being declared to address a social problem that was
pervasive throughout America through the extension of American socia welfare policy.
Social welfare is a concept that is concerned with "…the material and emotional
well-being of individuals and groups of people."437 And is defined as…the attempts made
by governments and voluntary organizations to help families and individuals by
maintaining incomes at an acceptable level, by providing medical care and public health
services, by furthering adequate housing and community development, by providing
services to facilitate social judgement….by furnishing facilities for recreation….by
protecting those
who might be subject to exploitation and by caring for those special groups considered to
be the responsibility of the community.438
Attending to the emotional and material needs of members of society has been a
service rendered by members of a society since time immemorial. In primitive or
traditional societies people help one another. It is from these the most ancient of societies
that the proverbial idea of being ones brothers keeper, or watching the things of others as
if they were your own derive. The idea of assisting those in the community who have
437
Frank R. Breul and Steven J. Diner, Compassion and Responsibility (Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1980), p. 1.
438
Ibid, pp.1-2.
197
need of assistance is, in short, as old as man himself. In industrialized societies formal
institutions were established to meet the emotional an material needs of those in the
society that require assistance.
The first organizations for this purpose within the United States were established
prior to its inception as a nation. This organizations were philanthropic in nature. Two
notions dominate social welfare in America during this time and are an outgrowth of the
private philanthropic nature of the organizations. They are compassion and protection.
Compassion may be defined as “…the effort to alleviate present suffering, deprivation,
or other undesirable conditions to which a segment of the population, but not the
benefactor, is exposed.”439
When acting from compassion organizations seek to meet the immediate concerns
of those in need, and do not consider the actual degree of the problem, nor any way to
prevent its re-occurrence. Protection is described as “…the promoters, not only on their
own behalf, but on the behalf of their group or of the whole community, endeavor to
prevent unwanted developments.”440 In the case of protection, this action by the
organization may be the result of either a fear of changing existing situations or of what
may occur of the situation is not remedied. The course of action chosen becomes
institutionalized in the organization and alleviates the need for compassion.
The concept of protection lead social welfare out of the private philanthropic
sphere and into the public domain. Once social welfare became apart of the public
apparatus it developed two primary concerns. The first is the provision of social services
to people who require them and the second is the development of policy solutions to
439
Ralph E.Pumphrey, "Compassion and Protection: Dual Motivations in Social Welfare," Social Service
Review 33 (March, 1959) p. 21.
440
Ibid., p. 22.
198
social problems, i.e. public policy.441 Social service was focused on the welfare of the
individual and drew its perspective from the studies of social-psychology. Public policy
emphasized group and community social welfare issues and was informed by the social
sciences.442
It was the social service perspective with its knowledge of the individual
problems, which were merely extensions of group issues, that provided the initiative that
resulted in the first social welfare policies. Between 1890 and 1914 social welfare
received national attention and was included in the platform of the Progressive party at
the behest of Theodore Roosevelt. Also from 1890 to the 1920s the following policies
were created: “…the prohibition or severe regulation of child labor, together with
compulsory school-attendance laws; reduction of hours and increase in wages for
exploited women workers; workmen's compensation; mothers' pensions; new standards
of public sanitation and health; special courts for juvenile offenders; visiting
nurses and visiting teachers…..municipal housekeeping, immigrant protection, woman
suffrage, direct democracy, civil liberties…”443
During this period welfare liberalism was conceptualized as an approach to social
welfare problems. From this perspective it was the responsibility of the community to
provide for the welfare of the disadvantaged, who in their present predicament not as a
result of personal action, but as a cause of some external factors. The next achievement
in social welfare was the passage in 1935 of the Social Security Act. With this Act social
441
Clarke A.Chambers, Social Service and Social Reform: A Historical Essay," Social Service Review 37
(March ,1963) p. 67.
442
Ibid., p. 69.
443
Ibid., p. 71.
199
insurance was provided as a safe guard against the problems encountered as a result of
economic dependency, unemployment and old age.444
The development of social welfare policy around the concepts of compassion,
protection, service to all in need, under the ideological umbrella of welfare liberalism
belied a fundamental problem in the process of social interaction in American society.
That problem was racism. It was due to the pervasive influence of racism throughout
American society, that made it impossible for any meaningful social welfare policy to be
established, that would actually benefit all in need of assistance. Although social welfare
policy in the United States was based on the concepts of compassion and protection, it
was maintained by social and public institutions that were designed to provide assistance
to those in need that were also permeated by racism. To see the ideology in action one
need only consider the Populist movement of the late 1800s and early 1900s and the New
Deal legislation.
As stated earlier Social Welfare policy as a part of the national political agenda
dates back to the 1890s. It was on outgrowth of the American populist movement. The
movement is lauded as a mass democratic movement and succeeded in bringing Social
Welfare issues before local, state and national government, thereby, forcing public
acknowledgment, debate and solutions to social welfare problems. However, six negative
currents underlay the movement and served to prevent the universal application of Social
Welfare policies from their inception.
The first is producerism. This concept considers the real American as honest and
hard working. Yet the goods that are produced by the hard working real American are
444
Clarke A.Chambers, Social Service and Social Reform: A Historical Essay," Social Service Review 37
(March ,1963) p. 73.
200
siphoned of by the upper and lower classes. Generally the upper and lower classes are
scapegoated as being the cause of the problems of the real American. Next, is anti-
elitism. With this concept all elites, political, social and economic, are viewed with an
eye of suspicion. All of their actions were believed to be against the best interests of the
people.
Under the concept of anti-intellectualism all of the inhabitants of the ivory towers
of academia are perceived as being apart of the status quo. Their theories are seen as
being logical in their eyes but meaningless to the working American. Their rational
debate is considered as little more than rhetorical filibustering. The intellectual ideas are
discarded in favor of the ravings of demagogues. The next concept is majoritarianism.
Here the rule of the majority is seen as being absolute. Minority races, their needs and
concerns are sacrificed for the good of the majority.
With the concept of moralism, the protestant ethic is propagated, through the use
of evangelical camp meeting style political campaigns. Authoritarianism and puritanical
mores are imposed in all matters of gender. Finally, the concept of Americanism or
American exceptionalism elevates American patriotism to religious levels. With its roots
in the American Creed and Social Darwinism Americanism is deeply ethnocentric. It
places high value in the purity of American culture and views with fear all immigrant
culture. This is due to the belief that foreign ways will corrupt the purity of
Americanism.445
445
Margaret Canovan, Populism (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1981); Michael Kazin, The
Populist Persuasion: An American History (New York: Basic Books, 1995); John Higham, Strangers in
the Land: Patterns of American Nativism 860-1925 (New York: Atheneum, 1972); Richard Hofstadter,
"The Paranoid Style in American Politics," in The Paranoid Style in American Politics and Other Essays
(New York: Alfred A. Knopt, 1965); David H. Bennett The Party of Fear: The American Far Right from
Nativism to the Militia Movement, (New York: Vintage Books, 1988)
201
These six points served to block the full implementation of social welfare policy
in the period of 1890 to1914. Furthermore, with the Social Security Act of 1935 and
other New Deal programs, these points time and again prevented the provision of the
services provided by the New Deal social legislation to all of the population.446 As
Quadagno points out Social Security continued the American tradition of racial and
gender inequality. Beyond this point it must be remember that coverage was not
extended to African Americans until the years of 1954 to 1956. 447The failure to render
the social rights to all of the population engendered the Civil/Social Rights Movement,
the Black Power Movement and the political activism of the New Left. These events that
began in the 1950s continued until the mid 1970s.
Building upon the post World War II atmosphere of euphoria in the defeat of the
Axis powers in Europe, North Africa and the Middle East , and in Asia, African
Americans stepped up their efforts to obtain the rights of full citizenship between the
years of 1954 and 1965. African American civil rights leaders such as A. Philip
Randolph had been had been struggling for decades to see the fulfillment of this goal.
Randolph had been on the front lines of the struggle since as early as1917.
With his labor organization the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters (BSCP)
Randolph fought for economic equality for African American labors. When
discrimination continued in the hiring practices of the War time industries in 1941,
Randolph threatened a mass March on Washington to protest the unjust practices. To
head of this action President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued Executive Order 8802. This
446
Jill Quadagno, The Color of Welfare How Racism Undermined the War on Poverty.(Oxford University
Press, 1994) p. 157.
447
Ibid., p. 158.
202
Executive order banned discriminatory hiring practices in defense industries and
government and created the Fair Employment Practices Committee (FEPC) to investigate
complaints of discriminatory practices.
Then in 1946 President Harry S. Truman issued Executive order 9808, which
created the Committee on Civil Rights. In 1947 Randolph testified before the Senate
Armed Services Committee vehemently supporting the desegregation of the armed forces.
His position on this issue brought him initially into conflict with President Truman. In
1948 as a result of political expediency President Truman issued Executive order 9981.
This order ended segregation in the armed forces and in prohibited discrimination in
federal hiring practices. In 1954 the Department of Defense issued a public statement
which stated that the armed forces were completely desegregated.448
448
John Hope Franklin and Alfred A. Moss Jr., From Slavery to Freedom (Chicago: Mcgraw Hill, 1994) pp.
381-404.
203
It was also at this time that a major landmark Supreme Court case began the
dismantling of legalized segregation. The case was Brown v. the Board of Education.
The case was argued before the Supreme Court by NAACP legal counsel, Thurgood
Marshal. The Supreme Court ruled that segregation in public schools was
unconstitutional. The year 1955 also witnessed the beginning of the three hundered and
eighty one day Montgomery, Alabama bus- boycott. Organized by local Civil Rights
leaders, such as E. D. Nixon, the boycott came to be the event that propelled Dr. Martin
Luther King, Jr. into national prominence in the growing Civil Rights Movement.
Beginning with A. Philip Randolphs agitation which led to the 1941 Executive Order, the
movement would gain momentum and by its end it would claim a number of substantial
legal successes- 1957, 1960, 1964, 1965, 1968 Civil Rights Acts-as well as symbolic
social-psychological successes in the African American community.
In the early 1960s disenchanted white undergraduates began Students for a
Democratic Society (SDS). This organization signaled the beginning of what scholars
have called the New Left. In coalition with other student groups such as the Student
Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC), the Congress for Racial Equality (CORE),
the Young Socialists Alliance (YSA) and the Du Bois Clubs, the SDS, and subsequently,
the New Left was against the elitist sentiments of the status quo, as well as the seeming
intransigence of the government bureaucracy. The New Left was in favor of participatory
democracy and community activism. However, the New Left Movement lacked a clear
long-term political agenda. The primary issue that provided the basis for the New Left
movement was the Vietnam War. With the end of the Vietnam War the coalition
dissolved. The disenchanted white undergraduate students gradually assimilated into
mainstream America. This was made easier due to their middle class origins. Other
204
organizations, which fought for women and civil rights issues engaged in the politics of
pluralist democracy and functioned as interest groups.449
In the 1966 following a growing dissatisfaction with the direction and slowing
momentum of the Civil Rights Movement, African American students began the Black
Power Movement. The intransigent nature of the status quo was first articulated by Dr.
King. Expressing his reassessment of the years of 1954 to 1965 Dr. King in 1967stated
that this period had not accomplished all that was hoped. There were legislative and
judicial victories, but these were surface and not substantive changes. They did not
change the situation faced by millions of African Americans in rural and urban America.
Dr. King further emphasized that American society was still based on racism. This
racism was pervasive throughout the structure of society.450
Dr. King saw that what was needed was substantive changes, which would cost
the American nation. These substantive changes would bring to the forefront class issues
and challenge what he felt was blocking substantive change, American capitalism. The
advocates of Black Power built upon Dr. Kings assessment. In reality his assessment in
1967 of the period of 1954 to 1965 was identical to that of Malcolm X and his assessment
of the same time period shortly before his death in February 1965. The Black Power
Movement took these two assessments and developed a philosophy for combating the
problems of the majority of African Americans. Its primary proponents, Stokely
Carmicheal and Charles V. Hamilton defined Black Power as the control of the black
community by black representatives. Here it would mean control of the political,
economic and social institutions of the community by African Americans who had the
449
Milton Cantor, The Divided Left: American Radicalism, 1900-1975 (New York: Hill and Wang, 1978).
450
David J. Garrow, Bearing the Cross Martin Luther King Jr. and the Southern Christian Leadership
Conference. (New York: Quill William Morrow, 1986) p. 537.
205
best interests of the community at heart. However, not any African American would be
abe to meet the requirements. For even though an African American socially and
ethnically, he or she could very well merely have a black skin, but be wearing a white
mask.451 The Black Power Movement signaled a growing militancy in the African
American community and a shift in the tactics used to gain Civil and Social justice. This
shift in tactics was the result of growing disenchantment in the Black community. A
disenchantment that President Lyndon B. Johnson saw as being the result of civil and
economic injustice. Having been thrust into the Presidency as the result of an assassins
bullet, President Johnson used the growing civil unrest of the mid 1960s as the impetus to
begin what a termed a War on Poverty and the eventual establishment of the Great
Society.
In his 1964 state of the union address President Johnson announced that his
administration was declaring a war on poverty. Although a national problem he stated
that it must be fought and controlled at the state and local levels. His program would
emphasize improving education and schools, health benefits, housing, job training, and
employment opportunities for all Americans. President saw inadequate financial and
employment resources as being the symptoms of poverty. The cause was the denial of a
fair chance to compete in society. This denial was manifested in poor education, health
care, housing and communities. To solve this problem in Federal and Local agencies
would work in conjunction to fight poverty wherever it existed. Programs would be
451
Kwame Ture and Charles V. Hamilton, Black Power The Politics of Liberation. (New York: Vintage
Books, 1992); Stokely Carmicheal, Power and Racism. Pamphlet distributed by SNCC, September 1966;
Frantz Fanon, Black Skin White Masks, (New York: Grove Press, 1967)
206
instituted to help the people Appalachia, and on Indian Reservations in migrant worker
camps, sharecroppers, in rural areas and urban.452
To begin his vision of the Great Society, President Johnson had to get the 1963
Civil Rights bill through congress. The bill was originally proposed by President
Kennedy in response to the Birmingham, Alabama situation. The protests led by Dr.
King had resulted in police state tactics by the Police Chief Bull Connor the resulting
civil unrest caused President Kennedy to push for a Civil Rights bill. At the time of his
assassination the bill was still in committee. President Johnson used his skill in the
political negotiation to eventually get the bill through congress. The bill began as House
Resolution (H.R.) 7152 and passed the house by a vote of 290 to 130. It passed the senate
by a vote of 73 to 27. Here an amendment, the Mansfield-Dirksen-Humphrey-Kuchel
amendment was added that provided for the creation of the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The EEOC was create to limit Department of Justice
involvement. Authority was also provided to allow local agencies to handle complaints
before seeking federal intervention. Also when school districts were found to be in
noncompliance with school desegregation federal funds were to be withheld from that
district and not from the entire state. The amendment was ratified by the house by a vote
of 198 to 126. This bill was the first component in his vision of the Great Society. In his
eyes it would lead to the extension of the American creed to all Americans.
In 1965 the second piece of the background to the great society was sent to
congress, a voting rights bill. This bill was sent in response to demonstrations in Selma,
Alabama. In order to dramatize the need for voting rights legislation Dr. King led the
452
Speeches of the American Presidents Lyndon Baines Johnson 1908-1973
(http://odur.let.rug.nl/~usa/P/lj36/lj36.htm)
207
march in Selma. Prior to the march he had insisted to the Johnson administration that
there was a need for such a bill. President Johnson had stated that he could not get a
voting rights bill through congress even with a significant democratic majority. After the
bloody clash on the Edmund Petus Bridge and with President Johnson moving toward
direct federal intervention in Selma, the voting rights bill was sent to congress and
eventually passed. The Voting Rights Act passed the House by a vote of 333 to 85. All
85 votes against were from the south. It passed the Senate by a vote of 77 to 19. The
Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 created the liberal consensus
in congress that President Johnson would need to get his Great Society legislation
passed.453
With the liberal consensus in place the need for such a program was illustrated
less than a week following the passage of the Voting Rights Act. The event that provided
the social impetus was civil unrest that resulted from police brutality in the African
American community of Watts in Los Angeles, California. The report by the Kerner
commission which studied the riots and their causes, recommended fundamental
structural changes to prevent further re-occurrences. It placed the cause of the unrest on
white racism, police brutality and the existence within American society of two nations-
one white, the other African American. Casting his program as a moral crusade President
Johnson began the legislative battle to pass the Great Society Legislation.
The factors in its favor were many. The three most important were the
assassination of President Kennedy which created the climate of empathy necessary, the
political ability of President Johnson to maneuver in the congress and build the consensus
to get his program through and the economic prosperity of the country. With a 29%
453
John A. Andrew III. Lyndon Johnson and the Great Society (Chicago: Ivan R Dee, 1998)pp. 25-42
208
increase in GNP from 1960 to 1965, the Johnson administration concluded that the
atmosphere was particularly ripe for the government to engaged in actions that would
serve to alleviate poverty. By pushing for a tax cut to stimulate economic development
he hoped to allay any causes for class conflict.454Having begun the Great Society with the
passage of the 1964 and 1965 Civil and Voting Rights Acts. Johnson had also begun to
allay any middle and upper class fears with the 1964 Tax Act. Also his administration
had created federally sponsored recreation programs and provided funds for urban mass
transit. To meet the pressing needs of the Appalachian region his administration had
pushed for the development of the Economic Aid to Redevelop Appalachia bill in 1964.
It would become the Appalachia Aid Bill of 1965.
The year of 1965 saw further accomplishments for Great Society. Riding on the
wave of a mandate that was made manifest by the landslide democratic wins in the
congressional and presidential elections. Johnson had won with 486 electoral votes to 52.
The 52 were the southern states of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi and
Louisiana along with the state of Arizona. In the popular election he won with 61% of
the vote. In the Senate the Democrats held a 69 to 32 majority and in the House a 295 to
140 majority.455With what he interpreted as a clear mandate, President Johnson succeeded
in the passage of several more pieces of the Great Society Legislation.
The Elementary and Secondary School Act of 1965 provided federal aid to needy
school districts in low income areas such as the inner cities, bilingual communities and
Native American reservations. The Housing Act of 1965 provided federal assistance to
low-income families, that sought to obtain private housing, made provisions for urban
454
John A. Andrews III Lyndon B Johnson and the Great Society (Chicago: Ivan R Dee, 1998) pp. 25-42
455
209
renewal, the creation of public housing and housing for the aged and disabled.. The
Higher Education Act of 1965 provided federal scholarships to college students.
Also during this year the Departments of Housing and Urban Development and
the Department of Transportation were created. The Older Americans Act of 1965
created the Administration on Aging, provided grants for community service programs
and provided the establishment of state agencies on aging. Also the commodities
program was replaced by the food stamp program to provide assistance to the poor in the
purchasing of food, school lunch and milk programs were created, and the Mental Health
Act was passed. It provided for the creation of community mental health centers and
provided funds for psychiatric social workers.
The year of 1965 also saw the creation of Medicare Parts A and B and Medicaid.
Medicare Part A provided mandatory hospital insurance and Part B provided for
voluntary physicians services. It serviced people over 65. The program was administered
by the Social Security Administration. Medicaid provided government sponsored health
care for the poor on public assistance. It was in the tradition of the 1958 Kerr-Mills Bill,
which was a means tested public assistance program. Medicaid was administered
through state departments of public welfare. Further accomplishments were a $0.20
increase in the minimum wage and the extension of its coverage to service sector
workers, retail, restaurant and hotel employees.456 The hallmark of the Great Society
legislation, however was the Economic Opportunity Act 1964. This act contained the
programs that were designed to wage war on poverty in America.
The War on Poverty had its origins in the American re-discovery of poverty. The
re-emergence of poverty in the affluent American society was partly the result of the a the
456
John A. Andrews III Lyndon B Johnson and the Great Society (Chicago: Ivan R Dee, 1998)pp. 56-94
210
research by Michael Harrington.457 Another important reason was that the Civil Rights
Movement brought to public view the dual burden that many African Americans faced.
The dual burden was that of poverty and racism, which resulted from civil and economic
inequality.458 To combat the re-emergence of poverty congress passed the Economic
Opportunity Act of 1964. The Act passed in the House by a vote of 226 to 185 and in the
Senate by a vote of 61 to 34. Title I of the legislation created the Job Corps program to
train young people who lacked employable skills and provided Work-Study programs to
supplement the incomes of college students. Title II created Community Action
Programs (CAP), basic education programs for adults, and provided for assistance to
needy children. Title III provided federal funding for public works projects to deal with
rural poverty. Public assistance was made available to the families of migrant laborers.
Title IV of the Act was concerned with economic development. It provided economic
incentives to stimulate small businesses. Title V created programs that were designed to
provide the persistently unemployed with work experience. Title VI created Volunteers
in Service to America (VISTA), which sent young volunteers into impoverished areas as
a domestic counterpart to the internationally focused Peace Corps. The Act also created
Upward Bound project, provided legal services, day care funding and the Head Start
program, which was designed to provide compensatory education to disadvantaged pre-
school age children, and to oversee and coordinate the War on Poverty the Office of
Economic Opportunity (OEO) was created.
457
Michael Harrington The Other America: Poverty in the United States (Baltimore: Pelican Books, Inc.,
1962)
458
Donna Cooper Hamilton and Charles V. Hamilton The Dual Agenda The African American struggle for
civil and economic equality. (New York: Columbia University Press, 1997)
211
The most innovative part of the War on Poverty was the Community Action
Program (CAP). Administered by the Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO) CAP
provided federal funds to develop innovative local programs to cure poverty. It initially
offered an alternative to the expansion of federal programs and authority, while promising
to empower poor people to help themselves. Instilling a sense a self-reliance and
determination. The CAP provided funding directly to grassroots public and nonprofit
agencies established by the poor. This allowed for the bypassing of state and local
governments, the United Way and other social service agencies. The premise for this was
that the legislation stated that programs would be “...developed, conducted, and
administered with the maximum feasible participation of the residents of the areas and
members of the groups served.”459
The intent of CAP was to empower those who had been historically marginalized
by the political system. To accomplish this task the community action agencies were
located in the poor neighborhoods, where they would provide information on several
services that the poor needed, and it would find out what the poor believed that they
wanted460. This placed the CAP at odds with the existing political and social order. For
what this amounted to was participatory democracy from the grassroots up. Participatory
democracy would in effect provide a popular challenge to entrenched bureaucracies. It
was the existing bureaucracies and local politicians that were not in favor of
redistributing power or wealth. In time, federal and local officials and politicians
curtailed the power and funding of CAPs, and instead, emphasized channeling funds
459
Donna Cooper Hamilton and Charles V. Hamilton The Dual Agenda The African American struggle for
civil and economic equality. (New York: Columbia University Press, 1997)pp. 60-72.
460
Jill Quadagno, The Color of Welfare How Racism Undermined The War On Poverty, (New York:
Oxford Universiity Press, 1994) p. 35
212
through existing federal and local bureaucracies, with the feds maintaining control of the
program. As these statements show not only was the CAPs program the most innovative
it was also by far the most divisive of the programs created under the Great Society
Legislation.
The Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 resulted in an increase in federal
spending on programs for the poor between the years of 1961 and 1968 from $12 billion
to $27 billion. The incidence of poverty fell from 20% to 12%. From 1964 to 1968 2
million people moved out of poverty.461 In 1964 36 million peopled lived in poverty in
1996 35.6 million lived in poverty. Due to 75 million person increase in the population
from 1964 to 1968 the percentage decreased from 19% to 13%. In 1969 20.7 % of the
households in the United States had low relative incomes in 1996 it had increased to
22.2%.
These numbers would lead one to believe that the War on Poverty was an abject
failure. However, they also belie the fact that Head Start, Upward Bound, Job Corps,
Legal Services, Community Action, Green Thumb and Foster Grandparents, all War on
Poverty programs, are still active. There combined funding for 1999 was over $520
million in a conservative Republican controlled congress. The successes of these
programs lay in the fact that because of them 27 million Americans are helped out of
poverty today. CAP also was a success when it is considered that through them the poor
in the south were able to learn about the rudiments of political participation through their
participation on the CAP boards. This lead to black participation in politics.
Furthermore the CAP aided the community control movement of the 1960s. This
461
John Lang, "War on Poverty Forgotten; Many Programs Still in Battle," Boulder News
(http://www.bouldernews.com/news/worldnation/08apove.html, 1999)
213
movement sought to give the poor in the community a voice in the decision making
involved in school policy. By having a voice in the making of school policy the
organizations in favor of community control believed that the poor parents would
participate, the academic performance of the students would increase and the schools
would become renewed with the spirit of community participation.
After federal funding was ended in 1973 the community control movement came
to a stop. Several cities were in the stage of implementation of programs designed to
increase poor participation in school decision making, when funding was ended by the
Nixon administration. The cut in funding brought an end to the community control
movement. However a lasting effect was an increase in the political astuteness of the
poor community. It in effect had created a highly politicized atmosphere in the inner
cities.462
The failure of the War on Poverty was that it did not and could not bring an end to
poverty. At no time during the funding of the program in the period of 1964 to 1968 did
federal spending on anti-poverty programs amount to more than 6%.463 During the first
year of its operation OEO had a budget of $800 million. This was not nearly enough to
end poverty in the United States464. The poor amount of funding for the War on Poverty ,
the lack of autonomy in administering the programs on the part of OEO were two of
several barriers to the implementation of the War on Poverty and, as such hindered its
success.
462
Joseph Murphy and Lynn G. Beck, "Taking Stock", School-Based Management as School Reform,
(Corwin Press Inc., 1995)
463
464
Oxford Universiity Press, 1994) p. 35.
214
The barriers to the implementation of the War on Poverty programs were as:
(1) there was no coordination and cooperation among agencies at the federal, state and
local levels of government in the implementation and administration of the War on
Poverty programs465; (2) the OEO was not allowed to continue to coordinate and
administer the War on Poverty programs and thereby by pass the existing bureaucratic
channels, which had a vested interest in maintaining the status quo466; (3) the constituency
of the War on Poverty programs did not have a true organized voice that spoke on its
behalf and represented its interests, i.e., they were not organized; (4) waning middle class
support for the War on Poverty, represented by white backlash467; (5) conservative
congressional opposition to the War on Poverty programs468; (7) the timing of the creation
of the War on Poverty programs; (7) structural racism in public institutions; and, (8) the
equating of the War on Poverty programs with the concept of targeted programs for
African Americans469.
The first stated barrier to implementation that there was no coordination and
cooperation among agencies at the federal, state and local levels of government is of
importance, when one considers that policy is fashioned through the interaction of these
three levels of government. The term intergovernmental relations is used to explain this
process. The War on Poverty programs engendered strife between these three levels of
government and hindered any semblance of coordination or cooperation.
465
Ibid., p. 34
466
Ibid., p. 34.
467
John A. Andrews III Lyndon B Johnson and the Great Society (Chicago: Ivan R Dee, 1998)pp. 76, 83.
468
Ibid., p. 80.
469
Oxford Universiity Press, 1994) p. 172
215
Local and state governments found their power and influence circumvented by the
method used by the federal government to implement the program. Funding was made
not through existing bureaucratic agencies, but instead to private organizations that met
the criteria established by the OEO. This led to conflict between the three levels and led
to the federal government first changing the method of funding and then dismantling the
OEO and changing the jurisdiction of the War on Poverty programs470.
The second barrier to implementation is related to the first. It focuses on the fact
that the OEO was not allowed to continue to coordinate and administer the War on
Poverty programs. The coordination and administration of the War on Poverty programs
by and autonomous agency, ensured that the poor would be served by the programs. To
use the existing channels would have placed the programs, that were designed to changed
the plight of the poor into the hands of those that held a vested interest in preserving the
status quo. Programs such as CAP and Legal Services allowed the poor to be able to
function in political settings and would have allowed them to protect their interests471.
This would have challenged the status quo as the politicization of the poor created a
constituency that was capable of challenging the established political machines. They
would elect candidates who represented their interests and who would protect programs
that benefited them.
The next barrier to implementation holds that the constituents of the War on
Poverty programs were not organized. The lack of organization prevented them from
having and organization capable of lobbying congress on their behalf. This lack of
organization left funding of the War on Poverty programs at the discretion of politicians,
470
Ibid., p. 33.
471
John A. Andrews III Lyndon B Johnson and the Great Society (Chicago: Ivan R Dee, Inc., 1998) p. 75.
216
who answered to a middle class constituency. Any change in the sentiment of the
constituency was used by congressional forces, that were already hostile to the War on
Poverty, to move forward with plans to cut funding for the programs and eventually to
abolish the OEO altogether472.
The barriers to implementation that states that waning middle class support for
the, War on Poverty and conservative congressional opposition to the War on Poverty
programs are directly related to the previous one. Middle class support for the War on
Poverty changed as the perception of the programs began to intertwined with the concept
of race. As African Americans came to dominate enrollment in OEO programs by 1968
public support for them began to change for the worse. Some hold that this was the result
of the middle class associating the continued funding of the programs as rewarding
rioters. This change in middle class sentiment was the impetus that finally created the
political atmosphere in the congress that led to cuts in the funding of the programs and in
less than five years the end of the War on Poverty473.
The timing of the creation of the War on Poverty programs was yet another barrier
to its implementation. The creation of the programs followed first the assassination of
President Kennedy. Second, it occurred after some of the worst urban riots in United
States history. Third, the War on Poverty began during the high tide of the Civil Rights
movement, and at a time when United States involvement in Vietnam began to increase.
Finally at the time of the War on Poverty there was no public perception of poverty being
a national problem, a crisis as it were. To be sure there were studies, but nothing that
caused a crisis similar to the Great Depression for example.
472
Ibid., p. 83
473
217
The assassination of President Kennedy provided the emotional atmosphere to
first get the congress to finally debate and pass the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the
Voting Rights Act of 1965 and then the Economic Opportunity Act of 1964 and other
pieces of Great Society legislation.474 This coincided with some of the most important
events associated with the protest aspects of the Civil Rights Movement, exemplified by
the Selma to Montgomery March. The escalation of U.S. involvement in Vietnam also
led increased demonstrations against the Vietnam War. Furthermore, U.S. expenditures
to maintain the Vietnam War were offered as reasons as to why a more effective War on
Poverty could not be waged475.
Finally, the War on Poverty occurred during a time of affluence in American
history. It was believed that this affluence would continue and, that therefore it was time
to make sure that all Americans enjoyed in it. The overheating of the economy in the
early 1970s along with the oil shock of 1973 and the onset of inflation changed this
perspective drastically. Beyond this point is the fact that only in times of crisis have
decisive actions been taken that served to improve the circumstances and situations of the
poor and disadvantaged. Such was the case during the Great Depression. During the
1960s as long as the issue was Civil Rights and the crisis in the streets of America existed
steps were taken to ameliorate the circumstances that created the crisis. Once the issue
changed to one of economics then the steps to ameliorate the crisis situation in the streets
changed to the slogan of "Law and Order."476
474
Ibid., pp. 25-55
475
476
Ibid., pp. 9, 83-94
218
Structural racism in public institutions was yet another barrier to the
implementation of the War on Poverty programs. As stated earlier structural racism
focuses on the public institutions that develop and maintain practices that serve to
continue racist practices. It is further listed as following from institutional racism, which
is the accepted societal customs that are designed to perpetuate the subordinant position
of the group that is the object of racism. This concept is its self the result of individual
racism. The structural racism embedded in the existing bureaucracy had prevented the
extension of New Deal programs to African Americans. Because of this the OEO was
originally structured to bypass the existing bureaucracy and provide the poverty services
to the disaffected group. Initially this arrangement was successful in obtaining the
desired ends.
In Mississippi the CAP for example succeeded in politicizing the African
American community as long as OEO bypassed the existing institutions. In New Wark,
in those areas where the funds were presented to organizations that were outside of the
existing power structure the task of politicization occurred. In those where the funds
were channeled through existing institutions funds were misused. In Chicago the existing
power structure controlled the anti-poverty funds and prevented any effective use in the
improvement of the status of the poor. The previous practices of the established
organizations were such that they excluded African Americans in the presentation of
services.
When OEO bypassed them and delivered its services directly to the poor, it
engendered the ire of the existing institutions, which then placed pressure on Washington.
219
This led to a change in the method of administering the anti-poverty funds and the
prevention of any real and meaningful change in the lives of the poor477.
Closely related to this barrier is the final one, which holds that the equating of the
War on Poverty programs with the concept of targeted programs for African Americans
served to block its implementation. Targeted programs were believed to be providing an
unfair advantage to groups and thus violating the concept of American exceptionalism.478
The prevailing attitude was that where poverty is concerned, "…We don't condone it. If
you don't succeed, it's your own damn fault. It's a psychological reality in the minds of
lots of Americans. Lazy, sick, stupid people. Why should I have to pay for that."479
Programs targeted to African Americans receive little support.480 As the Civil
Rights Movements emphasis shifted from civil issues to social issues, the social issues it
addressed, even though they crossed racial, and cultural barriers, became intertwined with
providing unfair help to African Americans481. Thus race became a keen factor when
determining, the necessity of the programs. The riots in the streets were used as a
pretense to show the ineffectiveness of the programs. Even more so, it was held that the
continued funding of the War on Poverty programs, was rewarding lawlessnes482.
477
Oxford Universiity Press, 1994) pp. 33-59
478
Ibid., pp. 172,187-197
479
480
Oxford Universiity Press, 1994 ) pp. 3, 172.
481
John A. Andrews III Lyndon B Johnson and the Great Society (Chicago: Ivan R Dee, Inc., 1998)pp. 24-
55
482
Ibid., p. 83
220
The OEO was abolished by the Nixon administration in 1973. The programs that
it administered were handed over to other existing agencies, and the poor were no longer
the prime benefactors of the programs. The War on Poverty had as its ideological goal of
ending poverty. This never happened. However, even though the conservative right
continues to bash the Great Society Legislation as monumental failures, it's programs are
still in existence an still being funded. As one author stated, "…Shriver says that many
old foes just forgot the origins of the programs. A funny thing a while back I remember,
he says was that Mrs. (Nancy) Reagan became very active in Foster Grandparents."483 As
this shows, many of the programs such as, Legal Services and the Foster Grandparents
programs have been co-opted by the middle class that once protested vehemently against
the programs.
Another unintended consequence of the War on Poverty programs was the
creation of black politicians. Prior to CAP their were 70 elected blacks at all levels of
government by 1969 this number had reached 1500.484 The increased politicization of the
African American community and the challenge that they presented to the political status
quo was yet another unintended consequence of the War on Poverty. The legislation was
passed by consensus in the congress.485 When the use of the anti-poverty funds resulted
in effective challenges to the state and local power structure, the pressure these two
groups brought on congress led to the eventual end of the OEO.
483
484
Oxford Universiity Press, 1994 pp. 58
485
John A. Andrews III Lyndon B Johnson and the Great Society (Chicago: Ivan R Dee, Inc., 1998) p. 11
221
The white backlash against the advancement of African-American interests and
the ensuing War on Welfare, or Welfare reform was yet another unintended consequence
of the War on Poverty. Following the War and the massing of data to show its failure,
conservatives began to almost immediately seek to dismantle what was termed the
Welfare state. The Nixon administration began to move away from grants-in-aid which
were the major type of funding associated with some War on Poverty programs and
instituted revenue sharing. The Reagan Administration then instituted block grants. Both
were done to de-emphasize national goals and place greater interest on state and local
policy goals.
The Grants-in-aid programs had as its primary goal the solving of problems
associated with the urban needy. General Revenue Sharing and Block Grants had its
focus on the policy concerns of the existing political structure. Political concerns, which
had historically discriminated against African-Americans on account of race486. In 1994
this trend was continued by the election of a Republican dominated congress. Their
policy, the Contract with America, or more to the point, Contract on America, had as a
goal, the dismantling of the American Welfare state. A policy it called Welfare Reform.
This was merely the further shifting of the concerns of the poor into the hands of the
states. Political interests, which had historically been, either, uninterested, incapable or
unwilling to adequately and fairly deal with the concerns of the poor.
African-American Worldview. The preceding synopsis of African-American
political history shows the context of African-American political participation to be
dominated by internal dissension and external conflict. This was a struggle that began in
486
Timothy J. Conlan, "The Politics of Federal Block Grants: From Nixon to Reagan," Political Science
Quarterly, 99 (Summer, 1984) pp. 247-270
222
the West African background and has continued unabated over the past three centuries.
The conflict with its intention of gaining African-American freedom has resulted in the
development of a dualistic African-American worldview in an atmosphere suffused with
ideal of American pluralist constitutional democracy and the African-American reality of
enslavement, racism, and segregation of varying forms. W. E. B. Dubois has explained
the African-American worldview as being the result of a "double consciousness"487 within
the individuals of the African-American community. The African-American dualistic
worldview results from an internal struggle between the West African and the American
ideal of man, society and government. A clash between the ideal of being an African-
American defined in the context of the collective group and as defined by American
individualism. The West African ideal encompasses community oriented, group-
centered, egalitarian concerns, whereas the American ideal envisions an individualistic,
competitive and self-oriented society.488As was explained previously the West African
background informs and shapes the African component of the duality of African-
American consciousness. On the other hand, the American component was shaped by
African-American socialization into American society. The primary agents of
socialization being educational and religious institutions.489
The dualistic worldview of the African-American community has led to the
generation of two broad policy perspectives with regards to African-American political
participation that are not mutually exclusive. The first policy perspective articulated by
487
W.E.B. Dubois, The Souls of Black Folk (New York: Dover Publications Inc., 1994) p. 2.
488
Julius Jeppe, "Cultural Dimensions of Development Policy Management in the New South Africa,"
DPMN Bulletin, 2(2) (August, 1994) pp. 8-10.
489
Carter G. Woodson, The Mis-Education of the Negro (Trenton, N.J.: Africa World Press, 1993) pp. 26-
37.
223
such persons as Frederick Douglass and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. holds that through the
use of protest and politically oriented social disturbances African-Americans should
induce white America to develop just policies in the interests of African-Americans.490
This perspective is conservative in nature and reform minded with an eye to sociopolitical
integration on dominant group terms. The second policy perspective, which counts
among its adherents David Walker, Henry Highland Garnett, W. E. B. Dubois, Paul
Robeson and Malcolm X maintains that African-Americans must "…as men and equals…
demand every political right, privilege, and position to which the whites are eligible in the
United States,"491 and that as a group African-Americans can accept nothing less than
being an "…acknowledged…necessary constituent in the ruling element of the
country."492 Here the emphasis is on radical self-development and non-gradual social
acceptance according to African-American community principles.
The two policy perspectives, which are outgrowths of the dualistic African-
American worldview have related social constructions of political reality. For the
conservative policy approach power is unevenly distributed but susceptible to African-
American pressure politics applied within socially acceptable limits. The second or
radical perspective also views the sociopolitical distribution of power as being unevenly
distributed, however rather than engaging in tactics designed to move white power
holders, this perspective seeks to mobilize African-American social organizations to
490
54-55.
491
Vincent Harding, The Other American Revolution (Atlanta, GA.: Institute of the Black World, 1980) p.
56.
492
Ibid., p. 56
224
actively direct both intracommunity development and white relations with the African-
American community.
Both perspectives maintain that government exists to meet the needs of the
African-American community, however, the radical perspective leans more to the West
African egalitarian ideal, where as the conservative approach centers on the American
individualistic ideal. Each also agree that social movements are mass motivated actions,
which stimulate social change, the difference is in the nature and extent of the social
change. For the conservative policy approach social change occurs in accordance with
the principles of American pluralist democracy, while the radical policy approach
maintains that American pluralist democracy allows only for social reform and a
maintenance of the status quo, when true social change would lead to the restructuring of
society along egalitarian lines. By stressing egalitarian principles the radical policy
approach presents a cooperative group centered economic philosophy in contrast to the
liberal economic philosophy adhered to by the conservative policy approach.
African-American Population Growth. African-American population growth
has gone through significant changes that have altered African-American urban and rural
distribution and which have impacted African-American political participation. Between
the years of 1619 and 1860 approximately 450,000 Africans of primarily West African
origin were imported into the continental United States as enslaved labor.493 The largest
increase in the importation of enslaved Africans occurred between the years of the mid-
1600s to 1808 when the importation of enslaved Africans was outlawed by the United
493
(New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1994); Ronald Segal, The Black Diaspora: Five Centuries of the Black
Experience Outside Africa (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 1995)
225
States Constitution. Still the importation of enslaved West Africans continued right up
until the United States Civil War. By 1865 the African-American population had
increased through natural population growth to an estimated 4.5 million. The majority of
the African-American population was located in the deep south states and lived in rural
settings.
The southern states were the central location of African-Americans until the late
1800s when gradually the population began to extend out across the country. By 1860 the
southern states that had a substantial African-American total population and African-
American registered voter population in comparison to whites were South Carolina,
Mississippi, Louisiana, Florida, North Carolina, Alabama, Georgia, and Virginia.494
Already, however, by December of 1863 with the inevitable conclusion of the Civil War
beginning to take shape President Lincoln and the Congress had begun to take measures
that would dramatically increase the white population of the country and the South and
provide the manpower for American expansion across the Continent. One measure that
would alter the balance of African-American and white population in the southern United
States was the Immigration Act of 1864 and amended in 1866, which established
immigration agencies in Great Britain, Germany, Sweden and Norway to recruit

494
Lerone Bennett, Jr., Before the Mayflower: A History of Black America (New York: Penguin Books,
1993) p. 233. According to the 1860 U.S. Census, South Carolina had 412,000 African-Americans and
291,000 whites. Eighty thousand African-Americans in South Carolina were registered voters with 46,000
whites registered. Mississippi had 437,000 African-Americans with 60,000 of them registered voters and
353,000 whites with 46,000 of them registered. Louisiana had 350,000 African-Americans with 84,000 of
them registered voters and 357,000 whites with 45,000 of them registered. Florida had 62,000 African-
Americans with 16,000 registered voters and 77,000 whites with 11,000 registered voters. North Carolina
had 361,000 African-Americans with 72,000 registered voters and 629,000 whites with 106,000 registered
voters. Alabama had 437,000 African-Americans with 104,000 registered voters and 526,000 whites with
61,000 registered voters. Georgia had 465,000 African-Americans with 95,000 registered voters and
591,000 whites with 96,000 registered voters. Virginia had 548,000 African-Americans with 105,000
registered voters and 1 million whites with 120,000 registered voters. White voter registration was
restricted to those willing to take an oath of allegiance to the United States government and who had not
been federal officeholders in the Union prior to the Civil War and then served in the Confederate
government thereby going back on their oath of office. African-American voter registration was restricted
by Southern terrorist groups, and socioeconomic intimidation.
226
immigrants to the United States. The results of this Act was a 27% increase in the
population of the country between 1860 and 1870.
The hostility of southern society towards African-Americans was a major impetus
in African-American migration from the deep south to Liberia-in insignificant numbers-
and the western territories immediately following the Civil War and to the North from
1915 to 1960. These migrations, which were further motivated by the perception of
increased economic opportunity led to a shift in the African-American population from
being primarily rural to a substantially urbanized ethnic minority.495 The African-
American population shift between 1915 and 1960 led to an increase in the opportunity to
utilize group political resources and a marked augmentation in political participation by
African-Americans.
African-American Socioeconomic Organization. The social conditions of
African-American society and the resulting deprivations, a synopsis of which has been
given, set the parameters for African-American political participation. The cultural
constraints on African-American political participation have been addressed in the
discussion on African-American worldview. The other restrictive force on African
-American political participation is the structure of American society. For much of
American history and to a significant extent today the organization of African-American
society is defined by the disproportionately one-sided nature of African-American and
white society social interaction and the unequal socioeconomic relationships which
result.496
495
E. Franklin Frazier, The Negro in the United States (New York: The MacMillan Company, 1949) pp.
171-177; Vincent Harding, The Other American Revolution (Atlanta, GA.: Institute of the Black World,
1980) pp. 93-94.
496
Andrew Hacker, Two Nations: Black and White, Separate, Hostile, Unequal (New York: Charles
Scribner's Sons, 1992)
227
From the herrenvolk democratic practices of colonial, antebellum and Jim Crow
America to the present heavily economically determinist democratic America the social
interaction between African-Americans and white America has shaped and perpetuated
certain forms of political participation over others and thus profoundly guided African-
American society into a de-africanized, individual centered frame of reference. The
patterns which develop from the socioeconomic interaction of African-American society
and white America hold a pluralist philosophical line, whereby it is maintained that
America is a multicultural salad bowl where all of the ethnic groups exist while
maintaining their separate identity. In practice however, the interaction between African-
Americans and white society has resulted in such outcomes as white domination as
during the period of enslavement, genocide,497 particularly at the local level as
exemplified in the extermination of the African-American communities of Tulsa,
Oklahoma in 1921 and Rosewood, Florida in 1922.498
A further outcome is the expulsion of African-Americans from localities either by
force or as a result of African-American reaction to socioeconomic and psychological
pressures brought about by terrorist organizations such as the Klu Klux Klan working
inclusion with local government and social interests. The social interaction by the
dominant white society and African-American society also leads to the relegation of
African-Americans to the level of an exploited caste within society499 or to the social
assimilation, i.e., integration of certain strata of the African-American society into white
497
George Ritzer, Social Problems (New York: Random House, 1986) pp. 263-265; Michael Banton, Race
Relations (New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1967) pp. 68-76.
498
(New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1994) p. 352.
499
John Dollard, Caste and Class in a Southern Town (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday Anchor Books, 1957)
228
America as well as to the establishment of a paternalistic relationship exhibited in the
current relationship of impoverished African-Americans with social welfare agencies.500
The social conditions and consequences of social interaction are met by some in
the African-American community through resignation to developments stemming from
the social interaction. Here the outcome is accepted as inevitable and on occasion as
being deserved.501 The accommodationist philosophy of African-American conservatives
from Booker T. Washington to the present is founded on an acceptance of the status quo
and the results of the unequal social interaction. This mind set provides fertile ground for
the idea of African-American society being pathological, disorganized and deviant.
Nonparticipation in the socioeconomic order to the degree allowable so as to lessen the
effects of the interaction is another defensive measure employed in response to the nature
of African-American and white society social interaction. The advocating of separation
from all contact with white society is a response that groups such as the Nation of Islam
and Marcus Garvey's UNIA have followed. The most prevalent response however has
been the implementation of the tactics of political resistance in all of its forms, i.e.,
violent and nonviolent techniques of political participation.502 African-American
socioeconomic organization further colors and is colored by African-American political
culture.
African-American Political Culture. African-American disposition towards,
philosophy on and opinion centered predilections regarding the nature of the American
500
501
August Meier and Elliott M. Rudwick, From Plantation to Ghetto: An Interpretive History of American
Negroes (New York: Hill and Wang, 1969) pp. 156-188.
502
229
political process as given in theory and carried out by human agents in sociopolitical
institutions provides the African-American community with a political culture that at
points converges with the dominant group understanding of American political culture
and in places sharply diverges. The reasons for the points of convergence and divergence
are the impact of the West African background on African-American community
development, the nature of the relationship between enslaved African-Americans and
American political power, as well as the different political histories of the dominant
group and the African-American community.
American political culture is centered on the democratic values that are expressed
in the countries Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. American political
culture theoretically encompasses goals such as majority governance, through mass
selection of representatives in substantively competitive elections. A related concern is a
high degree of participation by a politically literate citizenry. Another goal is the
expectation of government integrity, which legitimizes mass acceptance of the authority,
embedded in political institutions as well as government protection of individual liberties
and civil and social rights. Furthermore, government is expected to maintain law and
order with a rational utilization of force and in dealing with other nations and
multinational entities government is expected to abide by the tenets of democracy.
The dominant group perspective on American political culture accepts the
democratic values and prescriptive elements and maintains that overtime as the national
consciousness expanded previous historical institutions and incidents-African
enslavement, segregation, women disfranchisement, restrictive immigration policies for
Asians and Africans-which are now viewed as incompatible with the prevailing
understanding of democracy were rectified with the enactment of legislation and the
230
amending of the Constitution. African-American political culture also accepts the
democratic tenets as expressed in the writings of the nations founders and in the nations
important political documents.
However, from the national beginnings African-American political culture has
expressed a more egalitarian definition to the democratic values and American political
prescriptions and has veered away from its egalitarian roots only as an African-American
elite developed which sought acculturation into the dominant society through conforming
to Anglo-Saxon traditions. The expressions of egalitarianism are found in the calls for
the extension of the franchise to all able-bodied citizens regardless of race, gender, creed,
socioeconomic status or color. Positions such as these are found in the writings of such
noted African-Americans as Henry Highland Garnett, Henry McNeal Turner, and
Frederick Douglass to name only of few of the early proponents. Concerns with
dominant group conformity are found in the works of emancipated enslaved Africans
such as Phyllis Wheately and in the writings and program of Booker T. Washington.
African-American political culture like the dominant political culture consists of
political ideologies which supports the existence of American political institutions,
reinforces the American ethos and sustains and undying belief in the patriotic
assumptions of the American political psychology. The conservative status quo
supporting ideology has been found in the experiences of African-Americans and thus in
African-American political culture from as early as the colonial era and continues to the
present. Even more so, the liberal tradition with its emphasis on social reform.
Where the dominant political culture and African-American political culture
diverge in the ideological sphere is in the continuing necessity of social reform along
democratic socialist lines as exemplified in limited fashion during the Progressive era and
231
again during the New Deal and Great Society programs. While the dominant political
culture has ebbed and flowed with the occurrence of socioeconomic crisis between
conservative and liberal ideologically based programs, African-American political culture
has consistently overtime maintained a strong group centered focus on the need for
universalistic policies and programs which stem from the egalitarian tradition of social
democracy. So much so in fact, that African-American political support overtime has
fervently supported those political representatives that have maintained a strong mass
centered policy perspective even if that perspective is only symbolic and lacking in
legislative enactment and programmatic implementation.
232
CHAPTER V
ANALYSIS
Within this chapter, the qualitative and quantitative analysis will be conducted.
First, to determine how well the models explain African-American political participation
in the development of civil and social rights policies from 1940 to 2000, the five models
will be qualitatively analyzed tenet by tenet from the perspective of seven comparative
topics. The topics are the nature of the sociopolitica process of state and group
interaction; the models position on the efficacy of democracy; the models theory of
history; the models theory of economics; the models theory of social change; the models
theory of social movements; the models theory of race relations. Second, the results of the
quantitative analysis will be presented. The quantitative analysis will be concerned with
the explanatory power of violent protests, non-violent protests, African and Asian
colonial independence, percentage of democrats in congress, the percentage of African-
Americans in the total voting population, the African-American poverty rate, percentage
of African-American congress in the enactment of civil and social rights policies.
Qualitative Analysis
The Nature of the Sociopolitical Process of State and Group Interaction
Conventional Pluralist Theory
T1: Interest groups are constantly changing and adapting to the dynamics of
the sociopolitical system.
For the conventional pluralist theorist American society is composed of a variety
of groups with competing and overlapping interests. They are organized with the express
purpose of influencing the development and enactment of public policies which are in the
233
best interests of their constituencies. Furthermore, the American sociopolitical order is
viewed as being dynamic. The perpetual motion and equilibrium of the American
sociopolitical system, i.e., its history of growth, change and development stems from both
physical or revolutionary and moral social movements within and without the system.
The dynamism being driven by technological invovation, rising standards of living, rising
expectations and clashes between first, second and third wave civilizations.503 An ideal
scenario that meets the criteria of this tenet exists with the founding and transformations
of Political Action Committees (PAC) over the past thirty years. Developed with the
idea of making contributions to influence the nominations and elections of public
officials, PACs, both those associated with organizations such as labor unions and
corporations, and those which are not affiliated with any organization, have in recent
years had to adapt their actions so as to comply with current campaign finance laws.
African-American political participation during the period of 1940 to 2000 is also
shaped by African-American interest groups adapting to the dynamics of the American
sociopolitical system. African-American interest groups were and are formed as a result
of external pressures that are rooted in the dominant group racial paradigm. Dominant
group overt and covert White Supremacists attitudes and ideological adherence both
North and South of the Mason Dixon line shaped the entire American social structure.
Dominant group social behavior in all areas of social life created an ascribed status for
African-Americans defined by socially constructed racial paradigms. African-American
socialization within the total institutions of a segregated and defacto segregated society
shaped the essence of African-American interests groups and political participation.

503
Alvin and Heidi Toffler, Creating A New Civilization The Politics of the Third Wave. (Atlanta: Turner
Publishing, Inc., 1995) pp. 29-31. The Tofflers divide the modern world into preagrarian and agrian
societies, industrial societies and post-industrial or information societies.
234
From 1877 to approximately 1950 the American sociopolitical system provided
limited access and opportunites of influence to African-American interest groups outside
of the judicial arena. With changing international arrangements, in particular with
developments throughout the developing world with emphasis in Africa, greater media
exposure of the African-American situation and African-American mass mobilization, the
period of 1950 to approximately 1970 saw increased opportunities materialize at the
congressional and bureaucratic level which provided avenues for African-American
interest groups to influence policy decisions in accordance with traditional political
protocol. The period from 1970 into the 1990s saw a strong conservative swing in the
American sociolpolitical system and a corresponding adjustment on the part of African-
American interest groups to deal with the new situation.
T2: When one interest group attains a majority in the government and
maintains a monopoly on state resources, the interests of the minority are
subordinated and a tyranny of the majority is established.
Originally proposed by John C. Calhoun as a reasoned defense of Southern
nullification and Secession, this tenet holds true within the racial context of African-
American political participation. With the limited exception of the period of
Reconstruction from 1865 to 1877, African-American political participation prior to the
1960s was defined by a tyranny of the white majority. Overt southern and northern
racists coupled with sympathetic moderate and liberal politicians shaped public policies
which effectively subordinated many African-Americans to a pre-Civil War field slave
social status and confined others to the level of second class citizenship or quasi-freedom.
The revocation of the franchise, establishment of the doctrine of separate but equal, and
the enactment of Jim Crow laws were all policies which addressed majority group
235
concerns to the detriment of minority group issues such as the enactment of lynch laws,
the extension of the franchise, adequate education and equality of opportunity and results.
From the 1960s to the present the tyranny of the white majority has undergone superficial
or token changes. Increases in the number of elected African-American officials under
the guise of diversity, have generally been subsituted for the more substantive issues of
genuine African-American interests within the areas of education and sustainable
economic opportunity.504
T3: The purpose of the state is to moderate the ongoing political conflict
resulting from diverse and conflicting interests.
With regards to African-American interest groups the state did not consistently
serve as a moderating influence in the ongoing political conflict with the political
opponents of African-Americans. From 1877 to the mid-1960s the federal government
maintained a hands off policy hiding behind a percieved lack of constitutional authority to
intervene on behalf of African-Americans within the several states. White terrorism,
community sanctioned political violence against African-Americans was generally met
with executive branch, Federal calls for moderation, such as occurred in Mobil, Alabama;
Beaumont, Texas; Detroit, Michigan; and Harlem, New York in 1943, Little Rock,
Arkansas on September 9, 1957 and Birmingham, Alabama in 1963 . African-American
reactionary defensive political violence such as occurred in Birmingham, Alabama May
11-12, 1963; Cambridge, Maryland, July 12, 1963; Chicago, Illinois; Cleveland, Ohio;
and San Francisco, California in 1966; and Wrightsville, Georgia and Miami, Florida in
1980 and Los Angeles, California in 1992 were met with decisive Federal action- the
504
Lani Guinier, The Tyranny of the Majority Fundamental Fairness in Representavie Democracy. (New
York: The Free Press, 1994)
236
mobilization and deployment of federalized national guard units and the utilization of
regular army units.505 In instances of both African-American interest group bargaining and
African-American political reactionary violence, the state was either and passive or active
agent against African-American activism and not a neutral moderating agent.
T4: State policymakers are not neutral in the mediation of group conflict;
instead, they maintain a position on policy concerns, with an eye to the
preservation of the status quo.
From 1877 into the 1960s segregationist oriented government policymakers from
the south generally maintained a position of hostility in regards to African-American
interest group issues, while moderate southern and northern policymakers acquiesed to
southern social and political hostility towards the African-American political agenda. By
the 1960s mass demonstrations, international cold war political concerns, and business
socioeconomic interests created a political atmosphere which led to significant shifts in
civil and social rights policy positions on the part of moderate southern and northern
policymakers. Southern segrationists politically isolated in the late 1960s and early 1970s
by the late 1970s and early 1980s changed their overt segrationist language, to a racially
coded doublespeak and took advantage of the changes in public opinion to align
themselves with the developing air of American conservatism. Far from being neutral on
the African-American political agenda policymakers throughout history of taken strong
ideolgically based positions, which have been changed only in times of crisis.
505
Lerone Bennett, Before the Mayflower A History of Black America. (New York: Penguin Books, 1993)
pp. 539-640.
237
T5: The social, political, and economic resources of society are unequally
distributed among competing interest groups. No interest group holds a
monopoly on all available resources.
African-American interest groups such as the NAACP, CORE, SNCC, SCLC,
BCD, and the MFDP along with the predominantly liberal and white ADA and the SDS
found that those coporate interests and conservative northern and southern interests which
had generally opposed the African-American political agenda, did not hold a genuine
monopoly on all of the resources necessary to effectively influence the public
policymaking process. The lack of immediate influence on key policymakers, was
counterbalanced by the organized human capital of the mass base upon which these
African-American and liberal white organizations rested. Their human resources, tension
revealing oriented strategy and effective utilization of all media sources provided a
countervailing power to those interests which stood in opposition to the African-
American political agenda. The countervailing power of the African-American interest
groups however, was met by state use of coercive power. Power in which it holds a state
defined legitimate monopoly on.
T6 & T7: The policymaking process of the American political system is
distinguished by manifold centers of power, but none of the centers
of power assumes a sovereign position over the others.
This allows for multiple points at which organizations may
influence the policymaking process and thus possibly achieve their
organizational goals.
The federal nature of the American political system with power divided between
the national and state governments, resting on the separation of powers between the
238
congressional, executive and judicial branches of the national and state governments, the
extensive bureaucratic apparatus, special commissions all create various avenues by
which influence can theoretically be brought to bear upon the policymaking process.
Whether at any of the steps in the policymaking process- the problem identification and
definition stage, the statement of policy goals, selection of policy initiatives,
implementation, adjudication and policy evalution levels- opportunities to influence the
process abound for organized interest groups including African-American representatives.
T8: The development of public policy in the American political system is
marked by bargaining and negotiation among organizations and
government agencies, each representing the varied interests of diverse
constituencies.
African-American interest groups participated in the bargaining and negotiation
process, which eventually led to the development of significant civil and social welfare
legistation. At times in the process coalition partners such as the NAACP and the AFL-
CIO found themselves at odds over certain aspects of legislation, which was a reflection
of the diverse interests that they represented. Government agencies such as the AAA,
headed by bureaucrats, supported by congress added another element to the policy mix
which furthered the bargaining and negotiation which took place. The bargaining and
negotiation led to the creation of legislation which did not meet all of the specific policy
interests of the parties represented, a clear indictation of the compromise which is an
outcome of bargaining and negotiation.
239
T9: The general character of public policies produced by American
government is incremental as opposed to comprehensive in nature.
Beginning with the 1957 Civil Rights Act American civil and social rights
legislation represented attempts by the federal government to address African-American
policy interests incrementally. Slight changes in existing practices were implemented in a
piecemeal fashion, instead wholesale comprehensive changes. The 1957 Act made it
illegal for anyone to prevent in another person from voting in federal elections. The
Attorney General was empowered with the authority to initiate civil proceedings against a
violator of this law on behalf of the disenfranchised voter. The U.S. Commission on Civil
Rights was created to investigate and report on the cases of alleged denial of Civil Rights.
This Commission and the Act itself had no enforcement powers. It was a symbolic act
which made an important first step in addressing African-American Civil Rights policy
interests. The variable being altered with this law was the very idea of disenfranchising
potential African-Amercian voters.
Three years later the Civil Rights Act of 1960 was enacted. This Act required that
federal election records be retained for a period of 22 months. This would allow of the
inspection of the records if necessary two months before Presidential or congressional
elections. The Attorney General is authorized to inspect them to determine if there is a
history racial discrimination. If a history of racial discrimination is found to exist, the
Attorney General is allowed to bypass adjudication of the issue and order that the person
affected be registered and allowed to vote. The enforcement power which the 1957 Act
lacked was established with this legislation.
240
The next policy in the incremental chain of establishing African-American civil
rights was the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This Act allowed for the federal protection of
the voting rights of all U.S. Citizens. It further extended the protection of African
American political rights by prohibiting discrimination in public accommodations. The
Attorney General was empowered to seek suits to end desegregation of public facilities
and in public education across the nation. Discrimination in federally assisted programs
was made illegal. The Act also established the practice of equal employment opportunity
and created the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to oversee such actions. The
Commission on Civil Rights whose existence was continued until 1968 was empowered
to recommend to the Secretary of Commerce that surveys be compiled on registration and
voting statistics in certain geographical areas where racially motivated disenfranchment
was a problem. With this Act the Civil Rights demands of African-American interest
groups were furthered and the symbolic gestures were made in the direction of meeting
the social welfare concerns advocated as well.
The Voting Rights Act of 1965 was the next incremental effort at satisfying the
African-American political agenda. This Act prevented a state from denying any citizen
the franchise on the basis of race. The powers of the Attorney General to protect the right
to vote of all U.S. Citizens was greatly expanded. The Act allowed for the bypassing of
the court case-by-case method, which was subject to the methodical nature of the legal
process and litered with loopholes that the legal representatives of states and local
authorities routinely bypassed. Instead, immediate enforcement procedures were provided
for given prompt redress to the disenfranchised persons.
241
In 1968 another layer was added to the laws protecting the civil and social rights
of African-Americans. The Civil Rights Act enacted during this year enumerated
penalties for persons who engaged in psychological or physical intimidation or harm of
persons involved in exercising their federal right to vote, serve as a juror, use public
accommodations. Something that previous legislation had not dealt with. The issue of
racial discrimination in the sale or rental of housing was addressed, however, retirement
homes and single-family homes that were private transactions, conducted without the
services of a real estate brokerage agency or any public advertisement were not subject to
mandates of this legislation.
This same year saw the enactment of the Jury Selection and Service Act. This Act
specfically addresed discrimination in jury selection by stipulating that federal district
courts use plans in jury selection which prevent racial, gender, socioeconomic, religious,
national orgin discrimination. This law was designed to ensure that juries are
representative of the community allowing defendants to be tried by a true jury of their
peers.
To further address the housing issues first broached in the 1968 Civil Rights Act,
congress enacted the Housing and Community Development and the Equal Credit Acts
of 1974. This Housing and Community Development Act prohibited discrimination on
the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin, as well as family status or physical
impairment in the denial of federal mortgage loans or federal insurance or guaranty of
such a loan or in the sale or rental of housing. The enforcement of this act falls under the
Department of Housing and Urban Development. The Equal Credit Opportunity Act
prevented racial, gender, religious and other discrimination in the granting and extension
242
of credit. Enforcement is first handled by the regulatory agencies that have jurisdiction
over the credit firm. If the regulatory agencies are unable to resolve the issue the
Attorney General is authorized to seek enforcement through the federal courts.
The Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 was legislation designed to allow
federal agencies to examine the loan practices of lending institutions to determine of they
are adequately serving under served groups, such as the poor and minorities or are
practicing red-lining-denying loans to certain racial or geographic areas. The federal
evaluation of the lending institution is conducted as apart of the application process for
authorizing the establishment of new institution branches or company mergers. Each of
these Congressional Acts passed during the twenty year period of 1957 to 1977 built upon
the other making small changes in the power accorded to the government to deal with the
injustices affecting African-Americans. The incremental nature of the polices and the
extended time frame in which the were enacted lend credence to the conventional
pluralist perspective that public policies are generally incremental as opposed to being
comprehensive.
T10: Under the social contract theory groups are autonomous from the state and
have a substantial amount of coercive resources; however, they agree to
adhere to the purpose and rules of civil society and submit to the
jurisdiction of government recognizing its coercive powers and legitimacy.
African-American interest groups such as the NAACP, CORE, SNCC, and SCLC
while using their coercive resources to expose the contradictions in American political
rhetoric and American social reality, consistently recognized the legitimacy of the
243
American government. This is noted when one considers that the Civil Rights groups
submitted to arrest, arraingment, and imprisonment by local officials and adhered to the
judicial pronouncements that were routinely handed down.
Even groups such as the Black Panther Party for Self Defense and the Nation of
Islam, which are not traditionally viewed as an integral part of the Civil Rights Movement
routinely engaged in political actions which accepted the legitimacy of the American
national, state and local governments and merely sought in many cases to enjoy those
civil and social rights that were guaranteed by the American Constitution. In cases, where
members of these twp organizations had their rights violated by law enforcement officials
as in the 1963 Los Angeles Police killings of unarmed Nation of Islam members, these
organizations sought redress to the Courts. In total the African-American interest groups
of the Civil Rights Movement and later the Black Power and Liberations Movements
which grew out of it recognized and submitted to the coercive power of the state.
T11: To increase their effectiveness in influencing policy decisions interest
groups form coalitions and pool available resources.
For the entire period covered by this study African-American interest groups such
as the NAACP, SCLC, CORE and the National Urban League, consistently formed
coalitions with labor organizations- the AFL-CIO, civil right organizations representing
other ethnic minorities and liberal white organizations-the American Civil Liberties
Union, National Council of Churches, the Urban Coalition in an effort to enhance their
ability to influence the development, implementation and evaluation of civil and social
rights policies. The coalitions formed by the various African-American organizations
244
provide clear evidence of which supports this tenets application to African American
politics.506
Radical Pluralism
T1: American adherence to the political ideology of free enterprise is irrational
and prevents an objective analysis of economic structures.
African-American civil and social rights leaders such as Asa Phillip Randolph,
Malcolm X and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Bayard Rustin, Stokely Carmichael and Huey
P. Newton at different points in their careers as spokesmen for the African-American
community leveled devastating critiques of American political economy.507 However,
their analysis the American political and economic order was interpreted by adherents to
the status quo-liberal, conservative and moderate alike- as communist, un-American or
economically unsophisticated. By critiquing the system of beliefs which undergird the
American socioeconomic construction of reality, they also were attacking the very
justifications for the political order held by the dominant group in American society. The
ideological underpinnings of American styled democracy provide organization to the
metaphorical interpretations inherent in the basic metaphor of the free enterpise
worldview, which shapes the the dominant groups political outlook and behavior.
The contradiction between the preachments and principles of the free enterpise
ideology and the actual reality of homelessness, impoverishment, hunger, elite oriented
506
Huey L. Perry and Wayne Parent, ed. Blacks and the American Political System (Gainsville: University
of Florida Press, 1995) pp. 19-23.
507
Bruce Perry (ed.), Malcolm X The Last Speeches (New York: Pathfinder, 1992); Malcolm X, By Any
Means Necessary (New York: Pathfinder, 1992); David J. Garrow, Bearing the Cross: Martin Luther King,
Jr. and the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (New York: Quill, 1986); Martin Luther King, Jr.
Where Do We Go from Here: Chaos or Community (Boston: Beacon Press, 1968)
245
or skewed public policies, unemployment, underemployment, wealthfare, sexism, racism
and religious discrimination to name only a few which generally escapes the purview of
the American citizen and when noticed is vehemently denied under the guise of blaming
the victim, bespeaks the irrationality that exists within the American social milieu. An
irrationality that was poignantly delineated by an American citizenry that has historically
recoiled in disgust at all critiques at the American social order especially when those
critiques have been presented from the African-American community. The conservative
swing in American sociopolitical life beginning in the early seventies and through the
eighties provide further proof for this tenet as the limited efforts at social reform
attempted during the sixties were rejected for the most part in favor of a pre-Keynesian
socioeconomic agenda which resulted in a redistribution of wealth upward and a
wholesale embracing of a philosophy which laid the blame for the socioeconomic
hardships suffered by many Americans not at the door of the economic uncertainties of
the unregulated market and market failures, but rather to individual sociopathology.
T2: Control of social resources is determined before ownership of economic
resources. Public or private administration of economic resources effects
who will have access to those resources, which in turn impacts social
stratification and sociopolitical influence.
The NAACP, SCLC, SNCC and the National Urban League held-and the with
exception of SNCC continue to hold- a significant amount of authority over the social
captial of the African-American community. This coupled with their own media
instruments allowed and allows for the limited shaping of African-American public
opinion. Through the social networks that these organizations maintained with liberal
246
organizations outside of the African-American community during the years of the Civil
Rights movement, additional resources and symbolic benefits were obtained which
disproportionately improved the status of the groups leadership when compared to the
benefits received by the masses on whose behalf they lobbied power structure. For the
liberal elements of government and liberally defined organizations such as the AFL-CIO,
the National Jewish Community Relations Advisory Council and other traditionally white
organizations that were apart of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, maintained
access to or control over those socioeconomic resources which were necessary for
effective bargaining in the policy domain of interest. Thedependence of the African-
American Civil Rights organizations on their liberal allies, left them vulnerable to co-
optation. Their prevalence for co-optation was further exacerbated as a result of outside
control of their financial resources and the acceptance of the organization leadership of
the dominant societies ethos, values and mores. That social stratification and influence
are impacted by this social arrangment is shown by the increase in the African-American
nominal middle class and the expansion of the African-American disadvantaged since the
Civil Rights movement. White private control of resources of social, political and
economic importance and African-American co-optation, have thus negatively impacted
social stratification and policy influence for the African-American masses. This tenet of
pluralism then points out the political basis for inequality in American socioeconomic
life.
247
T3: Wealth and income are unequally distributed and prevent the
establishment of an egalitarian society.
A powerful motivation for African-American political activism has been and
continues to be the unequal distribution of wealth and income in American society. One
of the rationals for the activism of Asa Phillip Randolph and Bayard Rustin was to be
found in the economic position of the African-American community relative to white
society. Randolph's political activities as a founding member of the Brotherhood of
Sleeping Car Porters in 1925 and as President of the National Negro Congress from 1936
to 1940 and as leader for a proposed March on Washington in 1941 stemmed from
discrimination and blatant racism in throughout American socioeconomic institutions.508
The influence of Randolph and Rustin was felt in the development of the Social
Rights agenda of the March on Washington, especially it advocation of full employment,
equal employment practices by local, state and federal government, private sector
employers, employment companies and labor unions, protection of unskilled labor in jobs
not covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act, implementation of a minimum wage
standard and provision of a guaranteed annual income. The continued emphasis by
organizations such as the NAACP, the National Council on Negro Women, and the
National Urban League on many of these and similar policy initiatives attests to the
validity of this tenet as an explanation of aspects of African-American political
participation.
508
Paula F. Pfeffer, A. Phillip Randolph, Pioneer of the Civil Rights Movement (Baton Rouge: Lousiana
State University Press, 1990); Lerone Bennett, Jr. Before The Mayflower A History of Black America(New
York: Penguin Books, 1993)
248
T4: Government is more responsive to the organized elite than to the potential
interests of the masses. This situation continues the cycle of inequality.
The Civil Rights organizations were organized by the elite element of liberal
white society and African-America with the intent of advocating the interests of the
African-American masses. Only with organizational representatives, crisis level external
pressures on the United States from international antagonists, and revolution coupled
with decolonization throughout Africa, were the basic Civil Rights of the American
herenvolk democracy extended to African-Americans. However, the interests of the
organized African American elite began to take precedence over those of the masses, and
a middle class African-American agenda focusing on entrance to traditionally white
institutions, extension of the franchise to enable where possible the election of African-
American politicians, and employment policies such as Afirmative Action was actively
sought and lobbied for. The more immediate concerns of the African-American masses
of improved community education, housing and employment opportunities, and
healthcare, though still apart of the African-Ameircan political agenda were generally
addressed in symbolic actions or policies which favored the business interests of
Corporate America, i.e, profit maximazation.
T5: Business is an interest group with a social role and privileges that makes it
an integral part of the sociopolitical system and places business above
other interest groups in influence and power.
The elevated position of Business relative to African-American Civil Rights
groups may be noted by considering for instance that U.S. Military intervention in the
internal domestic affairs of the Dominican Republic in 1965 during the student and
249
worker revolt was presided over by government policy makers such as Abe Fortas, A. A.
Berle, Jr., Ellswork Bunker and Averell Harriman. All were either stockholders, on the
Board of Directors or consultants for large sugar companies, with extensive investments
in the Dominican Sugar and Molasses industry.509
The provision of employment opportunities, construction of housing and to a great
extent the subsidization of secondary and higher education are all social roles which
business ascribes to. Roles which in American socioeconomic organization are held by
conservative and some liberal elements to be outside of the purview of the federal
government and best left to the private or business sector. These instances attest to the
elevated position of business to most interest groups. Where African-American interest
groups are concerned, one need only consider that the internal bickering over financial
resources prior to the 1963 March on Washington was ameliorated by business interests
with the establishment of Council for United Civil Rights Leadership and the funding of
this new organization with $1.5 million. Furthermore, the NAACP, SCLC, and the
National Urban League became the recipients of largesse donated by the philanthropic
arm of Corporate America.510 In the succeeding decades the former leadership cadre of
these organizations and offspring organizations have accepted positions within Corporate
America which has since expanded both their power and influence throughout American
society, within the context of the status quo.
509
Michael Parenti, Democracy For The Few(New York: St. Martins Press, 1980) p. 208.
510
George Breitman, Malcolm X Speakes(New York: Grove Weidenfeld, 1990) pp. 13-17.
250
T6: American public consensus reflects the nonmaterial culture and
sociopolitical interests of the upper class. Socializing institutions skew
socialization in favor of upper class tastes.
The advent of the Nation of Islam with its quasi-politicorelgious agenda and
Black Nationalist philosophy, made the established Civil Rights organizations acceptable
to a broad segment of the northern and southern liberal and moderate American public.
The acceptance of organizations such as the NAACP and the SCLC stemmed from the
dominant society defined “extremist” position of the NOI when compared to the
moderate demands of the NAACP and SCLC. The NOI demanded complete separation
between the races, the establishment of a Black homeland, and refered to all whites as
inherently evil. The acceptance of the Civil Rights organizations was furthered by their
near total conformity to the nonmaterial culture and to a lesser extent the sociopolitical
interests of the American upper classes. The demands for the franchise, an end to job
discrimination based on race and entrance to traditionally white schools and universities
all encompassed under the integrationist program, and pursued using the tactic non-
violent civil disobedience were not seen as being anathema to the upper classes.
Especially considering that these demands were in keeping with the tastes of the upper
class and a testament to the skewed nature of socialization within the African-American
community.
251
T7: The American political system is obstructionist. The government uses its
resources to maintain the status quo defined by socioeconomic inequality
and elite wealthfare and prevents sociopolitical and socioeconomic
restructuring.
That the American political system is based on the social contract theory and
multiple access points from which to levy influence on decisionmakers is a central basis
of the pluralist perspective. The divided nature of the national government, the
committee and subcommittee system of congress and the bureaucratic apparatus all
militate against sociopolitical and socioeconomic restructuring. Instead, the most
effective elements in influencing government policys are small organized interests. The
system is obstructionist if the intended policy outcome is comprehensive in nature and
will adversely affect the prevailing power distribution in the sociopolitical arena. It has
been especially so with regards to comprehensive policies which are viewed as
particularist policies specifically directed at African-American group betterment. Policies
designed to alleviate socioeconomic inequities in American life, which as a result of the
countries contradictory history with regards to race, were also viewed as efforts at solving
the problem of racial inequality that is an integral part of American political, social and
economic institutions.511 As the Civil Rights movement shifted its focus from the basic
rights of American citizenship where no real dominant group power or social class
position was significantly diluted to the comprehensive goals of socioeconomic
restructuring- for example, income redistribution policies- then the obstructionist
511
Jill Quadagno, The Color of Welfare How Racism Undermined The War on Poverty(New York: Oxford
University Press, 1994) pp. 172, 186.
252
qualities of the political system came into full view. The Civil Rights Coalition began to
split amongst itself and the politically liberal elements became instantly socioeconomic
conservatives. A pattern that continued throughout the next three decades.512
Elite Theory
T1: Society has a social hierarchy that is dominated by an elite.
Elite theorists propose that society has a verticial structure, which is managed by
members of the upper strata of the social structure. By domination is meant the near
complete control and direction of the social system. In other words, the very production
and structuring of culture, the oversight and manipulation of socialization and socializing
institutions, the construction of the individuals and groups self identity and social roles,
the systematizing of group interaction and socioeconomic stratification, and the
monopolization of power withing socioeconomic and political organizations are viewed
as being firmly under the guiding hand of a social elite. Since the elitist theorist views all
of society as being manipulated by a social elite, a logical inference is that a minority
group is firmly under elite control, especially when that group is a racially stigmatized
and marginalized cluster in the social whole. When considering the sociohistory of the
minority group, in this case African-Americans, in the light of elitist assumptions of
society, then an apt descriptionof elite domination of the minority group would be that of
a caste based class system,513 replete with racial subordination, as well as an internal caste
social hierarchy and external race based hierarchy.
512
Donna Cooper Hamilton and Charles V. Hamilton, The Dual Agenda The African American Struggle For
Civil and Economic Equality (New York: Columbia University Press, 1997)
513
John Dollard, Caste and Class in a Southern Town (Garden City, New York: Double Day and Anchor
Books, 1957)
253
Domination of society by a social elite may apply on a limited basis within the
confines of differing regional settings and historical periods of the American republic.
Consider, American colonial history and during the early republic for instance. Also, see
the period of Reconstruction and the history of Southern rural life from 1877 through the
1970s. In other periods the tenet will not hold for it flies in the face of certain regional
settingsof African-American sociopolitical history. Thus the tenet is not absolute in its
explanatory power throughout all regions in any given historical period. From 1940 to
2000 African-American civil, religious and social organizations have engaged in direct
action political protest, revolutionary violence, politial lobbying, adjudication, political
organizing, and several other methods designed to bring about social change, many at
times that are most inoportune for the elite- during periods of war for example. This
activity is not noted in the elitist literature nor accounted for by this tenet. Elite elements
prefered the strict use of political channels on their own time table, when addressing
African-American interests. If there was an actual situation of elite domination of the
social system as elite theorists hypothesize and purport to show, then the elite agenda of
social stability would have assumed priority for the minority masses. As the historical
record shows this was not the case. Instead, the African-American masses led by local,
state and national organizations forged their own agenda and timetable, and engaged in
methods of political activism, and pursued political agendas514 of their own making. In
many cases the African-American “elite” broke ranks from the monolithic elite required
by elite theory. This then hampers the effectiveness of this tenet in explaining African-
American political participation.

514
Separation, Integration, Black Power, Black Nationalism
254
T2 & T3: All social classes are divided against themselves and ridden with
conflict in the competition for higher social status and its
accouterment. There is no monolithic mass group only divided and
competing individuals. Social wealth and values is distributed
fairly by the elite according to market rules.
In a deracialized, non -sexist, non-homophic America, where the only division is
based on social class these two tenets would have a better fit with explaining American
political participation. However, the imposition of racial barriers by the founding social,
religious, economic and political architectics of American institutions and there
continuation into the present, leave the socially defined variable of racial classification as
a serious problem for these tenets. The construct of race is one of the primary defining
characterisitics of the African-American group. Throughout the history of the American
republic the African-American struggle has not been a class based struggle but rather a
race based struggle. Hence, the persistent mass goal of liberation.
Even so, within the African-American racial group there are class divisions which
have been exacerbated since the “successes” of the Civil Rights Movement. Within the
African American class structure, as greater sociopolitical incorporation has occurred, the
internalizing of dominant group values and beliefs has resulted in greater inner class
conflict in a struggle over scarce resources. This is a defining characterisitic of the
American economic philosophy and of the American ethos as expressed in the ideal of
American exceptionalism. In the struggle over resources, “fair distribution” is defined by
the market rules or, who can afford and wants to meet the cost of acquiring the good or
service. Where African-American political participation in the development of civil and
255
social rights politicies is concerned, this tenet fails to explain the substantive actions of
African-Americans, first and foremost by denying the existence of a mass based group.
Its explanatory power lies in its description of in-group conflict.
T3: American government is a mixture of democratic, monarchial and
aristocratic elements.
For the elite theorist all governments have policy arenas dominated by mass
interests, individual interests and small group interests. At the national level mass
interests and small group or oligarchic interests tend to predominate, as a result of the
separation of powers within the national government and the federalist relationship
between state and national government. Access to political office and policy makers
centers on individual and issue merit. Establishing throughout the political system, in
essence a meritocracy, at least in theory. Monarchial tendencies tend to be found more
often at the local level; although, at the national and state levels there are instances of
monarchial rule. In the committee and subcommittee systems of the federal and state
governments, the powers of the committee chairmen and the overly weighted system of
senority tend in this direction.
The African-American effort at political participation has encountered to varying
degrees each of these elements. The monarchial tendencies of government at all levels
suceeded in keeping African-American related policy issues off of the political agenda in
a highly effective manner from 1877 through the mid 1950s. When mass interests of the
dominant group began to coincide with the political interests of African-Americans as
during the Progressive movement and the Great Depression, only then were African-
American political agenda addressed, if only in a marginal way as with the symbolic
256
responses of the Roosevelt Administration in issuing politicy statements requiring equal
employment in the War time industries, or with the efforts of the First Lady Eleanor
Roosevelt. The concurrence of the small group interests of business, progessive and
moderate policy makers such as Albert Gore Sr., Hubert Humphrey, Thomas Kuchel and
Evertt Dirksen, and the elite of other oppressed groups in American society such as
Native Americans with the oligarchic political interests of the African-American
bourgeosie or middle class515 and the achievement of some of their coinciding political
goals516 and the continued existence of this coalition in varying forms to the present point
to the further utility of this tenet in explaining aspects of African-American political
participation.
T4: Elite rule is maintained by a sense of purpose based on group concensus
along a limited conservative/progressive continuum, class-consciousness,
upper class cultural background and organizational skill employed in
socieconomic, political and military institutions and in the shaping of mass
opinion through the control of the large media conglomerates.
G. William Domhoff and E. Franklin Frazier, have both delineated the American
and African-American elite respectively. Each has shown how the two groups maintain
rule within their given sphere of influence. Domhoff has shown that .05% of the
population control 45% of the countries material wealth and hold positions of power and
influence in many of the important institutions and policy arenas of the country- federal
515
E. Franklin Frazier, The Black Bourgeoisie (New York: Collier Books, 1962)
516
Civil Rights Acts of 1957, 1960, 1964, 1968, 1991; Voting Rights Act of 1965; Housing and Commuity
Development Act of 1974; Equal Credit Opportunity of Act of 1974; Community Reinvestment Act of
1977.
257
executive and judical branches; business corporations, the leading media institutions,
philanthropic foundations, higher education, political party finance, and foreign policy.517
Frazier's poignant analysis of the African-American middle class and their
dominant group elite affectations provide a link into Domhoff's analysis of the
maintainance of elite dominance even in the light of diversity within the ranks of the
elite.518 The undermining of African-American mass group political activism by the
diversion of the group agenda from group upliftment and liberation to middle class
integration/assimilation is exposed by and understanding of the elite psyche as explained
by this tenet. The elite have a strong class consciousness stemming from similarities in
education, upbringing and inculated worldview. Education in leading institutions
throughout the standard period of the developing lifespan, with an assumed goal of
maintaining family tradition and positions and the provision of the knowledge, skills and
abilities to effectively organize the knowledge attained provide the basis for elite
dominance. The social outlook reflects either a strict conservative adherence to the
maintenance of the status quo or a paternalistic progressivism designed to guide the lowly
and less fortunate. Though a marginalized group the African-American middle class,
received an education which tended to prepare them to maintain the system which
currently oppressed them. This is evidenced in the early aims of the Montgomery Buss
Boycott, the right to be seated on a first come first save basis, nothin less or more and on
the early demands of the student sit-in movement, the right to be served. Neither sought
517
G. William Domhoff, Who Rules America (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1970; The Higher
Circles: The Governing Class in America (New York: Random House, 1975); The Powers That
Be:Processes of Ruling Class Domination in America (New York: Random House, 1983)
518
G. William Domhoff and Richard Zwiegenhaft, Diversity and the Power Elite (New Haven: Yale
258
to completely end segregation.519 Even when the goals expanded the did so within
traditional American rhetoric: the ballot, and then all else will follow. All of these were
goals which meant very little as a solution to the extreme poverty experienced in the
Northern, southern urban ghettos and rural America. When the movements prominent
leader, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., made this realization and shifted focus to an extensive
campaign against poverty and socioeconomic violence the white and African-American
elite both vehemently turned against him. Dr. Kings eventual assassination allowed for
the gradual shifting from protest activism to traditional system proscribed electoral
politics.
The dissaffection and alienation of the African-American poor from this course of
action resulted in the proliferation of grass roots level organizations and the growth of the
mass based Black Power Movement with its self-reliant social uplift philosophy, cultural
nationalism, and political liberation agenda. This course of action on the part of the
masses and the manner that it was portrayed by the dominant group elite controlled media
created an atmosphere where elite definitions of law and order which meant violent
political repression of social progressives at the grass roots level were carried to fruition
in the African-American community with the acquiesence of many members of the
African-American middle class leadership.
519
David J. Garrow, Bearing The Cross: Martin Luther King Jr. And The Southern Christian Leadership
Conference (New York: Quill Books, 1986)pp. 17-30; Robert Weisbrot, Freedom Bound: A History of
America's Civil Rights Movement (New York: Plume, 1991)pp.19-44.
259
T5: Mass disaffection results in unorganized mass pressure on the elite, for
mass organization is hindered by the size of the masses. This leads to elite
efforts to pacify and co-opt mass leadership.
African-American mass organization was not hindered by the size of the African-
American masses. African-American civil and social rights groups such as the NAACP,
CORE, the National Association of Negro Business & Professional Women's Club, Inc.,
SCLC, the National Urban League, the National Association of Colored Womens Clubs,
Inc. and the National Council of Negro Women are only a few of the mass based groups
which joined under the rubric of the the Leadership Council for Civil Rights to represent
fight the political and social rights the African-American masses. The human resources
and tactics employed such as mass civil disobedience showed a high degree of
organizational capabilities of a large mass group.
However, the effectiveness of the mass campaigns at all levels of society led to
full scale co-optation campaigns on the part of the elite. Many African-American leaders
accepted the tokenistic advances- government appointments, inclusion racial committees
etc.,- made by the elite and steered away from the truly revolutionary actions-massive
civil disobedience which hindered the operation of society- necessary to achieve the
socioeconomic restructuring desired by the masses. These efforts on the part of the elite
both pacified and co-opted the African-American leadership, altered the socioeconomic
and political agenda of many of the protest organizations and lulled the more
conservatives elements of the African-American masses into an acceptance of the belief
that symbolic actions where in fact substantive.
260
T6: The state is the center of society designed to preserve elite position and
protect elite interests.
The foregoing discussion on the previous tenets lend credence to this position.
The actions of the elite in the preservation of the status were directly affected by their
disproportionate influence in the state apparatus. Law enforcement agencies at the
national, state and local levels all utilized force only when African-Americans engaged in
retaliatory violence against white racial violence and rioting. Otherwise as was the case
during Freedom Rides of 1964, moral suasion was the active policy of the government
when “protecting” civil rights protesters, who were being violently accosted by white law
breakers. Given the establishment of the American political system as a means to
preserve the property rights of the elite enslavers and their sympathizers and neutral white
elements, and the manner that the system has acted throughout its history, the course of
action followed by government institutions during this period and after, is all the more
understood.
T7: Elite rule does not lead to a tyranny of the minority it leads to
representative democracy; mass rule leads to a tyranny of the majority.
Representative democracy from the stand point of the African-American
community is not the outcome of elite rule. African-Americans were not represented as
they were without even the basic right of the ballot. The system underwhich they lived
was essentially one of tyranny where the private interests of a white elite won out over
either the public interest or the marginalized and segregated African American
community interest. In this case the elite rule within the polyarchical tradition led to a
tyranny of the minority relative to African-Americans. Mass rule as exhibited by first
261
white male suffrage an later white female suffrage, and the acquiesence of the small
moderate and liberal element to the social milieu of the times supported the existing
power arrangements and provided a strong bulwark for the elite against African-
American political activism and created a tyranny of the majority as well.
Plural-Elite Theory
T1: Where public goods are involved, all groups face the problem of
some individuals not organizing, even if it is in their best interests, when
they will receive the benefits regardless; especially, if the costs outweigh
the perceived benefits.
African-American interest groups face and have faced throughout the period of
this study, the constant problem of members of the African-American community not
participating in the organizing effort. During the period of 1940 to 1970, the perceived
benefits associated with the acquisition of the ballot and economic equality were, in the
minds of many African-Americans greatly outweighed by the costs. The costs included,
economic reprisals, evicitions, rape, torture and murder.520 Others within the African-
American community chose not to participate out of an understanding that the rights
being fought for by the Civil Rights organizations would be theirs to exercise whether
they participated or not.
The mass protest actions waged by the SCLC and SNCC in the several hamlets,
villages, towns and cities of the United States never contained the overwhelming majority
of the citizens in those areas. Similarly though the NAACP maintains that it represents
520
Vincent Harding, The Other American Revolution (Los Angeles: University of California, 1980); Lerone
Bennett, Jr. Before The Mayflower: A History of Black America (New York: Penguin Books, 1993)
262
the African-American community and other “peoples of color”, their membership roles
do not contain a majority of the African-American community. Even when organizing
efforts for action among its own organizational members full participation is never
achieved. Throughout the period of this study this tenet holds explanatory power.
T3: Small groups are better able to organize than large groups. Thus, their
interests are better represented and they dominate the large groups.
The African-American middle class of the 1940s through the 1970s, generally
consisted of the working class and the professionals. This group was able to organize
effectively due to the overlapping leadership roles that were held by the group in social,
religious and fraternal organizations. The small size and concensus on goals aided in the
organizing efforts as well. The African-American masses during this period were
generally engaged in the rural employment of farm workers, or unemployed and as such
outside of the pale of the community. Their preoccupation with basic survival issues
prevented any effective organization on their part. The organized African-American
middle class based on their location in the social structure of the African-American
community and the view within the community that they had a better quality education
came to dominate the positions of leadership in organizations which purported to
represent the masses. In time the class interests of the African-Amerian middle class
came to be the central focus of the organizational agenda and as such the central focus of
many in the African-American community, both consciously and unconsciously.
T4: Large groups confuse symbolic political actions with substantive actions.
African-American masses confused the symbolic political actions of the U.S.
Government as a substantive redress of their issues. Actions such as the issuance of
263
Executive Order 8802 prohibiting discrimination by businesses contracting with the
federal government and the creation of the toothless Fair Employment Practices
Committee by Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the appointment of African-American
adivisors on the staffs of New Dealers Harold L. Ickes, and Clark Foreman, and the
assignment of Robert L. Vann as special assistant to the attorney general were only a
handfull of the many symbolic actions taken by the government during the 1930s and
1940s to present the image of attempting to substantively solve the problems faced by
African-Americans.521
In the 1950s and 1960s the United States government took further symbolic
actions such as enacting the Civil Rights Acts of 1957 and 1960, the Jury Selection and
Service Act of 1968. The 1957 Act provided no powers to the U.S. Commission on Civil
Rights, which was allowed to investigate and report on the prevention of voting. It also
required to Attorney General to begin legal proceedings on behalf of each person whose
voting right had been violated. Its general use was as a symbolic gesture of the federal
government and the first Civil Rights enacted since 1875. To the masses of African-
Americans and to the general American public it was viewed as substantive progress.
The 1960 Act was only a little better now the Attorney General could order that a
person, who it was proven had been prevented from voting be allowed to vote, still on a
case by case basis. A purely symbolic Act relying on a conservative Attorney General in
a conservative Presidential administration to initiate the requisites steps. The Jury
Selection Act of 1968 was yet another symbolic act which prohibited discrimination in
521
John Hope Franklin and Alfred A. Moss, Jr., From Slavery To Freedom (New York: Mcgraw Hill, Inc.,
1994) pp. 392-294.
264
the jury selection process on the basis of race, sex, physical impairment and religion,
without addressing the problems of peremptory challenges or challenges for cause by
prosecutors and defense and key man lists. The juries then remained white and elitist and
biased against African-Americans and other numerically small ethnic groups along with
the impoverished.522 Since the 1970s the appointment of greater numbers to highly visible
positions in the American government is seen as substantive improvements by the
African-American community, even though the impoverished status of the community is
unchanged. The appointments and election of officials to the Senate and other political
offices may be substantive actions for the individual who is the recipient of the action or
beneficiary of the election, provided the recipient accepts the values and world-view of
the elite, but it is symbolic to the masses, standing as a beacon of what may be possible
and little else.
T5: The elite shape the debate on all public issues, so as to remove all
inferences to common interests, and thereby determine what is defined as a
social problem.
Plural-Elitist theorists like elitist assert that the elite control the media and through
this control and or, influence shape all policy concerns not as universalists but rather as
particularist policy positions which are not in the common interest. African-American
poltical efforts to acquire the ballot and economic equality bear this tenet out. Though
mass based African-American groups, forced the African-American political agenda
before the nation through the use of direct action tactics, when the actual public debate
522
David Cole, No Equal Justice: Race and Class in the American Criminal Justice System (New York: The
New Press, 1999) pp. 103-109.
265
began the African-American demand for human dignity, the ballot, quality educational
resources, increased funding of historically black colleges and universities, and an end to
socioeconomic discrimination, were transformed into a debate about integration versus
segregation, African-Americans moving into white communites and going to white
schools and the best way for African-Americans to proceed in being integrated or
incorporated into the American sociopolitical system.
The debate then turned to the need to placate certain elements in Congress to
better increase the chances of enacting a Civil Rights agenda and to not disrupting society
and turning the sympathetic whites against the African-American cause. With the major
media “discovery” of the Nation of Islam in 1959, the Civil Rights debate shifted to non-
violence versus “negro extremism”. The social problem ceased to be the socioeconomic
issues and became merely the lack of Civil Rights. The symptom came to be treated
instead of the underlying cause which was embedded in the Amerian psyche and by
extension in the sociopolitical and economic institutions.
T7: The federal government best represents large group interests. However, the
fragmentation of power in the American system allows small group
interests to be best served. This aids small groups in their dominance of
large groups. Congressional expansion of the bureaucracy increases the
fragmentation of power and creates oligarchic power centers in different
policy arenas that are dominated by small interest groups, a bureaucratic
elite and congressional committee members.
Plural elitist theorists advance the position that central governments are best able
to serve the welfare of large groups. Examples of this being the provision of armed
266
forces for the defense of the nation state and the extension of the franchise to women in
1920. They further aver that certain policy arenas, namely, distributive policies are
centered on oligarchies composed of small interest groups, bureaurcratic elite and
congressional committee members. African-American political participation from 1940
to 2000 on the otherhand was primarily focused in the arenas of regulatory and
redistribrutive policies. Arenas where, as one plural elitist theorists contends,523 the
defining power arrangements are best described by pluralist and elitist theory
respectively. However, as the history of African-American political participation has
shown there is evidence to support the contention that oligarchies have dominated even in
these arenas with regards to African-Americans. The history of African-American
political participation-primarily lobbying efforts- prior to the 1940s suggests that even
these policy arenas were, as far as, African-Americans were concerned dominated by an
oligarchy of committee members, burearcrats and interest groups opposed to the African-
American political agenda. This oligarchy reflected a socially conservative national
white electorate.
African-American interest groups have been able to maintain a limited amount of
influence in the policy domains of interest not by being members of any policy oligarchy
as this tenet suggests but rather through the establishment and maintenance of fluid
coalitions in both regulatory and redistributive policy arenas. That small group interests
are best served by the fragmentation of power is not supported when one considers that
the constituencies represented by such policy makers as James Eastland, John Stennis,
523
Politics vol. 16, no. 4 (July, 1964) pp. 677-715.
267
Russell Long, John Tower, Strom Thurmond and Robert Byrd held influence for a
considerable number of years, proportionate to their actual numbers in the American
electorate, at least if one excepts the survey findings of the 1960s and 1960s on the
attitude of the general white public on the issues of civil and social rights.524 The General
Social Survey of 1992, when comparing white attitudes on targeted programs for the poor
and African-Americans also shows that the policy preferences advocated by social and
economic conservatives is reflective of the larger white group.525
T8: Federal government departments and interest group coalitions lead reform
movements to break the oligarchic power centers, through the media and in
congressional hearings. However, after the reform movement succeeds a new
power center emerges.
With the push for political and economic incorporation of African-Americans into
the American body politic, defects in the state political apparatus were brought to light
which led to increased efforts at reform. The focus of reform in the 1940s to the 1970s
revolved around civil and social rights and efforts to break the monoply of power held by
southern democrats elected from districts which restricted the rights of all of its citizens
to vote. The civil rights groups such as the NAACP, CORE, and the ACLU and labor
groups such as the AFL-CIO led this reform effort. On the agenda were adjustments to
524
The National Election Studies of 1964 to 1978 posed the question: “Are you in favor of desegregation,
strict segregation or something inbetween?” In 1964, 27% of white respondents favored desegregation, in
1968 32%, in 1970 36%, in 1972 37%, in 1976 35% and in 1978 32%. The numbers for the given years of
those in favor of strict segregation were 25/%, 17%, 17%, 14%, 10% and 5% respectively. The percentage
in favor of something inbetween for the given years were 47%, 50%, 45%, 46%, 53% and 57%
respectively. See, The National Election Study Guide To Public Opinion and Electoral Behavior
(http://www.umich.edu/~nes/nesguide/toptable/tab4b_3.htm)
525
Jill Quadagno, The Color of Welfare How Racism Undermined The War on Poverty (New York: Oxford
University Press, 1994) pp. 172 – 173.
268
the Senate filibuster, reform of the Congressional Committee System and removing
secrecy from the roll call vote. The reform movement accepted a view of American
politics as having four parties instead of two and extensive fragmentation of power.
There were two congressional parties and two presidential parties. The reform movement
noted that there was at the time a democratic presidential party with a political agenda
focused on the national public interest and centralized power in the Executive branch and
the democratic congressional party which supported states rights, white supremacy, small
government, privatization, and an overriding allegiance to district constituencies as
opposed to the majoritarian principles upon which the House and Senate were founded.526
The relative success of the reform movement is illustrated in the civil and social
rights legislation enacted from 1940 to 2000. Furthermore, as this tenet holds this was
accomplished through lobbying in congress, civil rights groups strategic utilization of the
media to inform and shape public opinion, and the participation at congressional hearings.
It can also be argued that now groups such as the NAACP, which were at one time
outside of the halls of influence are now a significant participant in the new power centers
which emerged and were centered on the civil rights coalitions, the congress and federal
bureaucracy and socioeconomic conservative opposition interest groups.
526
James Macgregor Burns, The Deadlock of Democracy: Four Party Politics in America (Prentice Hall,
1963); Mark Schmitt, "The Reform That Backfired", The American Prospect Online, Aug 9, 2004; Julian
Zelizer, On Capitol Hill: The Struggle to Reform Congress and Its Consequences, 1948-2000 (Cambridge
269
T9: Enacted laws are ambiguous in meaning. Because of the ambiguity interest
groups are able to manipulate policy implementation.
The ambiguous meaning of civil and social rights policies is demonstrated in the
phrase “with all deliberate speed” from the 1955 Supreme Court cases that had further
bearing on the 1954 Brown vs. the Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas decision. The
ambiguity of the phrase and its focus on enactment was used by opposition groups to
slow the implementation of integrated schools throughout the nation, indefinitely.
Interests groups are also able to tie up the implementation of policies such as the Civil
Rights Acts passed from 1957 to 1991 in the federal courts through the process of
adjudication, either by focusing on the policy as a whole or by specific aspects of that
policy. An example, would be the extensive legal battles surrounding the enactment and
enforcement of Title IX of the Educational Amendments of 1972.
It must be kept in mind that all policies have a meaning that is conveyed in the
policy statement itself. Further, the process through which the meaning is conveyed to
the general public is also important. The Civil Rights Act of 1957, 1960, 1964, 1968,
1991 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 held a meaning for the policy community of the
Congressional, Judicial and Executive Branches of government, another for the
opposition groups and yet another for the proponents of the legislation. All of these
diverse meanings especially those maintained by opposition and proponents affect how
methods they employed to manipulate the implementation process either positively or
negatively as the case stood. Some Senators such as Richard Russell viewed the Civil
Rights legislation of the 1960s as an attack on the American way of life, and as the
restructuring of the American social order. Others such as Jacob Javits, considered the
270
fight to enact the legislation as a struggle for the soul of America.527 Malcolm X
considered the legislation as a pallative presented in lue of addressing and resolving the
disease that permeated all of America's institutions. For Dr. King the immediate view
was that it was a necessary corrective that would improve the life of African-Americans,
by 1967 he would state that it was a superficial accomplishment at best528. The meanings
that they attached to the legislation affected the meanings attached to it by members of
their constituency who in turn became parts of the interests group which opposed and
supported the legislation.
T10: Government subsidization of interest groups provides these groups with
the resources to prevent challenges to the existing power arrangements.
African-American interest groups have not amassed the resources through
government subsidization that allow them to effectively prevent challenges to the existing
power arrangements and protect African-American interests. To begin with the power
arrangements faced by African-Americans interests groups in the effort to influence the
development and enactment of Civil and Social Rights legislation in the 1960s and 1970s
was largely hostile to African-American efforts. The respectability of groupss such as the
NAACP in the eyes of government policy makers was generally a rather late occurrence529
527
John A. Andrews III, Lyndon Johnson and the Great Society (Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 1998) p. 27.
528
David J. Garrow, Bearing The Cross: Martin Luther King Jr., and the Southern Chrisitan Leadership
Conference (New York: Quill, 1986) pp. 536-537. Dr. King stated that “ The period [1954-1965] did not
accomplish everything...Even though we gained legislative and judicial victories....these legislative and
judicial victories did very little to improve the lot of millions of Negroes in the teeming ghettos of the
North...the changes that came about during this period were at best surface changes; they were not really
substantive changes...the roots of racism are very deep in America...our society is still structured on the
basis of racism.”
529
Mid to late 1960s.
271
in the African-American struggle for civil and social rights. Also the power arrangements
in Congress, with a decided shift to the conservative right began in the early 1970 and
accelerated in the 1980s creating a political atmosphere where African-American interest
groups were primarily on the defensive to maintain the gains achieved during the 1960s.
Gains which have been slowly erroding since that time and as a result of the conservative
elements in Congress and conservative special interest groups which have challenged the
enactment of civil and social rights legislation since Reconstruction.
T11: Although sociopolitical and economic institutions and organizations
divide power and compete among themselves, this does not ensure that
political equality will result for society as a whole.
The African-American experience in political participation with the objective of
having the basic constitutional rights extended to African-Americans and the extent and
breadth of that struggle demonstrate the validity of this tenet in explaining African-
Amerian political participation. The division of power among a political elite and their
manipulation of information about American society, obscured from the view of many
white Americans the existence of widespread poverty in the United States. The history of
racism and segregation practiced in the United States ensured, as well, that even if such a
power arrangement did lead to political equality of the society as a whole, that society
would be tacitly defined as white only to the obvious exclusion of African-America.
T12: Many government policies that affect the welfare of the masses are made
by a private elite that are not directly accountable to the masses.
Prior to the 1960s and the direct action protest movements, the policies that
affected the African-American community were made by a private white elite that were
272
not directly or indirectly accountable to the African-American masses. With the advent
of the Civil Rights Movement, organized national African-American political effort, the
reacquistion of the ballot, and the election and appointment of African-American
politicians, in short, the political incorporation of African-Americans, policy makers in
certain policy areas such as regulatory policies were compelled to take greater account of
African-American interests. In the other policy arenas this tenet holds more explanatory
power regardless of the historical time period.
T13: Select members of the large groups may rise to positions of power in small
groups only after accepting the values and world-view of the elite.
Throughout the period covered a limited number of African-Americans have risen
to position throughout the American political system. These select individuals were
persons of moderate political temperment and by no means extremists or an anyway
engaged in activities that were antithetical to the underlying assumptions of the American
political system. Beginning with the New Deal these individuals were chosen at
moments of crisis so as to give the impression of national unity. Studies of the the
biographies of individuals such as Robert L. Vann, William H. Hastie, Robert C. Weaver,
Lawerence A. Oxley, Mary McLeod Bethune, Edgar Brown, Frank S. Horne, William J.
Trent, Crystal Bird Fauset, Abram L. Harris, Ralphe Bunche, Thurgood Marshall,
Andrew Young, Carl Rowan, Clarence Thomas, Coling Powell and Condeleeza Rice
show that although they may have at taken illiberal stands on policy issues in the light of
the American mainstream at the heart of their political activities is to be found a through
273
acceptance of the European asili and utamaroho.530 They have thoroughly imbibed the
values and world-view of the dominant group.
T14: The resources of society are evenly distributed among those interests that
have chosen to organize. If an interest has not organized it has chosen not
to look out for its own concerns.
This tenet makes the assumption that social resources are evenly divided amongst
all organized interests. The experience of African-American political participation run
contrary to this tenet. African-Americans have organized in the accepted sociopolitical
fashion since the colonial period and have consistently found themselves unable to attain
an equitable share of the social resources of American society. The political participation
during the civil and social rights movement was motivated in large part out of the unequal
social distribution. The continued organized efforts of African-American sociopolitical
organizations in the policy areas of social rights provided support that the social resources
are not evenly divided amongst all organzied interests. Some interests such as business
control a far greater share of the social resources than their number warrants under this
tenet. The elite of the social order who draw a large part of their influence in society
from the unequal distribution of social resources also point up contradictions to the
applicability of this tenet. To hold that the unorganized have chosen not to protect self
interest is to ignore that such inactivity may be a rational reaction to what is percieved as
530
Marimba Ani, Yurugu: An African-Centered Critique of European Cultural Thought and Behavior
(Trenton, NJ: Africa World Press, Inc.,1995) pp. 12 – 14. “Asili as a conceptual tool for cultural analysis
refers to the explanatory principle of a culture. It is the germinal principle of the being of a
culture....Utamaroho is the spirit-life of a culture, also the collective personality of its members.”
274
small group American democratic politics which are “...meaningless in its electoral
content and dissappointing in its policy results.”531
Marxist Class Analysis
T1: The elite use socialization institutions to control the masses and maintain
socioeconomic inequality and the concentration of power in elite circles.
Marxist scholars maintain that society is divided into two groups whose interests
are diametrically opposed to one another. The first group are an elite who own and
control the means of production within a society and the second are the laborers who
attempt to satisfy their needs through the selling of their labor. To perpetuate the status
quo, which is defined by elite control of socioeconomic and political power, the elite are
said to influence mass behavior through manipulation of socialization institutions with
the aim of controling cultural patterns so that the masses do not come to a state of class
consciouness where they realize their true common group interests.
From 1940 to 2000 elite manipulation of socialization institutions to control the
direction of African-American political participation is supported by the historical
evidence. First there is the 1963 March on Washington which was originally designed to
shut down the city of Washington and force the federal government to meet the legitimate
demands of African-American Civil Rights organizations. The idea for what was
originally a mass direct action civil disobedience campaign began in the rural and urban
areas of African-America following setbacks experienced by the nonviolent wing of the
movement. Following the failure to desegregate Albany, Georgia and the mixed results
of the Birmingham campaign, the leading civil rights organizations became embroiled in
531
Michael Parenti, Democracy For The Few (New York: St. Martins Press, 1980) p. 197
275
intergroup conflict over resources, and with regards to their diminishing stature in the
African-American community. The stature issue centered on the inability to achieve
substantive goals that made an appreciable difference in the lives of the masses of
African-Americans across the country.
In the midst of this intergroup conflict local grass roots level African-American
leaders took matters into their own hands and engaged in retaliatory or defensive violence
beginning in Birmingham, Alabama. When President Kennedy sent in Federal troops
after refusing to do so when African-Americans were the victims of violent white
repression, African-American grass roots leaders began to organize at the local level for a
March on Washington. The momentum for this effort increased when President Kennedy
announced plans for the belated fullfillment of his campaign promise to put forth a major
civil rights bill, and Southern senators began to prepare to filibuster the legislation and
hold up other Kennedy legislative proposals. African-American mass plans for a march
focused on shutting down the entire city of Washington, D.C. The idea was to “...march
on Washington, march on the Senate, march on the White House, march on Congress,
and tie it up, bring it to a halt, not let the government proceed. They even said they were
going out to the airport and lay down on the runway and not let any airplanes land.”532
The national media began to cover the story of the proposed march and noted
originally attributed the idea to the major civil rights leaders. It was soon learned by the
media and the President that the major leaders were in no way associated with the plans
for the march. At this point elite manipulation of the situation transformed the idea and
redirected the goal of the march. First the liberal elements of the elite power structure
532
George Breitman, Malcolm X Speaks (New York: Grove Weidenfeld, 1990) p. 14
276
established the Council for United Civil Rights Leadership and financed the organization
dividing the funds in an equitable fashion among the leading organizations-SCLC, CORE
and the NAACP. Next, the national media was made available to the organizations and
print news stories, radio and television programs began to present the major civil rights
leaders -Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., A. Phillip Randolph, James Farmer, Roy Wilkins,
Whitney Young- as the leaders and organizers of the March on Washington. The march
was presented as a one day integrated vigil designed to bring before the eyes of the nation
the legitimacy of the civil rights demands of African-Americans.533 The social rights
agenda was down played substantially. The legislation which resulted was the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, followed by the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and the Civil Rights Act
of 1968. The overall outcome was an increase in violence directed at African-Americans
and eventually legislation which did not alter the status of the African-American
community in any appreciable way and generally maintained the concentration of power
in elite circles.
The use of socialization institutions by the elite to perpetuate socioeconomic
inequality and continue the status quo, also presented as preserving social stability or
ensuring law and order, is further exemplified in the media coverage of African-American
leaders as either responsible or irresponsible. Those leaders who are delineated as being
responsible are African-Americans whose political agenda does not in any significant way
seek to alter the status quo. On the otherhand the irresponsible African-American leaders
described in the exact opposite fashion. Beginning with Franklin Roosevelts “Negro
Cabinet” for this study but extending back to post-Civil War America in the early 1870s,
533
George Breitman, Malcolm X Speaks (New York: Grove Weidenfeld, 1990)pp. 15-17.
277
and continuing into the present the African-American leaders meeting with the President
to discuss some issue of concern has become a ritual adhered to by each new presidential
administration. The White House Conference on Civil Rights of 1966 and its coverage is
a case in point.534
Civil Rights leaders such as Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Floyd McKissick, Rev.
Leon Sullivan, Cecil Moore, Whitney Young, Jr., James Farmer, and Roy Wilkins who
represent integrationist aspirations are presented as “responsible Negro leaders”. Their
goals do not in any way entail a restructuring of the socioeconomic system and thus do
not threaten the staus quo. Leaders such as Stokely Carmichael, Malcolm X, Abie Miller,
Rev. Albert Cleage and others are presented as “irresponsible Negro extremists” with
impractical objectives. Objectives which incidentally would have a leveling affect on
American social stratification. The manipulation of the images of the leaders of the
movement is mirrored in the media and historical presentation of the Civil Rights
Movment and the Black Power Movement. The former which sought to be integrated or
incorporated into the status quo was and is elevated to the status of practical political
actions with merit, substance and positive outcomes, while the later with its effort to
redefine and restructure the socioeconomic and political system is depicted as being
“ideologically vacuous” and politically naïve with no positive impact on later
generations.535
534
John K. Jessup, “Growing Alarm of the Responsible Negro Leaders,” Life (June 3, 1966) pp. 88-101
535
William L. Van Deburg, New Day in Babylon: The Black Power Movement and American Culture,
1965-1975 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992) pp. 288, 292-308.
278
T2: Concentration of wealth in the hands of the elite causes conflict between
the elite and labor classes.
The conflict between the elite and the African-American labor class was
superceded by the issue of race and the treatment of the African-American population.
The accumulation of wealth into the hands of subset of the dominant group was not the
immediate cause of the conflict that was at the base of African-American political
participation. The African-American sociopolitical agenda initally focused on the
inclusion of the African-American elite into dominant group elite circles, i.e., integration.
This dates back to the Reconstruction period and to certain African-American political
leaders who objected not to the disenfranchising of the poor and illiterate but only to the
denial of the vote to the educated elite. The argument stated that all of the poor and
illiterate should be denied the vote and not on the basis of race alone. The better classes
of all races should be treated as such without a distinction of race, creed or color.
The wholesale disenfranchising of the African-American community and the
complete segregation of the races in an atmosphere of white racial terrorism created the
conditions which caused the conflict between the African-American community as a
whole and the elite. The issue of race proved stronger than class concerns and has
continued to do so into the present. The concentration of wealth into the hands of the
elite and their manipulation of the means of socialization to the point where they have
engendered and irrational distrust and hatred of the white working class and the African-
American community have exacerbated a situation laden with strong racial overtones.
279
T3 & T4: The elite will enact measures to increase their share of power
resources and limit labor class social mobility. These efforts to
protect their interests will naturally disrupt the welfare of the labor
class.
The Slave Codes, the Black Codes of Reconstruction, Jim Crow laws and Civil
Rights legislation in its enacted form and to a lesser extent had the direct effect of
limiting African-American social mobility and channeling African-American social
protest into avenues which were non-threatening to the elite interests. The distrupting of
the welfare of the African-American community was inherent in different forms in each
of the enacted laws. The Slave Codes and the Black Codes had the intent of removing all
rights human and civil from the pervue of African-Americans and thoroughly preventing
any social upliftment or social mobility, while protecting enhancing the power resources
of the white elite.
The Jim Crow laws created a caste society and protected the position of the white
elite and severly limited African-American social mobility. The Civil Rights legislation
enacted from 1957 to 1968 and the subsequent legislation enacted in the 1970s and 1980s
provided for the limited social mobility of the African-American middle class. With
social mobilization however, came an incremental change in the focus of the African-
American middle class. African-American elite focus shifted from local African-
American community political issues to concern with the agenda of the society as a whole
set by the dominant group elite. Social mobility in an of itself became an inroad into the
larger American society at a cost to the African-American masses. An occurrence noted
from the very nature of social mobility which is in essence “...a process in which major
280
clusters of old social, economic and psychological commitments are eroded and broken
and people become available for new patterns of socializaiton and behavior.”536 The
African-American middle class as they were co-opted into elite circles accepted to
varying degrees anglo-conformism complete with its psychological and cultural
obligations. The disruption in the welfare of the African-American community regardless
of class was so thorough and had occurred over such a lengthy period of time that by
1965 leading policy makers called for massive government action to ameliorate
situation.537 The consistency of the situation into the 1990s further demonstrates the
unsettling results of elite efforts to accomplish their interests.538
T5: Technological innovation will make certain labor class skills obsolete and
begin the process of the formation of a collective class interest.
For African-Americans the collective interests rest first and foremost in the
varialbe of race. The overriding motiviation for political action was discrimination on
account of race. Their consignment to caste status was defined by race. The police
brutality and white terrorism experienced stemmed from racial prejudices. The variable
of race then was defined African-American collective interests. Segregation diminished
the impact of African-American class interests such as they were and currently
institutional racism continues to do the same. The technological innovation in American
industry experienced during Reconstruction, after World Wars I and II and in the post-
536
Karl W. Deutsch, “Social Mobilization and Political Development.” American Political Science Review
55 (September, 1961) p. 494.
537
Daniel Patrick Moynihan, The Negro Family (Washington D.C.: Office of Policy Planning and Research,
United States Department of Labor, 1965)
538
William L. Van Deburg, New Day in Babylon: The Black Power Movement and American Culture,
1965-1975 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992) pp. 298-299.
281
industrial information age, which led to the high rates of African-American
unemployment a rate that has been consistently twice that of whites from 1940 to 2000
regardless of the legislation enacted did not create African-American class consciousness
nor forge a lasting collective class consciousness among African-American and white
labor interests. The institutionalization of racial mores and values prevents it.
T6: Labor class urbanization will increase access to education and communal
organizations.
The urbanization of the African-Americans primarily in northern and western
cities expanded African-American access to educational and communal resources. The
urbanization of African-Americans also led to the creation of an African-American
industrial labor class. In the south African-Americans were overwhelmingly employed as
sharecroppers and domestic servants. Urbanization allowed access to educational
facilities that though inferior to those enjoyed by northern whites, were superior to the
facilities to which they had access in the rural south. Communal organizations such as
the NAACP which were outlawed in the south or greatly antagonised operated more
freely in the northern cities and exposed many African-Americans to their first taste of
political participation and agitation for civil and social rights. During the sixites it was
urbanized African-Americans along with liberal whites who returned south under the
aegis of SNCC to begin the revolution in rural African-American political participation.539
The African-American access to education and communal resources in the urban centers
also began the gradual enlargement of the cleavage between the African-American elite
and African-American masses; a cleavage which dated back to the divisive nature of the
539
Doug McAdam, Freedom Summer (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988)
282
slavocracy and its creation of distinctions between the predominant segements of the
African-American slave labor class: field laborers and house laborers. The enlargement
occurred due to the quality of the educational facilities afforded older African-American
residents of urban areas and those available to newly arrived contingents and the
accessiblity of leadership positions within communal organizations to the African-
American elite and masses.
T7 & T8: The degree of violence in class conflict depends on the presence of
a mass leadership and the degree of antagonism with the elite class.
The degree of resource redistribution and social restructuring is a
function of the intensity of the violence of the class conflict.
The violence that occurred during the period of 1940 to 2000 was not violence
between the masses and the elite as held by Marxists but rather between African-
Americans pushing for inclusion into the American sociopolitical system and white
extremists elements such as the Ku Klux Klan and neo-Nazi groups. The conflict was
divided along racial lines and government intervention occurred at the point of African-
American retaliatory violence. The degree of violence in the case of African-American
“riots” stemmed from persistent incidents of police brutality and African-American
perceptions of white involvement in the creation and perpetuation of the urban ghettos.540
White racial violence on the otherhand resulted from an effort to prevent African-
Americans from achieving their goals of social and civil equality and thereby
540
Report of the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders (New York: Bantam Books, 1968) pp.
Vii., Tom Wicker states: “What white Americans have never fully understood-but what the Negro can never
forget-is that white society is deeply implicated in the ghetto. White institutions created it, white institutions
maintain it, and white society condones it.”
283
fundamentally altering the American social order. The degree of the violence was
enhanced by the level of antagonism that existed between African-Americans and the law
enforcement agencies which occupied their communties and by the antagonism that
existed between African-American political activists and white supremacists segements
of the white community.
As African-American retaliatory violence did not reach revolutionary proportions
despite the rhetoric bandied about between 1965 and 1975 by African-American
militants, and as the Civil Rights movement shifted its tactics from nonviolent direct
action to political participation in the American political system as elected and appointed
officials, the degree of resource redistribution and social restructuring was neglible for the
African-American masses. From the perspective of the African-American political
leadership improvements occurred as the legal impediments to their full participation
were removed, but the social restructuring advocated by Dr. King never came into
fruition nor was it ardently pushed for by the newly integrated African-American political
elite.
284
T9: Racial minorities within a country are a domestic colony serving as
marginalized appendages to the larger societies socioeconomic
institutions. Their status as a domestic colony and as marginal labor
explains their mass powerlessness.
Certain Marxist541 scholars draw the comparison between the African-American
community and the former western colonies of Asia and Africa and the current neo-
colonial developing countries of Asia, Africa, Latin America and the Carribean. The
African-American community is describe as a domestic colony within the confines of the
United States of America. When classifying the African-American community as a
domestic colony of the United States, Marxist scholars expand the rigid definition of
colonialism used by non-Marxist scholars from its confining restraint of territorial
delineation to that of the institutional structure. The position maintained is that to define
a colony as a place that located outside of the colonial country and dominated from afar is
far to limiting. Instead, the predominant role of the socioeconomic and political
institutional apparatus of the colonizing power on the subordinate group is the key to
defining colonial status.542
The objectives associated with the colonial/neo-colonial model of developing
country/African-American community sociopolitics are to begin with educational and
social institutions which are replicas of the former colonial powers socioeconomic
541
(Summer, 1971) pp. 90-105; William K. Tabb, The Political Economy of the Black Ghetto (New York:
W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1970) pp. 35-59; Robert L. Allen, Black Awakening in Capitalist America
(New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1969) pp. 275-284.
542
Robert L. Allen, Black Awakening in Capitalist America (New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1969)
pp. 1-13.
285
structure. Another distinguishing factor is the pressing concern with the diminishing of
the effects of poverty, the eradication of social inequality and the reduction of high
unemployment and underemployment levels. The two groups are also held to be
attentative to the need to provide quality educational facilities and teachers, access to
modern healthcare practioners and accomodations, and the provision of adequate diets.
All of which are precursors to the expanison of socioeconomic opportunities.543 The
distinctive set of problems faced by both groups are pervasive, longstanding absolute
poverty, which has increased in recent years; extensive inequality in income distribution
between the masses and the elite within the two groups, emanating from consistently high
unemployment and underemployment among the masses and poor, outdated educational
institutions; excessive dependence on outside agencies and cultural value systems for
direction and aid in overcoming the difficulties faced. A situation which generally leaves
both groups in a poor position for negotiation and bargainin, i.e., their relations with more
powerful outside groups is defined by “...dominance, dependence, and vulnerablity.”544
From the period of enslavement until the 1940s the African-American community
had many characteristics in common with the colonized world. The African-American
community was easily defined by the general characteristics that are used to classify all
colonial and former colonial possesions namely, extremely low levels of living,
disproportionate dependence on agricultural industry, high rates of population growth,
543
Michael P. Todaro, Economic Development in the Third World (New York: Longman Inc., 1981) pp. 24-
25.
544
Ibid., pp. 24, 29.
286
infant mortality rates, unemployment and underemployment, insufficient housing, diet
and healthcare and low life span and vulnerable position in negotiation.545
W. E. B. Dubois was one of the first scholars who conducted numerous studies
covering this period which highlighted these social problems faced by African-Americans
and African-American historians have provided further evidence which corroborates the
findings of the Marxist scholars and the analysis presented here.546 African-Americans
were restricted in their actions and movements by laws enacted for that express purpose;
a situation similar to that occuring throughout the formally recognized colonial
possessions. Their obedience to these laws and social customs was maintained by the
coercive arm of the government in this case the police power of the official local
government, local vigilante and terrorist groups and when necessary the state and federal
armed forces.
The period from 1940 to 2000 is a timespan in which African-American began the
process of political development, achieving political independence through political
participation and the enactment of revelant laws, but remained in an economic position
defined by neo-colonialism. Through free to engage in political action the socioeconomic
problems continued to exist and expand in an ever rapid fashion. For one a gap
developed and continues to expand between the elite an masses within the African-
American community similar to that which exists in former colonial areas. The gap
within the African-American community has one unique aspect in that the gap between
545
Michael P. Todaro, Economic Development in the Third World (New York: Longman Inc., 1981) p. 29.
546
David Levering Lewis, W.E.B.DuBois Biography of a Race 1868-1919 (New York: Henry Holt and
Company, 1993)pp.179-386; W.E.B.DuBois, The Souls of Black Folks (New York: Dover Publications,
Inc., 1994) pp. 9-83.
287
light skinned and dark skinned African-Americans is of the same magnitude as the gap
between white Americans and African-Americans.547 The educational, health and
employment problems have remained and are worsening as well. Where developing
countries during this same period have become over reliant on international aid, African-
Americans have a disproportionate amount of their aid coming from government and
charitable sources.548 White Americans who enter into contact with African-Americans
do so primarily on behalf of business and government interests. These individuals and
the organizations they represent have political and economic interests that inevitably
change into exploitation and the establishement of a domestic colonial relationship. The
interaction did not begin nor does it continue along neutral or equal terms as resources are
disproportionatly in the hands of the dominant group. The dominant society is in a
socioeconomically autonomous and superior position, when compared to the African-
American community. All of these factors lend credence to the applicability of this tenet
to explaining African-American political participation.
T10: Class divisions extend beyond national borders and racial divisions.
Consequently, class identity and class-consciousness bonds are stronger
than race consciousness and nationalism.
That class identity and class-consciousness bonds are stronger than race
consciouness and nationalism is an aspect of Marxist analysis which finds no fertile
ground when explaining African-American political participation. The racial identity and
547
Aaron Celious and Daphna Oyserman, “Race From the Inside: An Emerging Heterogeneous Race
Model,” Journal of Social Issues (Spring, 2001)
548
See the National Urban Leagues annual report The State of Black America (New York: National Urban
League, 1977-2004); National Black United Fund, The State of Black America (http://www.nbuf.org)
288
nativist actions exhibited by white America proved far stronger than the class based
political agenda of the Progressive Movement or the labor movement. Only crisis such as
the World Wars and the Great Depression caused a change in dominant group attitude,
and even then the collective actions of the dominant group were the exclusion of racial
minorities from the class based unionization efforts and the struggle with big business.
Token effort at co-opting the African-American labor organizations were initiated only
when the need for there was a need for increased manpower or to prevent the utilization
of the African-American labor as a leverage against white labor. This tactic was coupled
with the violent act of racial riots in several major cities, such as Detriot, Los Angeles and
New York. The strength of racial attitudes and the discrimination experienced by
African-Americans led to the rise of labor leaders such as A. Phillip Randolph, the
establishment of African-Amerian labor organizations and the constant need to push an
economic agenda which would ameliorate the problems experienced by the African-
American working class. A need which extends into the present.
Protest Theory
T1-T6: The masses engage in violent and non-violent protest because of
alienation, cognitive dissonance, systemic defects in the socioeconomic
and sociopolitical structures of society, and negative or non-responses by
institutions to mass demands.
The African-American masses from the colonial period through 2000 found
themselves which a constant struggle against efforts to alienate them from the larger
sociopolitical and economic structures. Often they were in a position from which they
were nearly dominated by the political and ideological constructs and outputs of
289
American society. Viewed as the material bases of wealth creation for a great deal of this
period African-Americans during both enslavement and the ensuing periods of
Reconstruction and segregation were faced with attempts to divest them of their humanity
by a sociopolitical philosophy which attempted to reduced them to the base animal nature
which lies at the heart of all humans.
The history of African-American education beginning with the narrow focus of
vocational education advocated by the Slater Fund and Booker T. Washington in the late
1800s and early 1900s and the continuing advocation in varying forms of this philosophy
and educational inequities is a case in point The rejection of political empowerment by
conservative elements in the African-American community during the early 1900s and
the current conservative initative to deracialize African American politics and the
community agenda are yet another; along with the restrictions placed on areas within the
economy and levels within a given organization in which African-Americans could be
employed and could rised are other examples.
The material and non-material cultural and sociohistorical products of African-
Americans were also consistently denigrated and efforts at anglo-conformism and
assimilation of the masses into a subordinate social position were pursued by elite
elements within and without of the African-American community. All of these things
highlight the alienation experienced by the African-American community and provide
and understanding of the use by the African-American masses of protest, for the
previously mentioned things which were the cause of the alienation were also at the heart
of the African-American political agenda as expressed in the demands of the National
Negro Congress in 1935,549 March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom, the National
549
Joanne Grant, Black Protest History, Documents, and Analyses 1619 to the Present (Greenwich, Conn:
Fawcett Publications, Inc., 1974) pp. 240-243.
290
Urban Leagues proposal for a “Domestic Marshal Plan”, the program of the Nation of
Islam and the Black Panther Party for Self Defense or in the policy proposals of
contemporary scholars such as William Julius Wilson.550
The alienation which leads to mass protest and finds expression in African-
American political participation from 1940 to 2000 is interrelated to the cognitive
dissonance experienced as well. The cognitive dissonance experienced by the African-
American community originates in the discrepancies between American sociopolitical
philosophy and American sociopolitical behavior. The American sociopolitical
philosophy is expressed in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The
Declaration states that all men have certain natural rights from which the cannot be
separated and the Constitution provides safeguards and guarantees those rights for all
men. American sociopolitical behavior however has moved in the oppositie direction of
the philosophy by denying natural rights to African-American and other ethnic groups.
This inconsistency in social philosophy and institutionalized behavior creates the
systemic defects in the socioeconomic and sociopolitical structures of society which also
lead to mass protest. The systemic defects led to shocks in the form of organized protest
because of the contradiction between American sociopolitical egalitarianism practiced
between all Americans of European descent and the anti-democratic practices against the
cultural others, or non-white American ethnic groups. Not only is it the existence of the
550
Donna Cooper Hamilton and Charles V. Hamilton, The Dual Agenda The African American Struggle for
Civil and Economic Equality (New York: Columbia University Press, 1997)pp.123-128; William Julius
Wilson, The Bridge Over The Racial Divide: Rising Inequality and Coalition Politics (Berkley: University
of California Press, 1999)
291
contradiction but also it is the apparent denial of the contradiction. Though the
sociopolitical philosophy may guarantee certain rights in theory, those rights are to be
implemented within a civilization built on institutions which have ingrained within them
the subordinate position of the masses of the non-white other. The nature, habits of
thought and prejudices of the dominant group which shaped the instituions have become
blended into the fabric of the sociopolitical institutions and engendered behavior in
keeping with them.551 The prejudices were encompassed by a belief apparent from the
inception of the institutions which made of the American government, in the natural
inferiority of the African, and the incompatibility of the African-American masses and the
American dominant group. This belief continues to show the depths to which it is inbred
into the sociopolitical insitutions through the rancour surrounding policies dealing with
school integration, affirmative action and biases in the criminal justice system.
The systemic defects within the socioeconomic and sociopolitical system naturally
produce non-responses or negative responses to the demands of the African-American
masses and lead to African-American mass protest both violent and non-violent. The
utilization of non-violent protest occurred under the cooperation of national Civil Rights
organizations working in conjunction with mass based grass roots organizations. The
violent methods, especially so-called riots, were employed by the grass roots against the
representatives of the sociopolitical and economic institutions which were at the heart of
their alienation and cognitive dissonance, namely, law enforcement and the economic
property of the dominant group and its collaborators. There is furthermore a tenuous link
between the violent and non-violent protest and the enactment of civil and social rights
551
Albion Winegar Tourgee, A Fool's Errand (New York: Harper Torchbook, 1966) p. 107.
292
legislation which is generally based on the chronology of protest activity and legislative
enactment and on the pronouncements of policy makers. From this discussion the lack of
apathy on the part of the masses is aparent and the resort of the masses to protest instead
of the normal channels of political participation highlights the uneven distribution of
power between the two. These tenets are of utility in explaining the protest aspect of
African-American political participation from 1940 to 2000.
The Efficacy of Democracy
Each of the models encompasses within them a view on the efficacy of
democracy. For the pluralist model perspective on the efficacy of democracy the leading
theoritician is Robert Dahl.552 Dahl holds that the central feature democratic government
is its recognition of all citizens as political equals and how the government continues to
address the concerns of the citizens. He goes on to state that the government must
objectively weigh the citizen interests without passing judgement on the subject matter or
considering positively or negatively the source of the concerns. Furthermore, the citizen
must be able to establish and become a member of the organization of his choice; express
their thoughts on all subjects freely without fear of any kind of intimidation; have the
franchise; be able to be elected to public office; and have “...free and fair elections.”553
552
Robert Dahl, On Democracy (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000); Democracy and its Critics (New
Haven: Yale University Press, 1989); Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition (New Haven: Yale
Univeristy Press, 1971)
553
Robert Dahl, Polyarchy: Participation and Opposition (New Haven: Yale Univeristy Press, 1971) pp. 1-3.
293
Elitist theorists such as Domhoff,554 Marxist class theorists and protest theorists555
maintain that the vote is symbolic and that an interlocking elite maintains all true
socioeconomic and political control, thus there is no true democracy for the people only
symbolic methods of participation. The plural elitists led by Lowi,556 assert that the
masses are without any true voice and that instead interest groups have commandeered
the political apparatus of the American system. In essence, there is not a democracy but
rather an oligarchy or cartel of small groups.
With the exeception of the pluralist and protest model the other three discount any
possible substantive impact of the masses on policy makers and preclude the possibility
of the mass engaging in the establishment of a democratic form of government as defined
by Dahl. As such the utility of these three models tenets on explaining the efficacy of
democracy are of limited utlitiy in explaining African-American political participation
from 1940 to 2000. African American organizational efforts and the utilization of those
resources at their disposal show that the masses can engage in democratic action as
described by Dahl and impact the government. SNCC, SCLC, and CORE engaged in
grass roots organizing in the heart of the south, a region where democracy for African-
Americans did not exist and yet the utilized the democratic activities of organizing, and
554
G. William Domhoff, The Higher Circle: The Governing Class in American (New York: Vintage Books,
1971; G. William Domhoff, Who Really Rules? New Haven and Community Power Reexamined (Santa
Monica, Cali.: Goodyear Publishing , Inc., 1978)
555
Friedrich Engels, The Condition of the Working Class in England (Stanford, Cali.: Stanford University
Press, 1968); Karl Marx, A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy (New York: International
Publishers, 1972); Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The German Ideology (New York: International
Publishers, 1947); Karl Marx, The Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844 (New York:
International Publishers, 1964); Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto (New York:
W. W. North & Company, 1988)
556
Norton & Company, 1979)
294
presenting their demands and forcing a heretofore un-democratic government to
acquiesce.
Though the United States government in relation to African-Americans and other
ethnic groups such as Native Americans, could not by considered as a democracy in the
literal definition of the word, this does not preclude the idea of democracy as expressed
within the political actions and cultural traditionsof the excluded groups from impacting
their political behavior and influencing the actions of the wider American government on
all levels pushing and at times dragging the national government and the dominant group
closer to the the literal idea of democracy. The political activisim of African-Americans
grounded in centuries long African-American tradition of democractic egalitarianism
forced the expansion of the American democratic apparatus so as to include literally all
Americans regardless of race, creed, color, gender or national origin. This idea of the
coexistence of differing political conceptions of democracy is an extension of the idea of
competing nations with a territorial nation state each with varied cultural backgrounds
and different political traditions.557 Their interaction within the territorial nation-state
plays a major role in the performance of the government of the nation-state. The actions
of African-Americans are democratic by virtue of the fact that their opposition to the acts
perpetrated against under the guise and with the resources in some cases of the
government did not place them against the country. Their opposition, resistance was and
is democracy through dissent.558
557
Imari Obadele, America: The Nation-State (Washington, D.C.: The House of Songhay, 1989) p. 84.
558
Michael Parenti, Democracy For the Few (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1980) pp. 120-166.
295
In the United States from Reconstruction until the Civil Rights and Black Power
Movements there existed two systems of government with regards to African-Americans
from the perspective of the dominant group. One was a limited polyarchy, which allowed
for the inclusion of selected members of the African-American bourgeosie. It differed in
kind with the full polyarchy participated in by the dominant group with their full
enjoyment of the democratic rights as defined by American political tradition. The
second type was a racial hegemony, based in rigid and semi-rigid racial strictures.559 This
form of government was primarily located within the confines of the old Confederacy;
however, forms of it existed in the east, mid-west and western portions of the United
States exported during the migrations of southern whites from the region between the
years of 1868 to 1920. The lack of uniformity in the governmental forms and the
fluctuation in national government presidential adminstrations policy towards the
African-Americans point out the further applicability of the pluralist position concerning
the efficacy of democracy in explaining African-American politics.
Contemporary political efforts by African-Americans such as the lobbying
activities and congressional testimony delivered by the organizations which compose the
Leadership Conference on Civil Rights on behalf of the Civil Rights Act of 1991,
African-American participation in elections for public office at all levels of government,
the plethora of organizations that have been freely organized and express their
constituents views- such as the current organizations which are apart of the Reparations
Movement, National Black United Front and the New Black Panther Party-all provided
559
Robert Dahl, Polyarchy Participation and Opposition (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1971) pp. 28-
29, 92-94.
296
additional support for the pluralist view of democracy as expressed by Dahl. The elitist,
plural-elitist and Marxist class theories are best utilized in pointing out deficiencies in the
operation of American democracy deficiencies which have been noted above.
Theory of History
The pluralist theory of history states that history is an accumulation of the
progressive tendencies of group interaction. The elitists view history as the record of the
conflict of competing elite for social dominance over the apathetic masses and moves
through cycles where the competing elite assume power and during their rule their
ideology shifts along a continuum from liberal to conservative. The plural-elitist theorist
assert that history is the chronicle of the results of small group interaction and conflict in
a desire to maintain elite control of socieconomic resources and the unorganized masses.
The Marxists discribe history as being shaped by socioeconomic class conflict and
originating in technological transformations withing society. The the Marxist the trends
of history begin with the inverse relationship that exists between the degrees of
technological innovation and the social productivity. It is theorized that as the
productivity increases labor differentiation will increase as well. This will inevitably lead
to an increase in population growth which will push productivity and labor differentiation
to higher levels. The population growth will exacerbate the class divisions between the
owners of the factors of production and the producing class culminating in an increase in
class consciousness of the labor class and their overthrow of the owning class. The final
result will be a new historical era. For the protest theorists history results from the
struggle between the masses and the elite in an effort to establish either a democratic
egalitarianism which benefits the whole of society or an oligarchy which benefits the few.
297
The first problem with applicability of the tenets on the theory of history
subsumed in the pluralist, elitist, plural-elitist, Marxist and protest theories to African-
American political participation is the inherent Eurocentrism embedded in the models.
Each is grounded in the european social theory as developed by August Comte, Sir Henry
Maine, Emile Durkheim, Ferdinand Toennis, Talcott Parsons and Robert Redfield.560 The
biased nature of this social science grounded in an dominant group view of sociopolitical
development which theorizes the necessity of certain essential characteristics required for
social advancement provides the ground work for the idea of American, i.e., Anglo-
American Exceptionalism. Each theorist presents an ideal of the sociopolitical and
economic world and then, “...they posit essentialist sociocultural features and differences
that are far more imaginary than real, and then they allege that the differences distinguish
'us' from 'them'.561 The 'us' being the dominant group, and the 'them' being the cultural
others, or non-white ethnic groups. In explaining all social development as being the
result of Anglo-American exceptionalism each of the theories view of history excludes all
that are outside of the dominant group. The degree of exclusion is commisserate with the
degree to which the subordinante group does not approximate the ideals of Anglo-
American sociocultural tradition. The models are based on the dominant group
experience exclusively and overlook that the view of the dominant group invariably
contrasts sharply with the view the subordinant group, especially when the historical
experience is so predicated on racial antagonism.
560
Andre Gunder Frank, ReOrient: Global Economy in the Asian Age (Berkeley: University of California
Press, 1998) p. 18.
561
Ibid., p. 19.
298
Thus, when pluralists assert that history is an accumulation of the progresive
tendencies of group interaction its focus is on Anglo-American history, which at its best
marginalizes all other ethnic groups to the level of objects of history. When the elite
theorists state that history is the record of conflict between competing elites, the centering
is upon Anglo-American elite and so on with the other models the historical focus is on
Anglo-Americans with a marginalization of other ethnic groups presenting their historical
perspective as a reaction to Anglo-American stimulus.
African-American sociopolitical history has been defined by a community wide
struggle against African dehumanization, sociocultural dislocation and
sociopsychological decentering, as well as efforts at group socioeconomic development
and social upliftment. Where Marxist hold that history is the result of socioeconomic
motivation, African-American historical experience results from the above with the intent
of asserting their African humanity not as objects of history, where deficit modeling is the
norm to point out community deficiences and define as the central characteristics, but as
active participants with a strong majoritarian focus centered in the strength and endurance
of the community. Rather than accepting the given of a situation, resistance to injustice
and the co-optation, transformation and incorporation of non-African cultural and
ideological materials has been the norm. African-American elite co-optation by dominant
group elite has been balanced by the countervailing power of grass roots resistance and
sociopolitical activisim. A countervailing power informed by the West African
essentialization process which created the African-American resistance to dominant
group actions.
299
The pluralist view history as the accumulation of progressive tendencies, in order
for this perspective to be correct the evidence would have to lead to the conclusion that
African-Americans have not organized themselves into interest groups that represent their
interests and which have engaged in the bargaining and negotiation process. The
historical record clearly shows that the African-American sociopolitial experience has
been predominantly that of community wide, cohesive struggle. This allows runs contrary
to elitist, plural-elitist and protest theorist perspectives as well. For the African-American
sociopolitical experience was neither a struggle against an elite nor small oligarchic
groups but against an entire social system and all classes of the dominant group- with the
limited exception of the minority of dominant group defectors.
From indentured servitude to enslavement with successful and unsuccessful
revolts of the enslaved, then from emancipation to the Black Codes, to limited political
incorporation during Reconstruction and the erosion of the Reconstruction gains, to lynch
law and Jim Crow, caste and segregation to re-incorporation and civil/social rights gains
to the present atmosphere of conservative attacks on the past gains and the incremental
diminishing of them: African-American history has not exhibited the pluralist qualities of
progressive gains, nor the outcome of competition between small groups, niether conflict
between competing elites or the masses and elites. At heart it is defined within the
context of struggle demarcated by race with the intent of reattaining political sovereignty
and preserving self-determined sociohistorical consciousness and historically grounded
sociocultural identity.
300
Theory of Economics
Pluralist theorists hypothesize that American government economic philosophy is
laissez-faire individualism, which marginalizes minority interest group concerns, in favor
of dominant group concerns. Elitists hold that an economic elite exercise influence over
the state and shape policy in their interests, through laissez-faire individualism. Plural-
elitists maintain that small group domination of the democratic process extends
government control into the market establishing a market with democratic socialist
orientation. Marxist aver that the American economic system is an exploitative capitalist
system which will eventually succumb to labor class revolution an usher in communism.
Finally, the protest model states that the current econcomic system of laissez-faire
individualism does not meet the needs of the masses and posits the need for one that does
whether socialist, or a mixture of socialist and capitalist.
African-American sociopolitical participation from 1940 to 2000 has consistently
been informed by a political and economic agenda. This political focus was formed
because as A. Phillip Randolph stated in Detroit, Michigan on September 26, 1942, the
western powers, with particular emphasis on the United States had to dismantle their
imperial system, which had the motive in exploiting the darker races of mankind for the
expansion and maintenance of the profit and position of power of western monopoly
capitalists. This system was to be replaced by an economic democracy which ensured a
redistribution of wealth and solidified socieconomic and political equality among all
citizens.562 This sentiment was echoed again in 1963 during the March on Washington
562
A. Phillip Randolph, “The March on Washington Movement,” Keynote Address to the Policy Conference
of the March on Washington Movement, Detroit, Michigan, September 26, 1942. Excerpted in Joanne
Grant, Black Protest History, Documents and Analyses 1619 To The Present (Greenwich, Conn.:Fawcett
Publications, Inc., 1974) pp. 243-250.
301
For Jobs and Freedom and constantly throughout the preceeding years of this study from
such diverse groups as the Nation of Islam, the Organization of Afro-American Unity, the
Black Panther Party for Self-Defense, SNCC, SCLC and SDS.
From the perspective of African-American political participation during the years
of 1940 to 2000 the American economic institutions operated along the lines of racial
hegemony and limited polyarchy and not along strict pluralist lines nor, along plural-
elitist, elitist, Marxist class analysis or protest theorists lines. The racial hegemonic
aspect marginalized African-Americans as a group within the economic sphere generally
denying them participation within the capitalist or free market system along laissez-faire
individualistic lines. As marginalized appendages African-Americans exhibited all of the
characteristics of dometic colonialism as stated earlier.
No matter what the economic philosophy being propagated-socialism, capitalism,
communism or some combination of the three-racial proclivities and considerations on
the part of the white workers and capitalist class precluded full incorporation of African-
Americans. The capitalist class, i.e., the rich utilized African-Americans as to increase
profit through “...cheap labor, strike breakers and the training of conservative, reactionary
leaders.”563 The actions of Corporate business interests played a significant role in the
creation of the African-American business class, preparing their way out of the stringent
racial economic hegemony into the limited polyarchy. On the otherhand, the white labor
class “...has been the black man's enemy, his oppressor, his red murderer. Mobs, riots
and discrimination of trade unions have been used to kill, harass and starve black men.
563
W.E.B. DuBois, “The Negro and Communism,”The Crisis (September, 1931) in David Levering Lewis,
W.E.B. DuBois: A Reader (New York: Henry Holt and Company, Inc., 1995) pp. 583-593.
302
White labor disfranchised Negro labor in the South, is keeping them out of jobs and
decent living quarters in the North, and is curtailing their education and civil and social
privileges throughout the nation.”564
As stated previously this state of affairs which when evaluating the current
economic position of African-Americans is much the same today565 is further supported
by the aspect of American exceptionalism that abides by the individualist philosophy and
stands in opposition to government intervention into private affairs. This disdain of is
more properly understood as opposition any intervention thats harms the position or
benefits that accrue to white America as a result of institutionalized racism. During the
New Deal government intervention or liberalism meant government action for the public
good. The majority of the legislation which resulted benefited business and to a lesser
extent the white middle class and only marginaly African-Americans and other ethnic
groups. During the social revolution of the 1960s and 1970s liberalism came to mean
government intervention to extend civil and social rights to African-Americans, who had
been deprived of these rights on account of race. This led to the equating of social
programs with African-Americans and race engendering the ire and opposition of the
white American middle class in general.566
564
565
National Black United Fund, Education, Employment, Economics (www.nbuf.org) In 1999,
unemployment for African-Americans was 8% compared to 3.7% for Whites. Unemployment rates for
African-American youth are three times higher than the national average. 31% of African-American
children live below the poverty line.
566
Jill Quadagno, The Color of Welfare How Racism Undermined the War on Poverty (New York: Oxford
University Press, 1994) pp. 187-197.
303
The racial antagonism and perceptions of white middle class America and the
political maneuvering on the part of Southern Congressmen served to be the major
impetus for the inability of the Congress to pass strong housing legislation that would
emphatically bring and end to racially segregated neighborhoods; and the defeat of
Nixons Family Assistance Plan, which would have replaced the Aid For Families with
Dedependent Children program with a guaranteed income program for all of the
impoverished and provided childcare for working families. For the white middle class
considerations of property rights displaced civil rights. Property ownership was a sacred
right, a central part of the American dream and constitutionally protected. Politicians
such as Ronald Reagan is his successful bids for Governor of California and President of
the United States utilized this generalized belief as a central part of his campaign
strategies.
This provides a subjective understanding of the entire political situation that
surrounds all social legislation. The members of the white middle class would not
consider themselves to be racist, merely because they want to preserve the right to sell
their property to whomever they choose, live near whomever they choose, or not wanting
to have public housing located in their neighborhoods and having to support expensive
welfare and childcare programs. The reasoning behind this in the psche of the white
middle clas as Quadagno points out is that integration of the neighborhoods leads to a
devaluation of property value, deterioration in school quality and an increase in crime.
Next, to support welfare programs would be to provide for those who do not wish to
work.567 Add to these arguments the racial component in the particular social perceptions
567
University Press, 1994) p. 98.
304
of the middle class white voter and the failure of the programs is easily understood. As
Quadagno notes, “...racial considerations do affect support for social programs.”568
Without middle class support the programs run the risk of sharing the fate of the
Medicare Catastrophic Care Act of 1988. This act because it spread costs between the
upper and middle classes and targeted benefits to the poor lasted sixteen months.
When considering the potential of the Family Assitance Plan held and then
looking at the Southern Congressional position, organized labors position and that of the
National Womens Rights Organizations, the arguments presented against the legislation
is couched in terms such as, it would “...undermine local labor markets...wages would be
frozen at poverty levels” and skilled trade unions would experience a loss of control
“...over hiring and apprenticeships.” All of these statements can be interpreted as having
racial overtones.569 Race is intertwined in social legislation and plays a major part in
detemining its success and failure.
Theory of Social Change
Pluralist theory states that the American political system is homeostatic for no
group can accumulate enough resources in order to make significant changes. The
change in resources available to a group are balanced by alterations to the resources of
other groups. The stability of the system is thus maintained. Elitists present the view that
social change is initiated by the conflict between progressive and conservative elite.
Plural-Elitists theorize that social change is the result of of small group efforts to change
568
University Press, 1994) p. 172.
569
Ibid., p. 127.
305
existing oligarchic power arrangements in their favor. Marxists and protest theorists
hypothesize that social change is a normal aspect of a dynamic social system which
results from tensions occuring between the masses and the elite. The goal is to
restructure society and redistribute power and resources equally.
Social change occurred from the perspective of African-American political
participation from 1940 to 2000 as the result of the activism of grass roots level leders
such as E. D. Nixon, Fannie Lou Hamer, Malcolm X, Bobby Seale, Huey P. Newton,
Kwame Toure, countless other nameless grass roots activists, a diverse body of college
and high school students, and defectors from the so-called African-American elite as Dr.
Martin Luther King, Jr. and Ella Baker. W.E.B. DuBois notes that for the greater part of
the early twentieth century and further research shows the case to have the same into the
middle of 1970s there was not a substantive gap between the so-called African-American
middle class elite and the African-American masses.570 The nation wide systems of
dejure and defacto segregation and limited employment opportunities for African-
Americans within the American caste structure assured that. Dr. E. Franklin Frazier
concluded that the central difference between the two was the degree in which the
African-American middle class assimilated the material and non-material culture of the
dominant group and engaged in imitative affectations of the Anglo-American culture.571
The African-American old guard elite represented by Roy Wilkins and Dr. Kings
father, differed with the activists element such as their insistence on an accelerated
570
571
E. Franklin Frazier, The Black Bourgeoisie (New York: Colier Books, 1962)
306
gradualism and focus on politics. Dr. Kings, and Ella Baker allied themselves with the
grass roots north and south and student activist elements while attempting to maintain a
coalition of the two tactically opposed factions. Grass roots leaders such as Malcolm X,
Fannie Lou Hamer and later Huey P. Newton pursued courses of action which forced the
gradualist elements to a more militant stance. Malcolm X, as the founder and organizer
of the Organization for Afro-American Unity, exposed a political and economic
philosophy and began the creation of a program designed to link the African-Amerian
struggle with the wider struggle of oppressed people's of African and Asia. His activities
caused a reappraisal of the Civil Rights Coalitions demands by the government as they
were far more moderate than the Black Nationalists. Fannie Lou Hamer was a leading
force in Mississippi grass roots level voter registration and the most visible person within
the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party. Hamer at the head of 68 delegates challenged
the legal status of the regular Mississippi Democrats who were chosen in a racially
exclusive manner. Here actions caused consterenation among men such as Roy Wilkins
and Whitney Young. Wilkins went so far as to tell Hamer that “....you don't know
anything about politics. I [have] been in the business over twenty years. You people
[MFDP] have put your point across, now why don't you pack up and go home.”572
The ire of gradualist elements was at fever pitch as they desired a temporary
sesation of all protest activity during the presidential race of 1964. Dr. King did not fully
endorse the call for a ban on all protest since “... he knew that blacks were going to
572
Robert Weisbrot, Freedom Bound A History of America's Civil Rights Movement (New York: Plume
Books, 1991) p. 117.
307
express their anger and frustration whatever their 'leaders' pronounced.”573 CORE officials
such as James Farmer and SNCC chairman John Lewis stated that “...if black leaders
tried to stop the protests, the kids in the street who were demonstrating would laugh at
us.”574 The actions of the MFDP and Fannie Lou Hamer did nothing to help the gradualist
cause.
The efforts of the MFDP to be seated as the legitimate delegation from
Mississippi and the resultant outcome of only two hand picked delegates being seated
brought into the spotlight the rift that existed between the white liberal elements, African-
American gradualists and the grass roots. The aftermath of the MFDP initiative resulted
in the rewriting of the rules of the Democratic Convention on state delegations which led
to an increase in African-American representation. Fannie Lou Hamers testimony on
national television about the sexual, mental, and physical and economic terrorism she
suffered at the hands of Mississippi law enforcement officials and private citizens merely
because she had registered to vote created a national atmosphere which hieghtened the
efforts to eventually enact the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
The MFDP have further influence in that it touched off a move for the creation of
independent African-American political organizations at the grass roots level exposing a
distinctly African-American grass roots political agenda. One of the first such
organizations to appear in the wake of the MFDP was the Lowndes County Freedom
Organization (LCFO) organized in Lowndes, Alabama. This independent African-
573
Robert Weisbrot, Freedom Bound A History of America's Civil Rights Movement (New York: Plume
Books, 1991) p. 116.
574
Ibid., p. 116.
308
American political organization, which fielded African-American candidates for local
elections and set its agenda around the needs of the poor within the community along
with the philosophy of Malcolm X were a part of the inspiration which led to the
organizing first in Oakland, California and later throughout the nation, of the Black
Panther Party for Self-Defense.
The Black Panther Party for Self-Defense, much like SNCC and the LCFO before
it set up free schools, health clinics established free breakfast programs, fielded African-
American candidates for local elections and in keeping with the philosophy of the
Deacons For Self-Defense located throughout Louisiana and the Robert Williams asserted
and carried out African-Americans right to arm themselves within the legal parameters of
established law and custom in America. Many of their programs were eventually co-
opted by local, state and national government agencies and implemented to varying
degrees society wide throughout the 1970s. The period of 1970 to 2000 also saw the
member organizaitons of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights engage in actions
designed to maintain, expand and fight the erosion of the rights gained during the 1960.
This discussion highlights incidents which show why the protests models theory of social
change best explains African-American political participation.
Theory of Social Movements
Protest theory describes social movements as the outcome of marginalized groups
acting out of logical collective interest to improve their collective status. Marxist class
analysis states that social movements result from labor class disaffection with elite
control of social resources. For plural-elitist theorists social movements are the result of
small group coalitions and their manipulation of the large group through the provision of
309
resources for mobilization and media messages, where as, elitist theorist hold that they
result from elite manipulation of mass resource mobilization. Pluralist scholars on the
otherhand maintain that social movements result from the failure of socializing
institutions to socialize the mases, thereby creating group psychological strain.
The African-American led civil rights movement from 1953 to 1975 was but a
phase of a centuries long social movement for African-American liberation.575 The
NAACP, SNCC, Nation of Islam, Black Panther Party for Self-Defense, Leadership
Conference for Civil Rights, CORE, acquired their organizational framework and agenda
methodology along with leadership structure from their predecessor organizations in
earlier periods of the movement576 such as enslavement resistance movements on the
African continent, the successful an unsuccessful enslavement rebellions, the abolitionist
movement, Colored National Labor Union (CNLU), the Afro-American Council, the
National Negro Business League, the National Equal Rights League, the Niagra
Movement, the Negro-American Political League,577 the Universal Negro Improvement
Association and African Communities League and the Negritude Movement.
The African-American social movement for liberation of which the Civil and
Social Rights movement was but one phase was not the result of group psychological
strain caused by the failure of socializing institutions for the movement existed before the
575
George M. Fredrickson, Whit Supremacy: A Comparative Study in Amrican and South African History
(New York: Oxford University Press, 1981); Black Liberation: A Comparative History of Black Ideologies
in the United States and South Africa (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995)
576
Marta Fuentes and Andre Gunder Frank, “Ten Theses on Social Movements,” (March, 1988)
(http://rrojasdatabank.info/agfrank/socmov.html)
577
Stephen R. Fox, The Guardian of Boston: William Monroe Trotter (New York: Antheneum, 1971) pp.
81-114.
310
foundation of those institutions and consistently stood in opposition to all institutions
which were against the recognition of African humanity. The Anglo-Amerian elite and
small group efforts to manipulate African-American mass resource mobilization are not
the explanation for African-American social movements as those efforts occurred in
reaction to African-American actions regarding enslavement, segregation and social
inequality. Elitist enactment of state policies that were not in the interest of African-
Americans did not provoke African-American protest as some scholars have stated.578
To emphasis elite or small group manipulation of the masses with regards to
African-American political participation within the background of the period under study
or within the period it self overlooks some key aspects of the matter. Elite and small
group-no matter whether large plantation owners in control of southern politics and with
substantive influence and power in national politics or influential southern segregationists
or contemporary compasionate conservatives-actions are in response to African-American
initiatives. The enactment of laws either to control of pacify African-American political
intiative create a situation whereby both groups are in effect restrained by the other.
For example, and enslaver must throughout their life live in anticipation of the
inevitable retaliatory violence that the power situation he lives in naturally engenders. In
another instance, from the elite or plural-elite perspective, the enactment of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 were manipulative efforts to pacify
African-American demands. If this were the case there should not have been an
escalation of racial conflict as that is not in the interests of the rational elite or small
578
Anthony W. Marx, “Race-Making an the Nation-State,” World Politics 48 (January, 1996) pp. 180-208;
Making Race and Nation: A Comparison of the United States, South Africa, and Brazil (New York:
Cambridge University Press, 1998)
311
group. Lastly, the exclusionary actions of Anglo-American labor organizations prohibits
the utility of Marxist class analysis for explaining African-American social movement.
This tenet calls for labor solidarity and class consciousness across racial and gender
boundaries. The history of the interaction of labor and African-Americans notes the lack
of such an occurrence. As one author states in describing Memphis, Tennessee in 1968
and excellent case study , “...the white laborer refused to think of himself as part of the
working class: that was the role of the Negro.”579 The working class was considered by
the average white workers as the lowest rung on the social scale and caste and racial
tradition ascribed that rung to African-Americans. Furthermore labor activists took a
paternalistic attitude towards African-American laborers, with white's in positions of
leadership and responsibility being openly discriminatory.580 Protest theory provides the
best explanation as the evidence of mentioned above in the contextualization of African-
American sociopolitical participation demonstrates.
Theory of Race and State Relations
None of the five models directly addresses the social construct of race or the
sociopolitical issue of racism. The absence of any direct theorizing stems in part from
social science researchs regression from the race variable as and explanatory construct of
group position in American and European society.581 In place of racism, social scientists
579
Gerold Frank, An American Death (Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company, Inc., 1972) p. 10.
580
Steve Estes, “I am a Man: Race, Masculinity, and the 1968 Memphis Sanitation Strike,” Labor History
(May, 2000) pp. 153-170.
581
Melvin Thomas, “Anything But Race: The Science Retreat From Racism,” African American Research
Perspectives Vol. 6, No. 1 (Winter, 2000)pp. 1-16. “ ...racism involves the ideas (i.e., legitimations) and
practices (i.e., discrimination) that create and maintain a system of white racial privilege which is
responsible for both past and present forms of racial inequality.”
312
instead used the variables of social class, cognitive ability, lack of a work ethic, non-
existant morality or normal value system, insufficient human capital, spatial mis-match
and inadequate family structure.582
Yet another reason for the repudiation of the race variable stems from the
Eurocentric bias of the models583 and the European origins of race as a social variable.
The social construct of race was first conceptualized in the late eighteenth century, when
the German naturalist and physiologist Johann Friedrich Blumenbach584 developed a
theory that determined through the observation and analysis of human skulls and
skeletons- a subject that is today called comparative anatomy- that there were five races
of mankind. These races he delineated as the caucasian or white man, originating near
the Caucus mountains of Eastern Europe; the American Indian or red man, hailing from
the North, Central and South American continents; the Malayan, living on the islands of
Oceania; the Mongolian, whose native land was Eastern Asia and the Ethiopian, whose
ancestral home was the continent of Africa. According to Blumenbachs theory of races
the Caucasian was the progenitor of the other races and as such was superior to them.585
Blumenbachs theory of races was in turn used by the scientific, academic and
political institutions of Europe and America to justify the colonization and enslavement
582
Melvin Thomas, “Anything But Race: The Science Retreat From Racism,” African American Research
Perspectives Vol. 6, No. 1 (Winter, 2000) p. 13.
583
Andre Gunder Frank, ReOrient: Global Economy in the Asian Age (Berkeley: University of California
Press, 1998) pp. 18-19.
584
Johann Friedrich Blumenbach, De Generis humani varietate nativa (Londond, 1795) in Louis L. Synder,
The Idea of Racialism (Princeton, New Jersey: D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc., 1962) pp. 103-105.
585
Ibid., pp. 103; William H. Tucker, The Science and Politics of Racial Research (Chicago: University of
Illinois Press, 1994) p. 9.
313
of the so-called inferior races.586 Thus, wherever so-called Causcasians came in contact
with the other races extreme measures were instituted to perpetuate white supremacy and
prevent as much as possible any social interaction which may have deleterous effects on
the domaninant group. This then is the origin of white supremacy, racism, and the
discrimination and segregation of groups based on physiological differences which
supposedly result in behavioral differences.
The concept of racism takes place within the context of in-country numerical
majority-minority relations. These relations are dominated by an unequal power
relationship and are conflict ridden. Based upon the aggressive nature of the dominant
group in its interactions with other racial groups and their control of resources in the area
of warfare, the dominant group whether a numerical majority or minority instituted a
power system designed to maintain their dominant position. This power system is White
Supremacy. White supremacy then is: “…structured and maintained by persons who
classify themselves as white, whether consciously or sub consciously determined: this
system consists of patterns of perception, logic, symbol formation, thought, speech, action
and emotional response, as conducted simultaneously in all areas of people activity.
Namely: economics, education, entertainment, labor, law, politics, religion, sex and
war.”587 White supremacy is racism operationalized in all areas of human interaction and
it serves as the ideology of the dominant group.
586
Errol Anthony Henderson, Afrocentrism and World Politics: Towards a New Paradigm (Westport, Conn.:
Praeger, 1995) pp. 21-39.
587
Dr. Francis Cress Welsing. The Isis Papers. (Chicago: Third World Press, 1991) pp. ii.; Neely Fuller,
The United Independent Compensatory Code/System/Concept (Neely Fuller Publishing, 1984)
314
Within this ideological perspective, racism grounded in scientific dogma becomes
socially defined.588 As it is socially defined it affects the way of life of the society and not
just of the group that is the object of racial discrimination. The influence of racism on
society is best understood from the individual, institutional and structural perspective.
Individual racism refers to the behavior of individuals toward subordinant races. The acts
are overt in nature and seek to harm, or intimidate. Institutional racism is concerned with
the accepted societal customs that are designed to perpetuate the subordinant position of
the despised race. Structual racism focuses on the public institutions that develop and
maintain practices that serve to continue racist practices.589
Racism in its operationalized ideological form of White Supremacy permeated the
individual, structural and institutional components of society, and prevented the
substantive rendering of comprehensive civil rights and social assistance to racial groups
that were the object of racism. The ideology was either, consciously or subconsciously
internalized by both the dominant and subordinant group and then executed in all areas of
human activity, religious, social, political and economic. Beginning with the individual
racism progressed to the institutional and then the structural foundations of society. The
importance of this should not be underestimated for as Dianne Pinderhughes so aptly
588
Norman R. Yetman, Majority and Minority: The Dynamics of Racial and Ethnic Relations, (Boston:
Allyn and Bacon, 1991) p 3.
589
Judith Lichtenberg, "Racism in the Head, Racism in the World," Report from the Institute for
Philosophy and Public Policy. University of Maryland, 12 (Spring/Summer, 1992): 5. Stokely Carmichael
and Charles V. Hamilton, Black Power: The Politics of Liberation in America. (New York: Random
House, 1992) pp. 4-5.
315
states, “...When political institutions handle racial issues, conventional rules go awry,
individuals act irrationally, and constitutional rules are violated.”590
By not directly accounting for race the models are unable to fully explain African-
American politics. In order to address the fact that African-American political
participation does not completely fit the patterns expected of say the pluralist model,
theorists have looked for deficiences in African-American political participation and
organization. This is a point that has been dully noted with regard to the pluralist model
and applies equally as well to the others considered here.591 Though not fully addressing
the issue of race, the models can be wedded to models of race relations based on
inferences contained in the literature with regard to group-state and mass-state interaction
and thus lead to a fuller understanding of the racial dynamic and its impact on the state
and racial group interaction and further enhance the analytical applicability or lack
thereoff of the models explaining African-American political participation.
Based upon the tenets of the pluralist model the theory infers a state and race
relationship of integration. In an integrated order of race and state relationships racial
differences are given token consideration. While remaining as a social construct it is
merely one construct among many and not the primary determinant of a groups social
role.592 The elitist and protest model's tenets allow for the deduction that state and race
relations are defined in accordance with a racial order signified by domination. Under the
racial order of domination one group defined socially by race is subordinated to another
590
Dianne M. Pinderhughes, Race and Ethnicity in Chicago Politics: A Reecamination of Pluralist Theory
(Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1987) p. 261.
591
Ibid., pp. 253-261.
592
Michael Banton, Race Relations (New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1967) p. 73.
316
group to be manipulated in accordance with the needs of the dominant elite.593 The plural
elitist model with its emphasis on small group dominantion of the state apparatus
correllates with a racial order centered on institutionalized integrated domination. Under
this type of racial order the state and race interaction occurs only in state institutional
settings between small groups from different racial categories who subordinate large
unorganized groups.594 Finally, the Marxist class analysis model assumes a paternialistic
state and race relationship. In this racial order the dominant group in control of the means
of production establishes a relationship with the subordinant racial group by establishing
representative institutions in the subordinant groups community and facilitating contact
with a dominant group trained elite. An example being the relationship established in a
colonial and domestic colonial situation.595 As the analysis of the ninth tenet of Marxist
class analysis shows the parternalistic paradigm provides some explaination of African-
American politics in comtemporary settings. The elite and protest emphasis on
domination finds its greats explanatory power in the period preceding the Civil and Social
Rights movement. The historical evidence does not however, support the pluralist or
plural-elitist perspectives.
Quantitative Analysis
A time series analysis was conducted to evaluate how well the enactment of civil
and social rights policies were explained by African-American political participation
variables. The independent variables were the number of non-violent political protests
593
Michael Banton, Race Relations (New York: Basic Books, Inc., 1967) p. 71.
594
Ibid., pp. 69, 71, 73.
595
Ibid., p. 72.
317
and violent political protests which occurred by year from 1940 to 2000. These variables
were included as measures of the direct action strategies employed by African-
Americans. The predictor variable, the percentage of Democrats in both the House and
Senate, was included as a measure of the political institution to which African-Americans
have given there greatest support in the form of utilization of the vote. As a measure of
the political strength of the African-American community the percentage of African-
Americans in the total voter population was included as well.
The percentage of the African-American community living in poverty, i.e., the
poverty rate was included as a measure of the political strength of the African-American
poor, whose greatest perceived benefit lay in the economic or social component of the
Civil Rights Movement. The percentage of African-American congressmen and women
was included as a measure of the increase in political influence of the African-American
community. The final variable of the percentage of African and Asian nations gaining
political independence during the time period under investigation was included as a
measure of the foreign policy influences on the American domestic political agenda.
The dependent variable was the Civil and Social rights policies enacted during 1940 to
2000. The policies included were those which met the criteria of the Freedom Budget
and on whose behalf the leading Civil Rights organizations lobbied congress and engaged
in direct action political techniques to dramatize the need for the policies.
The findings showed that the linear combination of the independent variables was
significantly related to the dependent variable, F (7, 51) = 3.66, p = .003. The multiple
correlation coefficient of the model was .33 indicating that .24 of the variance of the
dependent variable can be accounted for by the linear combination of the independent
variables of the model. In Table 1, the standardized beta, partial correlations and t-scores
318
are presented to show the relative strength of each independent variable. It was
hypothesized that the percentage of democrats in the Senate and House, the percentage of
African-Americans in the total voter population, violent protests and the percentage of
colonies in African and Asia gaining independence would have positive impact on the
enactment of civil and social rights policies, while the number of non-violent protests, the
African-American poverty rate and the percentage of African-Americans in congress
would have a negative impact on enactment.
The findings for African-American poverty rate, African-American congressmen,
violent protest and decolonization in African and Asia are as hypothesized. Where the
total number of democrats and the African-American percentage in the total voter
population were hypothesized to have a postive impact on the enactment of legislation,
the findings showed the exact opposite. This finding of the model supports the findings
of the qualitative analysis conducted above. The variable non-violent protest was
hypothesized to have a negative impact on the enactment of the legislation. From the
model its impact was shown to be both statistically and substantively significant even
when the impact of the other variables was partialed out as it accounted for .14 of the
variance in the dependent variable. The colonial independence models impact on the
dependent variable one all other variables were held constant was shown to be .22 a slight
increase from its beta of .20. This variable accounted for .03 of the variance in the
dependent variable. Though the violent protest variables impact was positive as
hypothesized, the findings show that it was niether substantively or statistically
significant, accounting for .005 of the variance. The African-American poverty variable
has a negative impact on the enactment of civil and social rights policies accounted for .
319
18 of the variance in the model, however, when the impact of other variables are held
constant the impact of the poverty variable is reduced to -.21.
Table 4. Explaining Civil & Social Rights Policy Enactment 1940-2000
Independent Variables Beta Partial Correlations
Constant 2.19
(t = 0.91)
NVPt-2 .380 .375

(t = 2.88)*
VPt-2 .069 .067

(t = 0.47)
COLONID .201 .223

(t = 1.63)
TDEMCONG -0.05 -.053

(t = -0.37)
EVPAA -0.07 -.035

(t = -0.24)
AAPOV -0.42 -.217

(t = -1.58)**
AAC -0.31 -.115

(t = -0.82)
R2 .33
Adjusted R2 .24
N 59
* p < .05, two-tailed test.

** p < .10, two-tailed test.
320
CHAPTER VI
CONCLUSION
This study had as it purpose the objective of determining the effectiveness of five
models of power distribution in explaining African-American political participation in
theenactment of civil and social rights policies during the years of 1940 to 2000. To
address this question the models were analyzed qualitatively and quantitatively. It was
hypothesized that pluralist theory would provide the greatest explanatory power for
African-American political participation and that the other models would be of no
utility.The qualitative analysis results found pluralist theory both in its radical and
conventional forms to have its greatest explanatory power in the area of the nature of the
sociopolitical process and interest group interaction. Elitist theory was of limited utility
in this same area primarily due to its stated perspective on the apathy of the masses.
When addressing the make up of the elite and methods of elite expansion and
preservation the explanatory power of the model increases greatly.
When addressing certain aspects of the groups such as the free-rider problem and
the importance of symbolic political acts and the workings of the elite the plural-elitist
model has significant explanatory power. Overall, the model's ability to explain African-
American political participation in specified period was not in the direction hypothesized.
The greatest explanatory power of Marxist class analysis lay in its explanation of elite
actions and its description of the relation of minority groups and the dominant society.
The extreme emphasis on economic determinism is where the model loses some of its
utility in explaining African-American politcal participation. Protest theory was of
limited utility in describing the nature of power distribution of the political system,
321
however as a theory for delineating the rationale for mass use of protest the model has a
great deal of effectiveness.
In describing the efficacy of democracy from the perspective of African-American
political participation the plural-elitist, elitist and protest models were of no utility.
Pluralist theory provided the best explanation with regards to African-American political
participation. None of the models was of utility when considering their prescribed theory
of history within the light of African-American political participation in the specified
period. The theory of economics subsumed within the models were of limited
explanatory power due to the failure to account for the nuances of the African-American
sociopolitical experience. In this are aspects of the Marxist class analysis with its
emphasis on the marginalization of minority groups was of the greatest impact. In the the
topic of social change theory and social movements ascribed to the models, by theorists,
the protest theory was of the greatest utility in explaining African-American political
participation in the time period analyzed.
For the quantitative component it was hypothesized that violent protest, the
percentage of democrats in congress, the percentage of Asian and African countries
gaining independence and the total percentage of African-Americans in the total voter
population would have a positive impact on the enactment of Civil and Social rights
legislation, while nonviolent protest, the percentage of African-American congressmen in
congress, and the African-American poverty rate would have a negative impact on the
enactment of the legislation. The results showed that nonviolent protest had the greatest
explanatory power, followed by the percentage of Asian and African countries gaining
independence and violent protest. The percentage of democrats in congress and
nonviolent protests both had the opposite sign of that which was theorized.
322
The findings of this study provide strong support for the pluralist and protest
schools of African-American political participation while pointing out the limited
utilityof aspects of the other competing models. In addition, it has been shown that certain
aspects of the five theories prevail in certain situations. Furthermore, this study by
culling the literature and pointing out the theories of democracy, history, economics,
social movements and social change inherent within the models and by tying each of the
models to a theory of race relations, then operationalizing them as tenets has provided a
stronger base from which to engage in a theoretical utility of the models for the
explanation of political participation in minority and majority communities.
Previously, scholars have stated that certain theories such as pluralism were
deviod of the various points, for instance, race and economic philosophy as was presented
in the literature review. This study has pointed out from the literature itself the existence
of those points in the case of economic philosophy and has presented a analysis of the
inclusion of them such as in the case of race relations, applied them to the case of
African-American political participation and set the stage for future research topics: such
as a more indepth analysis of why the African-American poverty and by implication the
poverty level of all numerical minority groups fails to engender civil and social welfare
policy; and an analysis of the impact of American foreign policy concerns on the
development of African-American, Hispanic and Native American domestic policy
concerns.
323
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Akbar, N. (1999). Know thy self. Tallahasse, Fl.: Mind Productions & Associates.
Ackerman, P. & DuVall, J. (2000). Nonviolent power in the twentieth century. PS:
Political Science, 33, 146-148.
Africana Library. (2005). African writing systems. Cornell University:
[http://www.library.cornell.edu/africana/Writing_Systems]
Aguire, B.E., Quarantelli, E. L. & Mendoza, J. L. (1958). The collective behavior of fads:
The characteristics, effects, and career of streaking. American Sociological
Review, 53.
Akzin, B. (1968). Legislature: Nature and Functions. In D. L. Sills (Ed.) The
international encyclopedia of the social sciences: Vol. 9. (pp.221). New York:
The Macmillan Company & Free Press.
Allen, R. L. (1969). Black awakening in capitalist America. New York: Doubleday &
Company.
Alvarez, R. M. & Brehm, J. (1997). Are Americans Ambivalent Towards Racial Policies?
American Journal of Political Science, 42, 345-374.
Anderson, J. E. (1997). Public policymaking. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Andrew, J. A. III (1998). Lyndon Johnson and the great society. Chicago: Ivan R.
Dee.
Ani, M. (1995). Yurugu: An african-centered critique of European cultural thought and
behavior. Trenton, NJ: Africa World Press.
324
Appelbaum, R. P. (1970). Theories of Social Change Chicago: Rand McNally College
Publishing Company.
Appiah, K. A. & Gates, Jr., H. L. (Eds.) (1999). Africana: The encyclopedia of the
African and African American experience. New York: Basic Books.
Asante, M. K. (1996). Afrocentricity. Trenton, N.J.: African World Press.
Asante, M. K. (1998). The afrocentric idea. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Asante, M. K. (2003). The contours of African American culture.
[http://www.africawithin.com/asante/contours.htm]
Atkinson, B. (1950). The complete essays and other writings of Ralph Waldo Emerson.
New York: Random House.
Bachrach, P. & Baratz, M. S. (1962). Two faces of power. American Political Science
Review, 56, 947-952.
Bachrach, P. (1966). The theory of democratic elitism. Boston: Little, Brown.
Bachrach, P. & Baratz, M. S. (1970). Power and poverty: Theory and practice. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Bailey, N., Copperwaite, P., Doyle, Johnston, M. M. & Wood, I. (2000). Encyclopedia of
African peoples. New York: Diagram Group.
Banfield, E. (1961). Political influence. New York: The Free Press.
Banks, W. C. (1982). Deconstruction falsification: Foundations of a critical method in
black psychology. In E. Jones & S. Korchin (Eds.) Minority Mental Health. New
York: Praeger Press.
Banton, M. (1967). Race relations. New York: Basic Books.
325
Baskin, D. (1970). American pluralism: theory, practice and ideology. Journal of
Politics, 32, 71-95.
Bates, T., & Williams, D. L. (1993). Racial Politics: Does it Pay? Social Science
Quarterly, 74, 507-522.
Bauer, R. A., de Sola Pool, I., & Dexter, L. A. (1963). American business and public
policy: The politics of foreign trade. New York: Atherton Press.
Beer, S. (1973). The modernization of American federalism," Public Administration
Review, 3.
ben-Jochannan, Y. (1991). Africa: Mother of western civilization. Baltimore, Black
Classic Press.
Bennett, L. (1993). Before the Mayflower a history of Black America. New York:
Penguin Books.
Bennett, D. H. (1988). The party of fear: The American far right from nativism to
the militia movement. New York: Vintage Books.
Bentley, A.F. (1935). The process of government. Evanston, Ill: Principia Press.
Berkowitz, E. (1991). Americas welfare state: From Roosevelt to Reagan.
Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press.
Bernal, M. (1987). Black athena: The afroasiatic roots of classical civilization.
New Jersey: Rutgers University Press.
Berstein, M. (1955). Regulating business by independent commission. Princeton, NJ:
Princeton University Press.
Bernstein, R. J. (1980). The restructuring of social and political theory.
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
326
Blau, J. (1992). The visible poor. New York: Oxford University Press.
Blaustein, A. P. & Zangrando, R.L., (1968). Civil rights and African
Americans: A documentary history. Evanston: Northwestern University Press.
Blumer, H. (1965). Collective behavior. In J. Gould & W. L. Kolb (Eds.), A dictionary of
the social sciences. (pp. 100). New York: The Free Press.
Bobo, L. & Gilliam Jr., F. D. (1990). Race, sociopolitical participation, and
Black empowerment. American Political Science Review, 84, 377-393.
Bobo, L & Kluegel, J. R. (1993). Opposition to race-targeting: Self-interest, stratification
ideology, or racial attitudes. American Sociological Review, 58, 443-464.
Bohannan, P & Curtin, P. (1988). Africa and Africans. Prospect Heights, Illinois:
Waveland Press.
Bowers, C. G. (2001). The tragic era: The revolution after Lincoln. Boston: Simon
Publications.
Branch, T. (1988). Parting the waters: America in the King years 1954-1963.
New York: Simon and Schuster.
Branch, T. (1988). Pillar of fire: America in the King years 1963-1965.
New York: Simon and Schuster.
Breitman, G. (1990). Malcolm X speaks. New York: Grove Weidenfeld.
Breul, F. R. & Diner, S. J. (1980). Compassion and responsibility. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Brewer, J. M. (1973). Old-Time Negro Proverbs. In Allan Dundes (Ed.), Mother Wit
from the laughing barrel: Readings in the interpretation of Afro-American
folklore. (pp. 248) Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice Hall.
327
Bronowski, J. & Mazlish, B. (1960). The western intellectual tradition: From Leonardo
to Hegel. New York: Harper Torchbooks.
Brown, J. M. (1965) Power. In J. Gould & W. L. Kolb (Eds.), A dictionary of the social
sciences. (pp. 524) New York: The Free Press.
Bullock, C. S. III, & Lamb, C. M. (1984). Implementation of civil rights policy.
Monterey: Brooks Cole Publishing Company.
Burgess, J. W. (1976). Reconstruction and the Constitution 1866-1876. (New York: Da
Capro Press).
Burns, J. M. (1963). The deadlock of democracy: Four party politics in America. New
York: Prentice Hall.
Burns, T. (1965). Social change. In J. Gould & W. L. Kolb (Eds.), A dictionary of the
social sciences. (pp. 647). New York: The Free Press.
Button, J. W. (1978). Black violence: The political impact of the 1960s riots. New Jersey:
Princeton University Press.
Camobreco, J. (1996). Medicaid and collective action. Social Science Quarterly, 77,
860-875.
Canon, D. T., Schousen, M. M., & Sellers, P. J. (1996). The Supply Side of
Congressional Redistricting: Race and Strategic Politicians, 1972-1992. The
Journal of Politics, 58, 846-862.
Canovan, M. (1981). Populism. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
Cantor, M. (1978). The divided left: American radicalism, 1900-1975. New York: Hill
and Wang.
Carmicheal, S. (1966). Power and racism. New York: Student Nonviolent Coordinating
Committee.
328
Celious, A. & Oyserman, D. (2001). Race from the inside: An emerging
heterogeneous race model. Journal of Social Issues.
Chambers, C. A. (1963). Social service and social reform: A historical essay.
Social Service Review 37, 76-90.
Clark, T. N. (1968). Community structure, decision-making, budget expenditures, and
urban renewal in 51 American communities. American Sociological Review, 33,
576-593.
Clegg III, C. A. (1997). An original man: The life and times of Elijah
Muhammad. New York: St Martins Press.
Clutterbuck, R. (1974). Protest and the urban guerrilla. New York: Abelard-
Shuman.
Cole, D. (1999). No equal justice: Race and class in the American criminal justice
system. New York: The New Press.
Collingwood, R. G. (1994). The idea of history. New York: Oxford University Press.
Commager, H. S. (1935). Introduction. In J. S. Pike, The prostrate state: South Carolina
under Negro government. New York: D. Appleton.
Conlan, T. J. (1984). The politics of federal block grants: From Nixon to
Reagan. Political Science Quarterly 99, 247-270.
Conway, M. M. (1991). Political participation in the United States. Washington D.C.:
Congressional Quarterly.
Coser, L. A. (1967). Continuties in the study of social conflict. New York: Free Press.
Cranston, M. (1970). Prophetic politics: Critical interpretations of the
revolutionary impulse. New York: Simon and Schuster.
329
Dahl, R.A. (1958). A Critique of the Ruling Elite Model. American Political Science
Review, 52, 463-469.
Dahl, R.A. (1961). Who governs? New Haven: Yale University Press.
Dahl, R.A. (1967). Pluralist democracy in the United States: Conflict and consent.
Chicago: Rand McNally.
Dahl, R. (1971). Polyarchy: Participation and opposition. New Haven: Yale Univeristy
Press.
Dahl, R. (1989). Democracy and its critics. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Dahl, R. A. (1998). On democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Dahl, R. & Lindblom, C. (2000). Politics, economics and welfare. New Brunswick:
Transaction Publishers.
Dahrendorf, R. (1959). Class and class conflict in industrial society. Stanford, Calif.:
Stanford University Press.
D’Antonio, W. V., Erlich, H. J. & Erickson, E. C. (1962). Further notes on the study of
community power. American Sociological Review, 27, 848-853.
Danzger, M. H. (1975). Validating conflict data. American Sociological Review, 40, 570-
584.
Davidson, B., Buah, F. K. & Ajayi, J. F. A. (1977). A history of West Africa 1000-1800.
Great Britain: Longman Group Limited.
De Volney, C. (2004). Ruins of mmpire. Seven Oaks: Long Read Books.
Delbert C. Miller, D. C. (1958). Decision-making cliques in community power structures.
American Journal of Sociology, 64, 299-310
Deutsch, K. W. (1961). Social mobilization and political development. American
Political Science Review 55, 494.
330
Dodson, H. (2003). Jubilee: The emergence of African-American culture. New York:
National Geographic.
Dollard, J. (1957). Caste and class in a southern town. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday
Anchor Books.
Domhoff, G. W. (1971). The higher circle: The governing class in America. New York:
Vintage Books.
Domhoff, G. W. (1978). Who really rules? New Haven and community power
reexamined Santa Monica: Goodyear Publishing Company.
Domhoff, G. W. & Zwiegenhaft, R. (1999). Diversity and the power elite
New Haven: Yale University Press
Donovan, J. C. (1970). The policy makers. New York: Western Publishing Company.
Dubois, W. E. B. (1903). Souls of Black Folks. Chicago: A. C. McClurg.
Dubois, W. E. B. (1915). The Negro. New York: Holt.
DuBois, W. E. B. (1931, September). The Negro and Communism. The Crisis, 5-10.
Dubois, W. E. B. (1962). Black reconstruction: An essay toward a history of the part
which Black folk played in the attempt to reconstruct America, 1860-1880. New
York: Antheneum.
Dubois, W. E. B. (1965). The World and Africa. New York: International Publishers.
Dunning, W. A. (1962). Reconstruction, Political and Economic, 1865-1877.
New York: Harper Collins.
Dye, T. R. (1970). Community power studies. In J. A. Robinson (Ed.), Political Science
Annual. NewYork: Bobbs-Merrill.
Dye, T. R. & Zeigler, L. H. (1972). The irony of democracy. Belmont: Duxbury Press.
331
Dye, T. (1976). Who's running America? Institutional leadership in the United
States. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.
Edelman, M. (1964). The symbolic uses of politics. Urbana, Ill.: University of Illinois
Press.
Elwes, R. H. M. (1952). The chief works of Benedict de Spinoza. New York: The Dover
Publishing Company.
Emig, A. G., Hesse, M. B., & Fisher III, S. H. (1996). Black-White differences in
political efficacy, trust, and sociopolitical participation: A critique of the
empowerment hypothesis. Urban Affairs Review, 32, 264-276.
Engels, F. (1968). The condition of the working class in England. Stanford: Stanford
University Press.
Erlich, H. J. (1961). The reputational approach to the study of Community Power.
American Sociological Review, 26, 926-927.
Estes, S. (2000). I am a man: Race, masculinity, and the 1968 Memphis sanitation
strike. Labor History, 153-170.
Fanon, F. (1967). Black skin white masks. New York: Grove Press.
Farrelly, D. G. (1965) Civil Rights. In J. Gould & W. L. Kolb (Eds.), A dictionary of the
social sciences. (pp. 91-92). New York: The Free Press.
Felder, C. H. (1993). The original African heritage study bible King James Version.
Nashville: The James C. Winston Publishing Company.
Feuerbach, L. (1957). The essence of Christianity. New York: Harper Torchbooks.
Fiorina, M. P. (1977). Congress: Keystone of the Washington establishment. New
Haven: Yale University Press.
332
Fiske, D. W. & Swerder, R. (1986). Metatheory in social science: Pluralisms and
subjectivies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Fogelson, R. (1971). Violence as protest: A study of riots and ghettos. Garden City, N.Y.:
Doubleday & Company.
Foner, E. (1988). Reconstruction: Americas Unfinished Revolution. New York: Harper &
Row Publishers.
Fording, R. C. (1997). The conditional effect of violence as a political tactic: Mass
insurgency, electoral context and welfare generosity in the American states.
Fording, R. C. (2001). The political response to Black insurgency: A critical test of
competing theories of the state. American Political Science Review, 1-26.
Fox, S. R. (1971). The guardian of Boston: William Monroe Trotter. New York:
Antheneum.
Frank, A. G. & Fuentes, M. (1988). Ten Theses on Social Movements.
[http://rrojasdatabank.info/agfrank/socmov.html]
Frank, A. G. (1998). ReOrient: Global economy in the Asian age. Berkeley: University
of California Press.
Frank, G. (1972). An American Death. Garden City, New York: Doubleday & Company.
Franklin, J. H. (1980). Mirror for Americans: A century of Reconstruction history.
American Historical Review, 85, 1-14.
Franklin, J. H. (1994). From Slavery to Freedom. Chicago: Mcgraw-Hill.
Franzosi, R. (1987). The press as a source of socio-historical data: Issues in the
methodology of data collection from newspapers. Historical Methods, 20
333
Frazier, E. F. (1949). The Negro in the United States. New York: Macmillan
Publishing Company.
Frazier, E. F. (1962). Black Bourgeoisie. New York: Macmillan Publishing
Company.
Fredrickson, G. M. (1981). White supremacy: A comparative study in American and
South African history. New York: Oxford University Press.
Fredickson, G. M. (1995). Black liberation: A comparative history of Black ideologies in
the United States and South Africa. New York: Oxford University Press.
Friedman, L. (1983). Violence in America the politics of protest: Violent aspects of
protest and confrontation. New York: Chelsea House Publishers.
Fuller, N. (1984). The united independent compensatory code/system/concept. Chicago:
Neely Fuller Publishing
Gamson, W. A. (1975). The strategy of protest. Homewood, Il.: Dorsey.
Garrow, D. J. (1986). Bearing the cross: Martin Luther King Jr. and the Southern
Christian Leadership Conference. New York: William Morrow.
Garson, G. D. (1977). Power and politics in the United States. Lexington, Mass.: D. C.
Heath and Company.
Gasset, J. O. (1960). The Revolt of the Masses. New York: W.W. Norton &
Company.
Gasset, J. O. (1962). Man and Crisis. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
Giddings, P. (1996). When and where I enter: The impact of Black women on race and
sex in America. New York: William Morrow & Company.
334
Gilliam, F. D. (1996). Exploring minority empowerment: Symbolic politics, governing
coalitions, and traces of political style in Los Angeles. American Journal of
Gladstone, L. W. (1997). Civil rights protection in the U.S.: Brief summaries of
constitutional amendments, federal laws, and executive orders. Washington,
D.C.: Congressional Research Service.
Gosnell, H. F. (1935). Negro politicians: The rise of Negro politics in Chicago. Chicago:
The University Press.
Gosnell, H. F. (1941). The Negro vote in northern cities. National Municipal Review, 30,
264-267.
Grant, J. (1974). Black protest: History, documents, and analyses 1619 to the present.
Greenwich, Conn.: Fawcett Publications.
Greenberg, E. S. (1971). Models of the political process: Implications for the Black
community. In . E. S. Greenburg, N. Milner, & D. J. Olson (Eds.), Black Politics:
The Inevitability of Conflict. (pp. 3-15). New York: Oxford University Press.
Grimes, M. D., Bonjean, C. M., Lyon, L. & Lineberry, R (1976). Community Structure
and Leadership Arrangements. American Sociological Review ,4, 706-725.
Guinier, L. (1994). The tyranny of the majority fundamental fairness in representative
democracy. New York: The Free Press.
Gurin, P., Hatchett, S., & Jackson, J. S. (1989). Hope & independence: Blacks' response
to electoral and party politics. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Guterbock, T. M. & London, B. (1983). Race, political orientation, and participation: An
empirical test of four competing theories. American Sociological Review, 48,
439-453.
335
Habermas, J. (1971). Knowledge and human interests. Boston: Beacon Press.
Hacker, A. (1992). Two nations: Black and White, separate, hostile, unequal. New York:
Charles Scribner's Sons.
Harvey, J. C. (1973). Black civil rights during the Johnson administration.
Jackson: University and College Press of Mississippi.
Hamilton, D. C. & Hamilton, C. V. (1997). The dual agenda: The
African American struggle for civil and economic equality. New York:
Columbia University Press.
Hamilton, J. A. (1910). Negro suffrage and congressional representation. New York:
The Winthrop Press.
Hampshire, S. (1956). The age of reason: The 17th century philosophers. New York:
Mentor Books.
Harding, V. (1980). The other American revolution. Atlanta, GA.: Institute of the Black
World.
Harding, V. (1993). There is a river: The Black struggle for freedom in America. New
York: Harcourt.
Harrington, M. (1962). The other America: poverty in the United States.
New York: MacMillan Press.
Hau, K. (1973). The Ancient writing of southern Nigeria. Bulletin de l'IFAN Series B., 1
Hau, K. (1973). Pre-islamic writing in West Africa. Bulletin de l'IFAN 29, (1-2), 150-
185.
Heckathorn, D. D. & Maser, S. M. (1990). The contractual architecture of public policy:
A critical reconstruction of Lowi's typology. Journal of Politics, 52, 1101-1123.
Hegel, G. W. F. (1942). The philosophy of right. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
336
Hegel, G. W. F. (1959). The encyclopedia of philosophy. New York: Philosophical
Library.
Hegel, G. W. F. (1961). The phenomenology of mind. New York: Macmillan.
Hegel, G. W. F. (1969). The science of logic. London: Allen & Unwin.
Henderson, E. A. (1995). Afrocentrism and world politics: Towards a new paradigm.
Westport, Conn.: Praeger.
Herskovits, M. J. (1941). The myth of the Negro past. New York: Harper and Brothers.
Herskovits, M. J. (1935). A Social History of the Negro. In C. Murchison (Ed.), A
Handbook of Social Psychology. Worchester, Mass.: Clark University Press.
Higham, J. (1972). Strangers in the land: Patterns of American nativism 1860-1925
New York: Atheneum.
Hill, K. A. (1995). Does the creation of majority Black districts aid Republicans? An
analysis of the 1992 congressional elections in eight southern states. The Journal
of Politics, 57, 384-401.
Hobbes, T. (1998). Leviathan. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hocke, P. (1998). Determining selection bias in local and national newspaper reports
on protest events. In D. Rucht, R. Koopmans, & F. Neidhardt (Eds.). Acts of
dissent: New developments in the study of protest. (pp. 131-163) Berlin:
Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin Fur Sozialforschung.
Hofstadter, R. (1965).The paranoid style in American politics and other essays.
New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Homans, G. C. (1950). The human group. New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.
Hood III, M. V., Kidd, Q. & Morris, I. L. (1999). Of Byrds and bumpers: Using
337
democratic senators to analyze political change in the South, 1960-1995.
Hoskins, L.A. (1992). Eurocentrism vs. afrocentrism: A geopolitical linkage analysis.
Journal of Black Studies, 23, 247-257.
Houston, D. D. (1985). Wonderful Ethiopians of the ancient Cushite empire. Baltimore:
Black Classic Press.
Hunter, F. (1959). Top Leadership U.S.A. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina
Press.
Ingram, H. & Schneider, A. (1993). The social construction of target populations:
Implication for politics and policy. The American Political Science Review, 87,
334-347.
Isaac, L. & Kelly, W. R. (1968). Racial Insurgency, the State, and Welfare Expansion:
Local and National Level Evidence from the Postwar United States. American
Journal of Sociology, 86, 1348-1386.
Jackman, R. W. & Boyd, W. A. (1979). Multiple sources in the collection of data on
political conflict. American Journal of Political Science, 23, 434-458.
Jackson, J. G. (1994). Introduction to African civilization. New York: Carol Publishing
Group.
James, G. G. M. (1992). Stolen legacy: Greek philosophy is stolen Egyptian philosophy.
New Jersey: Africa World Press.
Jay, M. (1973). The dialectical imagination. Boston: Little, Brown.
Jeppe, J. (1994). Cultural dimensions of development policy management in the new
South Africa. DPMN Bulletin, 2(2), 8-10.
338
Jerome K. & Miller, M. L. (1986). Reliability and validity in qualitative research.
Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
Jessup, J. K. (1966, June 3). Growing alarm of the responsible Negro leaders. Life, 88-
101.
Johnson, N. R. (1987). Panic at 'the Who concert stampede': An empirical
assessment. Social Problems, 34.
Johnson, N. R. (1987). Panic and the breakdown of social order: Popular myth, social
theory, empirical evidence. Sociological Focus, 20.
Karenga, M. (1993). Introduction to black studies. Los Angeles: University of Sankore
Press.
Kaufman, H. & Jones, V. (1954). The mystery of power. Public Administration Review,
2, 34-40.
Kazin, M. (1995). The populist persuasion: An American history. New York:
Basic Books.
Kegley Jr., C. W. (1990). Characteristics, causes, and controls of international terrorism:
An introduction. In C. W. Kegley Jr., (Ed.) International terrorism:
Characteristics, causes controls. New York: St. Martins Press.
King, G. (1997). A solution to the ecological inference problem: Reconstructing
individual behavior from aggregate data. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Press.
King, Jr., M. L. (1968). Where do we go from here: Chaos or community. Boston:
Beacon Press.
Kornhauser, W. (1959). The Politics of Mass Society. New York: Free Press.
339
Kluger, R. (1975). Simple justice: The history of Brown v. Board of Education and
Black America’s struggle for equality. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Lang, K. & Lang, G. (1961). Collective dynamics. New York: Crowell.
Lang, J. (1999). War on Poverty forgotten; many programs still in battle.Boulder News.
[http://www.bouldernews.com/news/worldnation/08apove.html]
Latta, R. (1925). The monadology and other philosophical writings. London: Oxford
University Press.
Latif, S. A. & Latif, N. (1994). Slavery: The African-American psychic trauma. Chicago:
Latif Communications Group and Tankeo.
Lawson, S. F. (1976). Black ballots: Voting rights in the south, 1944-1969.
New York: Columbia University Press.
Lee, Taeku (1997). Two nations, separate grooves: Black insurgency and the activation
of mass opinion in the United States from 1948 to the mid-1960s. Ann Arbor:
UMI Dissertation Services.
Lenski, G., Lenski, J. & Nolan, P. (1991). Human societies. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Lewis, D. L. (1993). W.E.B.DuBois: Biography of a race 1868-1919. New York: Henry
Holt and Company.
Lichtenberg, J. (1992). Racism in the Head, Racism in the World. (Rep. No. 12).
University of Maryland, Institute for Philosophy and Public Policy.
Lincoln, C. E. & Mamiya, L. H. (1990). The Black church in the African American
experience. Durham: Duke University Press.
Lindblom, C. (1977). Politics and markets. New York: Basic Books.
340
Lipsky, M. (1968). Protest as a political resource. American Political Science Review, 62,
1144-1158.
Lipsky, M. (1970). Protest in City Politics. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Livingston, J. C. & Thompson, R. G. (1963). The Consent of the Governed. New York:
The Macmillan Company.
Locke, J. (1998).Two treatises of government. Vermont: Charles E. Tuttle Company.
Lord, C. (1984). Aristotle: The politics. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lowi, T. J. (1964). American business, public policy, case studies, and political theory.
World Politics, 16, 677-715.
Lowi, T. J. (1967). The public philosophy: Interest group liberalism. American Political
Science Review, 61, 5-24.
Lowi, T. J. (1972). Four systems of policy, politics, and choice. Public Administration
Review, 290-310.
Lowi, T. J. (1973). The modernization of American federalism. Public Administration
Review, 3.
Lowi, T. J. (1979). The end of liberalism: The second republic of the United
States. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
Lyon, L. (1989). The community in urban society. Lexington: D.C. Heath and Company.
Machiavelli, N. (1988). The prince. New York: Penguin Books.
Mafundikwa, S. (2000). Afrikan alphabets. Harare, Zimbabwe:
[http://www.ziva.org.zw/afrikan.htm]
Mahoney, J. & Rueschemeyer, D. (2003). Comparative historical analysis in the social
sciences. New York: Cambridge University Press.
341
Manley, J. F. (1983). Neo-pluralism: A class analysis of pluralism I and pluralism II.
American Political Science Review, 77, 368-383.
Marable, M. (2000). Race, reform and rebellion: The second reconstruction in Black
America. Jackson, Miss.: University Press of Mississippi.
Marable, M. & Mullings, L. (2000). Let Nobody Turn Us Around: Voices on Resistance,
Reform and Renewal. New York: Rowman and Littlefield.
Marshall, T. H. (1950). Citizenship and social class. London: Cambridge University
Press.
Marwick, A. (1998). The sixties: Cultural revolution in Britain, France, Italy, and
the United States, 1958-1974 New York: Oxford University Press.
Marx, A. W. (1996). Race-Making and the Nation-State. World Politics, 48,
180-208.
Marx, A. W. (1998). Making race and nation: A comparison of the United States, South
Africa, and Brazil. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Marx, K. & Engels, F. (1947). The german ideology. New York: International
Publishers.
Marx, K. (1972). A contribution to the critique of political economy. New York:
International Publishers.
Marx, K. (1964). The economic and philosophical manuscripts of 1844. New York:
International Publishers.
Marx, K. & Engels, F. (1988). The communist manifesto. New York: W. W.
North & Company.
McAdam, D. (1988). Freedom summer. New York: Oxford University Press.
342
McAdam, D. (1999). Political process and the development of Black insurgency
1930-1970. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
McCarthy, J. D., McPhail, C., & Smith, J. (1986). Images of protest: Dimensions of
selection bias in media coverage of Washington demonstrations, 1982 and 1991.
McConnell, G. (1966). Private power and American democracy. New York: Alfred A.
Knopf.
McFarland, A. S. (1987). Interest groups and theories of power in America. British
Journal of Political Science, 17, 129-147.
Mclain, P. D. & Karnig, A. K. (1990). Black and Hispanic socioeconomic and
political competition. American Political Science Review, 84, 535-545.
Mclennan, G. (1995). Pluralism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Mclosky, H. (1968). Political Participation. In David L. Sills (Ed.), The international
encyclopedia of the social sciences: Vol. 12. (pp. 252-265). New York: The
Macmillan Company & Free Press.
Meer, F. (1990). Higher than hope: The authorized biography of Nelson Mandela. New
York: Harper Perennial.
Meier, A. & Rudwick, E. M. (1969). From plantation to ghetto: An interpretive history of
American Negroes. New York: Hill and Wang.
Michels, R. (1962). Political parties: A sociological study of the oligarchical
tendencies of modern democracies. New York: Free Press.
Milbrath, L. W. & Goel, M. L., (1977). Political participation. New York: University
Press of America.
343
Miller, D. C. & Dirksen, J. L. (1965). The identification of visible, concealed and
symbolic leaders in a small Indiana city: A replication of the Bonjean-Noland
study of Burlington, North Carolina. Social Forces, 43, 548-555.
Miller, D. C. (1970). International Community Power Structures. Bloomington: Indiana
University Press.
Mills, C.W. (1959). The power elite. New York: Oxford University Press.
Mokhtar, G. (1990). General history of Africa: Ancient civilizations of Africa. Berkley:
University of California Press.
Mladenka, K. R. (1989). Blacks and Hispanics in urban politics. American Political
Science Review, 83, 165-191.
Morgan, L. H. (1877). Ancient society, or researches in the lines of human progress:
From savagery through barbarism to civilization. Chicago: H. Kerr.
Morrison, M. K. C. (1987). Black political mobilization: Leadership, power and mass
behavior. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Mosca, G. (1939). The ruling class. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Mueller, C. (1997). Media measurement models of protest event data. Mobilization:
An International Journal ,2, 165-184.
Mueller, C. (1997). International press coverage of East German protest events, 1989.”
Murphy, J. & Beck, L. G. (1995). School-based management as school reform.
Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.
344
Myrdal, G. (1944). An American dilemma: The Negro in a white nation. New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company.
Myrdal, G. (1944). An American Dilemma: The Negro Social Structure. New York:
McGraw-Hill Book Company.
NAACP (1919). Thirty Years of Lynching in the United States: 1889-1918. New York:
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People.
National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders. (1968). Report of the National
Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders. New York: Bantam Books.
Nefer Amen, R. U. (1990). Metu Neter: The great oracle of Tehuti and the Egyptian
system of spiritual cultivation. New York: Khamit Corp.
Newton, H. P. (1996). War against the Panthers: A study of repression in America. New
York: Harlem River Press.
Nieburg, H. L. (1962). The Threat of Violence and Social Change. American Political
Science Review.
Nieburg, H. L. (1968). Violence, Law and the Social Process. In L. H. Masotti & D. R.
Bowen (Eds). Riots and rebellion: Civil violence in the urban community. Beverly
Hills, Calif.: Sage Publications.
Obadele, I. (1989). America: The nation-state. Washington, D.C.: The House of Songhay.
Oliver, P. E. & Myers, D. J. (1999). How events enter the public sphere: Conflict,
location, and sponsorship in local newspaper coverage of public events. American
Journal of Sociology, 105, 38-87.
Ollman, B. (1976). Alienation: Marx's concept of man in capitalist society. New York:
Oxford University Press.
345
Ollman, B. (1981). What is Marxism? A bird’s eye view. Monthly Review.
Olsen, M. E. (1970). Social and political participation of Blacks. American Sociological
Review, 35, 682-697.
Olson, M. (1971). The logic of collective action: Public goods and the theory of groups.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
O’Reilly, K. (1989). Racial matters: The FBI’s secret file on Black America 1960-
1972. New York: The Free Press.
Orloff, A. S. & Skocpol, T. (1984). Why not equal protection? Explaining the politics of
public social spending in Britain, 1900-1911, and the United States, 1880s-1920.
Orum, A. M. (1966). A reappraisal of the social and political participation of Negroes.
American Journal of Sociology, 72, 32-46.
Parenti, M. (1970). Power and pluralism: A view from the bottom. Journal of Politics, 32,
501-530.
Parenti, M. (1980). Democracy For The Few. New York: St. Martins Press.
Pareto, Vilfredo (1935). The Mind and Society: Treatise of General Sociology.
New York: Harcourt, Brace & World.
Pareto, V. (1968). The rise and fall of the elites: An application of theoretical sociology.
Totowa, N.J.: Bedminster Press.
Pasteur, A. B. & Toldson, I. L. (1982). Roots of Soul: The Psychology of Black
Expressiveness. New York: Anchor Press.
Payne, C. M. (1995). I’ve got the light of freedom: The organizing tradition and
the Mississippi freedom struggle. Berkeley: University of California Press.
346
Perry, B. (Ed.) (1992). Malcolm X: The last speeches. New York: Pathfinder.
Perry, Huey L. (1976). Political participation and social equality: An assessment of the
impact of political participation in two Alabama localities. (Chicago: University
of Chicago, 1976);
Perry, H. L. (1985). Democracy and public policy: Minority input into the national
energy policy of the Carter administration. Bristol: Wyndham Hall Press.
Perry, H. L. (1991). Pluralist Theory & National Black Politics in the United
States. Polity, 33, 549-565.
Perry, H. L. & Parent, W.P. (1995). Blacks and the American political system.
Gainesville: University Press of Florida.
Pfeffer, P. F. (1990). A. Philip Randolph, pioneer of the civil rights movement.
Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press.
Pike, J. S. (1935). The prostrate state: South Carolina under Negro government.
New York: D. Appleton.
Pinderhughes, D. M. (1983). Collective goods and Black interest groups. The Review of
Black Political Economy, 12, 219-236.
Pinderhughes, D. M. (1986). Race and ethnicity in Chicago politics. Urbana: University
of Illinois Press.
Pinderhughes, D. M. (1995). Black interest groups and the 1982 extension of the voting
rights act. In H. L. Perry & W. Parent (Eds.), Blacks and the American political
system. (pp. 203-224). Gainesville: University of Florida Press.
Piven, F. F. & Cloward, R. A. (1971). Poor people's movements: Why they succeed, how
they fail. New York: Vintage.
347
Pohlmann, M. D. (1960). Black politics in conservative America. New York: Longmann.
Polsby, N. (1963). Community power and political theory. New Haven: Yale
University Press.
Pomper, G. M. (1972). The performance of American government: Checks and
minuses. New York: The Free Press
Popper, K. (1959). The logic of scientific discovery. New York: Harper Torchbooks.
President's Committee on Civil Rights. (1947). To secure these rights. Washington,
D. C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Preston, M. P., Henderson, Jr., L. J., & Puryear, P. L. (1987). The New Black Politics:
The Search for Political Power. New York: Longman Press.
Quadagno, J. (1994). The color of welfare. New York: Oxford University Press.
Raifa, H. (1968). Decision analysis. Reading, MA: Addison-Welsey.
Randall, J. G. (1937). The Civil War and Reconstruction. Boston: D.C. Heath and
Company.
Rhodes, J. F. (1966). History of the United States from the Compromise of 1850.
(Vols. 1-7). Chicago: Pheonix House.
Ricci, D. M. (1971). Community power and democratic theory: The logic of
political analysis. New York: Random House.
Ritzer, G. (1986). Social problems. New York: Random House.
Ritzer, G. (1988). Sociological theory. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Rogers, J. A.(1989). Africa's gift to America. St. Petersburg, FL.: Helga M. Rogers.
Rose, A. M. (1967). The power structure. New York: Oxford University Press.
Rossiter, C. (1961). The Federalist Papers. New York: New American Library.
348
Rousseau, J. J. (1968). The social contract. New York: Penguin Books.
Rubinstein, A. Z. & Thumm, G. W. (1965). The challenge of politics. Englewood Cliffs,
N.J.: Prentice Hall.
Rude, G. (1967). Robespierre. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Sabine, G. H. (1937). A history of political theory. New York: Henry Holt
and Company.
Samson, S. S. (1994). Models of Historical Interpretation. Contra Mundum, 11.
Sanders, F. (1997). Civil rights roll-call voting in the House of Representatives, 1957-
1991: A systematic analysis. Political Research Quarterly, 50, 483-502.
Schattschneider, E. E. (1935). Politics, pressure, and the tariff. New York: Atherton.
Schattschneider, E. E. (1960). The semisovereign people. New York: Holt, Rinehart &
Winston.
Schmitt, M. (2004). The reform that backfired. The American Prospect Online
Schneider, D. & Schneider, C. J. (2001). An eyewitness history of slavery in America:
From colonial times to the Civil War. New York: Checkmark Books.
Schwarz, J. E. (1986). Americas hidden success: A reassessment of public policy
from Kennedy to Reagan. New York: W.W. Norton and Company.
Sears, D. O. & McConahay, J. B. (1973). The politics of violence: The new urban
politics and the Watts riots. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Segal, R. (1995). The Black diaspora: Five centuries of the Black experience outside
Africa. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Sherover, C. M. (1974). The development of the democratic idea: Readings from Pericles
to the present. New York: Mentor.
349
Shillington, K. (1995). History of Africa. New York: St. Martin's Press.
Shingles, R. D. (1981). Black consciousness and political participation: The
missing link. American Political Science Review, 75, 76-91.
Skocpol, T. (1979). States and social revolutions: A comparative analysis of France,
Russia, and China. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Skocpol, T. & Somers, M. (1980). The uses of comparative history in macro-social
research. Comparative Studies in Society and History, 22, 174-197.
Skocpol, T. & Ikenberry, J. (1983). The political formation of the American welfare
state in historical and comparative perspective. Comparative Social Research, 6,
87-148.
Skocpol, T. (1984). Vision and method in historical sociology. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Skocpol, T., Evans, P., & Dietrich Rueschemeyer, D. (1985). Bringing the state back in.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Skolnick, J. H. (1969). The politics of protest. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Smith, R. C. (1981). Black power and the transformation from protest to politics.
Political Science Quarterly, 96, 431-443.
Sorokin, P. A. (1941). The crisis of our age. New York: E. P. Dutton.
Sorokin, P. A. (1957). Social and cultural dynamics. Boston: Porter Sargent.
Spilerman, S. (1967). Civil Disorder Chronology 1961-1966. (Special Report 36)
Washington, D. C.: Congressional Quarterly.
Spilerman, S. (1970). The causes of racial disturbances: A comparison of alternative
explanations. American Sociological Review, 35, 627-649.
350
Spilerman, S. (1971). The Causes of Racial Disturbances: Tests of an Explanation"
American Sociological Review 36 (1971): 427-442.
Stampp, K. (1964). The peculiar institution slavery in the Ante-Bellum South. New
York: Vintage Books.
Stampp, K. M. (1965). The Era of Reconstruction 1865-1877. New York: Vintage Books.
Stockman, D. (1986). The triumph of politics. New York: Harper & Row, 1986.
Sundquist, J. L. (1968). Politics and policy: The Eisenhower, Kennedy, and Johnson
Years. Washington D.C.: The Brookings Institution.
Sundquist, J. L. (1969). On fighting poverty. New York: Basic Books.
Synder, L. L. (1962). The idea of racialism. Princeton, New Jersey: D. Van Nostrand
Company.
Snyder, D. & Kelly, W. R. (1977). Conflict Intensity, Media Sensitivity and the Validity
of Newspaper Data. American Sociological Review, 42, 105-123.
Tabb, W. K. (1971). Capitalism, colonialism, and racism. Review of Radical Political
Economics, 90-105.
Tabb, W. K. (1970). The political economy of the Black ghetto. New York: W.W.
Norton & Company.
Thomas, H. (1997). The slave trade: The story of the Atlantic Slave Trade, 1440-1870.
New York: Simon & Schuster.
Thomas, M. (2000). Anything but race: The science retreat from racism. African
American Research Perspectives, 6, 1-16.
Thoreau, H. D. (1986). Walden and civil disobedience. New York: Penguin Books.
351
Toffler, A. & Toffler, H. (1995). Creating a new civilization: The politics of the third
wave. Atlanta: Turner Publishing.
Todaro, M. P. (1981). Economic development in the Third World. New York: Longman.
Tourgee, A. W. (1966). A Fool's Errand. New York: Harper Torchbook.
Trelease, A. W. (1971). White terror: The Ku Klux Klan conspiracy and Southern
Reconstruction. New York: Harper & Row, Publishers
Truman, D. B. (1955). The governmental process: Political interests and public opinion.
New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
Tucker, W. H. (1994). The Science and Politics of Racial Research. Chicago: University
of Illinois Press.
Turner, H. M. (1893). The barbarous decision of the United States Supreme Court
declaring the civil rights act unconstitutional and disrobing the Colored race of all
civil protection. The most cruel and inhuman verdict against a loyal people in the
history of the world. Also the powerful speeches of the honorable Frederick
Douglass and Colonel Robert G. Ingersoll, jurist and famous orator. Atlanta, GA.:
Bishop H.M. Turner.
Turner, J. H. & Beeghley, L. (1981). The Emergence of Sociological Theory.
Homewood, Ill.: The Dorsey Press.
Turner, R. H. (1964). Collective Behavior. In R. E. L. Faris (Ed.), Handbook of Modern
Sociology. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Ture, K. & Hamilton, C. V. (1992). Black power: The politics of liberation.
New York: Vintage Books.
Upton, J. N. (1984). A social history of 20th century urban riots. Bristol, In.: Wyndham
Hall Press.
352
Valien, P. (1965). Social movement. In J. Gould & W. L. Kolb (Eds.), A dictionary of the
social sciences. (pp. 658). New York: The Free Press.
Van Creveld, M. (1996). The encyclopedia of revolutions and revolutionaries from
anarchism to Zhou Enlai. Jerusalem, Israel: Jerusalem Publishing House.
Van Deburg, W. L. (1992). New day in Babylon: The black power movement and
American culture, 1965-1975. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Verba, S. & Nie, N. H. (1972). Participation in America: Political democracy and social
equality. New York: Harper and Row.
Waterfield, R. (1996). Plato: The republic. New York: Barnes & Noble Books.
Webb, E. J., Campbell, D.T., Schwartz, R. D. & Sechrest, L. (1966). Unobtrusive
measures. Chicago: Rand McNally.
Wegner, D. & James, T. F. (1994). The convergence of volunteers in a consensus
crisis: The case of the 1985 Mexico City earthquake. In R. R. Dynes & K.
Tierney, Disasters, Collective Behavior, and Social Organization. Delaware:
University of Delaware Press.
Weisbrot, R. (1991). Freedom bound: A history of America's civil rights movement.
New York: Plume.
Wells-Barnett, I. B. (1900). Lynch law in America. Chicago: Barnett.
Wells, T. 1994. The war within: America’s battle over Vietnam. New York: Henry
Holt and Company.
Welsing, F. C. (1991). The Isis Papers. Chicago: Third World Press.
Whitby, K. J. (1987). Measuring congressional responsiveness to the policy interests of
Black constituents. Social Science Quarterly, 68, 367-377.
Wigginton, E. (1991). Refuse to stand silently by: An oral history of grass roots
social activism in America, 1921-1964. New York: Doubleday.
353
Wildavsky, A. (1984). The politics of the budgetary process. Boston: Little, Brown.
Williams, C. (1974). The destruction of Black civilization: Great issues of a race from
4500 B. C. to 2000 A.D. Chicago: Third World Press.
Winters, C. A. (1979). Manding scripts in the new world. Journal of African
Civilization 1 No. 1, 61-97.
Winters, C. A. (1983). The ancient Manding script. In Ivan van Sertima (Ed.). Blacks in
science: Ancient and modern. (pp. 208-214) New Brunswik: Transaction Books.
Wilson, A. N. (1993). The falsification of Afrikan consciousness eurocentric history,
psychiatry and the politics of white supremacy. New York: Afrikan World
InfoSystems.
Wilson, J. Q. (1960). Negro politics. Glencoe, Indiana: The Free Press.
Wilson, J. Q. (1960). Two Negro politicians: An interpretation. Midwest Journal of
Wilson, W. J. (1980). The declining significance of race. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press.
Wilson, W. J. (1999). The bridge over the racial divide: Rising inequality and coalition
politics. Berkley: University of California Press.
Windsor, R. R. (1988). From Babylon to Timbuktu. Atlanta: Windsor's Golden Series.
Wolf, P., Boyle, R., Brown, B., Burghardt, T., Chomsky, N., Churchill, W., Cleaver, K.,
Ellison, B., McKinney, C., Taifa, N., Whitehorn, L., Wilson, N., & Zinn, H.
(2001). COINTELPRO: The untold American story. Washington, D.C.:
Congressional Black Caucus.
Wolfinger, R. E. (1962). A plea for decent burial. American Sociological Review, 25,
636-644.
354
Wolman, H. L. & Thomas, N. C. (1970). Black interests, Black groups, and Black
influence in the federal policy process. Journal of Politics, 32, 875-897.
Woodson, C. G. (1936). African background outlined. Washington D.C.: Associated
Publishers.
Woodson, C. G. (1993). The mis-education of the Negro. Trenton, N.J.: Africa World
Press.
Woodward, C. V. (1956). Reunion & reaction: The compromise of 1877 and the end of
Reconstruction. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday Anchor Books.
Woodward, C. V. (1974). The strange career of Jim Crow. New York: Oxford
University Press.
X, Malcolm (1992). By any means necessary. New York: Pathfinder.
Yanow, D. (2000). Conducting interpretive policy analysis. Thousand Oaks: Sage
Publications.
Yanow, D. (2001). Interpretive, Qualitative, and Quantitative. PS, Political Science, 33,
770.
Yetman, N. R. (1991). Majority and minority: The dynamics of racial and ethnic
relations. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Zelizer, J. (2004). On Capitol Hill: The struggle to reform Congress and its
consequences, 1948-2000. Cambridge University Press.
Zinn, H. (1999). A people’s history of the United States 1492-present. New York:
Harper Collins.
Zunes, S. (2000). Nonviolent Action and Human Rights. PS: Political Science, 33,
181-187.
355
356
VITA
Ambakisye-Okang Olatunde Dukuzumurenyi was born in Monroe, Louisiana on December 5, 1971, the
eldest son of Patrica Ann Harvey and Ozella Cleveland Harvey. After completing his work at Reuben
McCall High School, Tallulah, Louisiana, in 1990, he entered Grambling State University in
Grambling, Louisiana. He received the degree of Bachelor of Arts with a major in history from
Grambling State University in May 1996. In August of 1996 he entered the Graduate School of
Grambling State University and completed the Masters of Public Adminstration degree with an
emphasis in Health Service Administration in December 1997. Upon completion of the Masters of
Public Administration degree he entered the Graduate School of Southern University A & M College,
Baton Rouge, Louisiana in August 1998. From August 2002 to May 2005 he was employed as a social
studies teacher in the East Baton Rouge School System, Baton Rouge, Louisiana. In July 2005 he
completed the requirements for the Doctorate of Philosophy in Public Policy degree from the Nelson
Mandela School of Public Policy and Urban Affairs at Southern University A & M College, Baton
Rouge, Louisiana.
APPROVAL FOR SCHOLARLY DISSEMINATION
The author grants to the Joh B. Cade Library of Southern University and A & M College Baton
Rouge the right to reproduce, by appropriate methods, upon request, any or all portions of this
Dissertation. It is understood that “proper request” consists of the agreement, on the part of the
requesting party, that said reproduction is for his personal use and that subsequent reproduction will not
occur without written approval of the author of this Dissertation. Further, any portions of the
Dissertation used in books, papers, and other works must be appropriately referenced to this
Dissertation. Finally, the author of this Dissertation reserves the right to publish freely, in the literature,
at any time, any or all portions of this Dissertation.
Author_____________________________________________________
Date _____________________________________________________

The Enactment of Civil and Social Rights Policies in The United States, 1940 - 2000

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Enactment of Civil and Social Rights Policies in The United States, 1940 - 2000

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

THE ENACTMENT OF

CIVIL AND SOCIAL RIGHTS POLICIES

SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY AND A&M COLLEGE

Nelson Mandela School of Public Policy

stated: “God is my Strength and Power: and He makes my way Perfect.”

and none of us are free until all of us are free.”

DISSERTATION COMMITTEE SHEET i

THE PROBLEM AND ITS SETTING 1

The Statement of the Problem 1

The Limitations of the Study 3

The Definition of Terms 4

The Significance of the Study 9

REVIEW OF THE RELATED LITERATURE 12

African-American Political Participation 12

CHAPTER III 120

The Purpose of the Study 120

Population & Sample 129

Specific Treatment of the Data for Each Sup-problem 135

Data Sources 136

Variable Description 136

Qualitative Data Sources 137

Theory Operationalization 137

Quantitative Data Sources 150

Variable Descriptions 152

Validity and Reliability 158

HISTORICAL CONTEXT OF AFRICAN-AMERICAN POLITCS 164

African-American Politics and Political Models 164

The African-American Sociopolitical Community 165

West African Political Background 167

African-American Society and American Government 171

African-American Society 1526-1940 171

African-American Worldview 221

African-American Population Growth 224

African-American Socioeconomic Organization 226

African-American Political Culture 228

Qualitative Analysis 232

Nature of the Sociopolitical Process of State/Group Interaction 232

Conventional Pluralist Theory 232

Radical Pluralism 244

Elite Theory 252

Plural-Elite Theory 261

Marxist Class Analysis 274

Protest Theory 288

The Efficacy of Democracy 292

Theory of History 296

Theory of Economics 300

Theory of Social Change 304

Theory of Social Movements 308

Theory of Race and State Relations 311

Quantitative Analysis 316

Table 1: Models/Comparative Topics & Expected Explanatory Power 149

Table 2: Variables and Expected Signs 157

Table 3: Definition, Level of Measurement and Source of Variables 157

THE PROBLEM AND ITS SETTING

The Statement of the Problem

The problem addressed by this study is that studies of African-American political

not weighted those theories to accurately measure African-American political

participation. Furthermore, those studies have generally been limited to an analysis of

American political system to explain the extent of African-American political

historical context of the distinctive characteristics of the politics of African-American

States from 1940 to 2000.

The second sub-problem. The second sub-problem consists of the requirement

of operationalizing each theoretical model to facilitate their use in a qualitative analysis