Tricia Louise C.

Damatan POLSCI160

POLITICS: Who Gets What, When, How

by Harold D. Lasswell

A book review

Harold D. Lasswell’s Politics: Who Gets What, When, How has five (5) parts with ten

(10) chapters, and one part and chapter for Postscript (1958). These parts are Elite, Methods,

Results, Resume, and Postscript. The first part and chapter of the book dwells with the term

‘elite’; Lasswell states that, “the study of politics is the study of the influence and the

influential. (emphasis mine)” As what Lasswell explained, the elites are those who are

influential and the influential are those who get “most of what there is to get” and the rest is

mass. In the study of elitism, distribution of deference, income, and safety in a society are

regarded as important, although most political scientists isolate these representative values in

their study of elitism. Lasswell points out that there are several findings of political analysis that

dwell with differentiated emphasis on what characteristics elites should and would have.

In one finding, they analyse elite in terms of division of values according to skill. In this

form of analysis, they consider several skills including fighting skills, skill in political

organization, skill in handling people and of things, and skills in bargaining as reasons why some

people get influence and become influential over the masses. It was obvious that fighting skill is

“one of the most direct ways by which men have come to top,” and the reason for fighting can be

done in the name of god, nation or class as Lasswell stated. Examples of men who are influential

using fighting skills are Commander Hermann Goring of Germany who fought in World War;

Josef Stalin who worked with a revolutionary movement; and Mustafa Kemal Pasha who led the

Turkish army in the Turco-Italian War. Because they can lead a movement, or an army, they can
get most of what is there to get especially in terms of deference. They are the leaders, and

through history we can trace that they can head a massive number of people who will not join

them if they are not persuasive, significant and dominant. Skill in political organization can be

seen through Stalin who used the Communist Party to eliminate Trotsky. The means of handling

people is by using significant symbols, and it involves the use of different media such as oration,

the polemical article, the news story, the legal brief, the theological argument, a novel with a

purpose, and the use of the philosophical system. The skill in handling people by means of

manipulating the symbols became more relevant because of the advance in technology that

paved way to more proper and fast dissemination of ideas through several media. A number of

professional authors, musicians, artists, and teachers have grown dramatically. Those with skill

in handling things and of people have also increased rapidly by the advance of technology. The

number of engineers increased noticeably. However, engineers receive lesser deference than

those who control the media to persuade the masses.

Next form of analysis is in terms of class and skill. A class, as we all know, is a major

social group in a society, with similar functions, role and outlook. The elite class is the class who

occupies the highest position in the pyramid, and by taking that to account, we will conclude that

they are less in number than the masses who hold the base of the pyramid. There are several

types of principal classes that rose in the entire history of politics. These are aristocracy,

plutocracy, middle class, and manual toilers. The aristocracy in most European countries own the

large portion of arable and private lands in their countries. Because they hold the land, and the

wealth of the country, that translates to their influence in the government. Plutocracy derives its

influence from commerce, industry, and finance. Bourgeoisie have risen, and the middle class.
Lasswell also tackles the difference between the middle class, and the proletariat. Proletariat

makes sacrifices to acquire skill.

Values as what Lasswell stated on the book are deference, income, and safety, and

personality as well as skills and class is important to the distribution of these values. In the

modern era, where everything is progressive and everything is being studied, emerged the study

of personality. From this, various scholars considers the inclusion of personality in the study of

elites. Moreover, in this form of analysis, nature and nurture are being considered upon to study

the particular roles in the stage of politics. There are born agitators; they are different from others

because they are craving for hasty hold of deference. Because of this leaning, they will use and

maximize their resources to cultivate skills such as oratory and polemical journalism that can

manipulate and persuade people. They will do things to intimidate his environment for it to

favour his wilfulness to lead and violence for them is necessary. Otherwise, those who have less

need for emotional responsiveness will likely be less remarkable organizers according to

Lasswell. The agitator comes swiftly during the period of furious and hungry crises while the

organizer is accepted by the intercrisis periods. During the initial phases of crises, where every

citizen foresee an incoming predicament, they tend to ask for a leader who is humane and

considerate but firm in his actions than those leaders with ruthless methods. According to this

form of analysis, there is common political personality trait of leaders with different political

expressions, and it is their “emphatic demand for deference.” Whether you are agitator or the

organizer, you have a definite demand for deference. And to fulfil this demand, an effective

politician should have a skill in manipulation and with timely circumstances. An effective

politician deals with public objects in the name of public goods, and translates his private

motives in the name of collective advantage. In this form of analysis where personality is being
stressed, infancy is an important stage in the development of elite. His/her primary environment

would not be enough for his/her cravings for deference, and will find expression in the second

environment and this expansion can be seen in the plausible symbols.

In the fourth form of analysis, attitude is being added to class, skill, and personality to

examine the distribution of values. One aspect of influence is the relative sharing of values, and

because human are genetically unique from each other, it is safe to presume that we all have

relative degree of adoption of that values within our class. Relative sharing of values can yield

different results. An elite can have deference, but no safety, and vice-versa. Lasswell also

discussed two approaches in analysing elite: contemplative and manipulative. Contemplative

approach is to find self as an object in the context of events. In this case, events are being viewed

in reference with skill, class, personality and attitude. Manipulative approach, however, is “to

view events in order to discover ways and means of gaining goals.” He also stressed that

although there are many introduced forms of analysis, this is still subjected to constant process of

re-examination. However, “the unifying frame of reference for the special student of politics is

the rich and variable meaning of influence and influential, power and powerful.”

Lasswell also wrote about the present view in political science. The traditional

vocabulary of political science became scanty because of the relative changes in the world of

politics. Political science does concentrate in the study of influence and influential, and influence

is determined by the relative sharing and distribution of representative values: deference, income

and safety. These values are basis for analysing the gauge of influence in a given area, but the

author claims that no single index can be used to study influence perfectly. The characteristics of

the influential are class, skill, personality and attitude. With these values and characteristics, an

elite’s destiny is to manipulate the environment according to his will, and to manipulate, he/she
has to use violence, goods, symbols, and practices. Lasswell ended the first part with a statement,

“This book will begin with the methods of the influential, and conclude with the consequences

for the influential.”

The second part, Methods, consists of the chapters Symbols, Violence, Goods, and

Practices. Symbols, the second chapter of the book and the first method, have been explained by

Lasswell as instrument of elite in defending and asserting itself and thus, in acquiring the

representational values. Symbols are vague and its meaning is still highly debatable, and we need

to have a working meaning of it for the sake of simplicity. A symbol can be the “ideology” of the

status quo or the “utopia” of the communism advocates. In this example, one interested in the

field of political science knows already the significance of the symbol and the power it has.

According to Lasswell, if this symbol has been inculcated to the mind of the masses through the

aforementioned skills, the masses will now accept this symbol and revere it as their own. The

self-confidence of the elite will never vanish with the continuing support of the masses that see

special benefits from the elites. Lasswell explains in this chapter the impregnation of an ideology

that no simple method can overrun it. It starts with birth and it ends with death. It is a matter of

collective responsibility that the symbol (ideology or utopia) still exists. Symbol is also

reinforced by the emblems and words of the organized community you belong to. Example of

this is the national flag and the national anthem. You are required to know and memorize these

two because this is part of your experience. The symbols of nation like the swastika or the

tricolour are used to mould you. With these emblems and words to signify symbol, stereotyping

became mainstream. If you see a Japanese, certain pre-emptive typecast will form in our mind.

The capitalist also did not escape this phenomenon. The elites also have the capacity to form

propaganda. When successful, they can impose aggressiveness, guilt, weakness, and affection to
the masses who buy the propaganda. We can use Hitler’s use of symbols to impose

aggressiveness to his subjects. Hitler used propaganda to his subjects through effective oration,

and the Great Depression has caused the Germans to succumb to believe that the Jews are the

symbol of hardship and purifying them will end their struggle. Lasswell concluded this chapter

with propaganda being utilized by the elites and the counter-elites to manipulate and intensify the

collective emotions that will benefit the elites and counter-elites.

The third chapter and second method, Violence, deals with its meaning at forms.

Violence is a means to ends and violence to become “successfully” turn into a revolution or war,

organization, propaganda, and information are needed for the power of masses to translate into a

collective action. We need to recognize the agents of the elites. In the fourth chapter and third

method used by the elites, Goods, and its use is a powerful tool of the elites to control the

society. It can be in form of sabotage or shutdown; strike, boycott, blacklist, non-cooperation;

rationing, pricing, bribing. The destruction of goods is closely related to the use of violence

against the masses. Elites do not go against the goods, but if they do, it is because some are

wealthier than they are, and they do not want it. Rationing system is the distribution of goods

within a society and pricing is more competitive in the market because there is a process of

elimination where if A have more buying powers than B, it is A who can get the product.

Lasswell also explains why capitalism is self-destructive. He however, proposed certain things

for the remodelling of the capitalist system. He also points out that the elite usually has the

capacity to dispose goods at its own discretion and the counter-elites lead the masses should

depend more on propaganda than goods. “Goods are both a measure of potential fighting

strength and means of fighting effectiveness.” World War II was caused by the Great

Depression. One way to have a victory in a war is the proper utilization of goods. And to be a
stable country, you have to have a stable flow of goods and services. The last chapter in first part

and the last method, Practices, is “the ascendancy of any elite partially depends upon the success

of the practices it adopts.” Practices, is practically, the ways in which an elite should learn. These

practices are elite approved forms or ways of life. Practices accepted by the elite society leads to

elite preservation. The fundamental teaching in elitism is that there should be a balance between

acceptability and efficiency. Elites are conformist if it will benefit them in the long run. They are

obedient than establishing originality. There is no permanent loyalty in the vocabulary of the

elite except their permanent interest.

On the third part of the book, Results, it just expands what he wrote in the first part and

the second part. He only further explained the results of the methods of the elites. It has three

chapters, Skill, Personality and Attitude which was discussed also in the first part. Skills are

“teachable and learnable operations … include the technique of manipulating things or the

symbols of things …, the technique of violence, of organization, of bargaining, of propaganda, of

analysis.” Skill in this sense is the ability to mobilize and inspire group of people. Elite has to use

the aforementioned methods to learn skills that can be used as an advantage in their part. Class is

“a major social group of similar functions, status, and outlook” and is important in political

analysis because of the class consequences of events. Revolutions cause shifts in the class

composition of elites; example is the French Revolution which overthrew the nobility and the

clergy who are the elites of the French society. This concludes that political upheavals and

events, peaceful (Industrial Revolution) or violent (French Revolution), result to change in class

structure and can be also seen as “passage from the dominance of one class form to the next.”

Personality is the general perceived ways of beings. It has a pattern and can be seen in many

human beings. Political analysis is also concerned with the factors affecting success or failure of
personality type. According to this form of analysis, there is common political personality trait of

leaders with different political expressions, and it is their “emphatic demand for deference.”

Whether you are agitator or the organizer, you have a definite demand for deference. And to

fulfil this demand, an effective politician should have a skill in manipulation and with timely

circumstances. An effective politician deals with public objects in the name of public goods, and

translates his private motives in the name of collective advantage. In this form of analysis where

personality is being stressed, infancy is an important stage in the development of elite. His/her

primary environment would not be enough for his/her cravings for deference, and will find

expression in the second environment and this expansion can be seen in the plausible symbols.

Political life is full of conflicts and in this conflicts lay the study of it.

Attitude, the last chapter of Results, and it states that “politics is a changing pattern of

loyalties, strategies, tactics; and political analysis may quite properly review the succession of

predominant attitudes through the stream of time.” Attitudes therefore are varying patterns of

attack to a certain event or issue. Attitudes differ because of the environment and therefore an

externalized act. Examples of attitudes are externalized attitudes, community attitudes, militant

attitudes, and their correlatives.

The next part of the book is the Resume where Lasswell put his conclusion and summary

of his whole book. Again, it says that politics is the study of influence and the influential. He in

the end proclaimed that no single index can describe fully the influence of the influential. Skill,

class, personality, and attitude groups are used to study the elite. Elites should use methods

available to them. They need to make their environment conform to their will, and in the end,

influence people through symbols. The result would be skill; it may be fighting or oratorical skill
to influence the people with or without the threat of violence. Ideology can be used by elites to

influence and be influential.

The last part of the book is the Postscript, written in 1958. Lasswell points out that the

events taking place in our country like for example what is happening in our electoral system or

in the business world is connected to Politics; thus there is a need for more comprehensive

picture of government and politics. While Lasswell described the elite in the previous chapters,

in this part, he states conditions and approaches in the study of politics. Politics, in this sense, is

his book; not the art of politics in general.

One is the contextual approach. In his definition, contextual approach gives no

importance in the standardization of the term “politics”. It focuses on the contextual principle of

the formal structures of government. There are five key questions to study for example a political

situation. What goal values are to be sought? What are the trends in the realization of values?

What factors condition trends? What projections characterize the probable course of future

developments? What policy alternatives will bring the greatest net realization of values? These

questions need systematic intellectual task and are needed to assess a political situation. One skill

a political scientist must have is the ability to predict the future and integrate this to the process

of making political decision. Thus, there is a need to borrow from the other social sciences

disciplines like history, sociology, economics and anthropology. Estimating the future is not

enough; political scientists also have to re-edit the maps of the future and to improve methods.

Why is there a need to examine the breakthroughs in history? Why is the need to consider trends

in the political arena? It is because these breakthroughs are capable in contributing to the

decision process of history. Contextual approach is needed because of the contradictory details of

political doctrine or a formula that has been integrated to the contemporary world. Example is
the use of religion or master race to justify slavery and eradication of a certain race. There is a

creative significance of perceiving and naming for uniformity; however, this poses a danger. It

will create stereotyping and the major task of a political scientist is to breakthrough current

stereotyping. There is also a need to have a quest for identity because it is a way to formulate

certain “trend-discovering’ functions.

Lasswell has been talking about skills since the very first chapter, and in the Postscript he

stated the significance of knowing the importance of Skill. Politics give importance to the rise

and fall of skill groups because the rise and fall also has something to do with the changes in the

form of society. Attitude groups and racist distinctions are also being studied upon because of the

impact it can create, and Germany’s Nazi Party is an example of this. Apart from contextual

approach, Lasswell used outcome analysis. In this analysis, it only does not deal with the “what”

but also the “who”. As you have read in the last chapters, he gave numerous and important

example of leaders who made an impact in the concept of elitism. The concepts and term he

introduced is for convenience. It is not acceptable to make it as standards because these terms

will underestimate the humungous diversity of the concept elite. The convenience of the right

key terms, deference, income, safety, skill, class, personality, attitude, and elite, overcomes the

difficulties comparing different societies. Politics does not refrain other scholars to go beyond

the key terms he proposed. “Strategy [of the Politics] is the management of value assets in order

to influence outcomes. In Postscript, Lasswell just expounded what he used in the previous

chapters, and concludes that his book reached its maximum goal: to state the conditions, and in

this reason he objectively stated the Who, What, When, How of the Politics. “Policy was

concerned with sketching a ‘general physiology’ of the political process rather than working out

the strategies appropriate to any postulated system of public order.”

 Lasswell’s Politics: Who Gets What, When, How only states conditions, not preferences.

Thus, the biases that can be translated in his book do not manifest. He clearly explained the

methods of the elite and what these methods can do; he is highly objective and obviously, the

Who, What, When and How has been answered. However, he is example-centered. He used past

events to give justifications to his claims. This is partly reasonable and convenient to his readers

because the readers get a taste of his terms and concepts. Right enough, I understand his methods

in writing and the book is student-friendly. But the hazard of employing examples is using

examples ONLY to expound the concepts. This is true to deference, income and safety. He just

introduced the terms and examples, but never expounded it. The flaws can be forgiven because

he efficiently introduced elitism and its connection to Politics. The Who is the elite, the What is

deference, income, and safety or influence in general; the When is the time they were born up to

adapting and manipulating their environment; the How is the methods, and it is the symbols,

violence, goods, and practices. These methods will have results, and it is skills, class,

personality, and attitude that will lead them to an influential being.

***

Lasswell, H. (1958). Politics: Who Gets What, When, How. New York: The World Publishing

Company.