Published in 1956, C. Wright Mills’ book, The Power Elite, remains a strikingly relevant commentary concerning the marginalization of the individual by a centralized power structure. Mills delineates the nature of the abovementioned centralized power structure and illustrates the ability of its momentum to marginalize the individual identities of both ordinary men and men of decision. Mills describes the centralized power structure as a triumvirate of institutional units that includes the economy, the military order, and the political order. Mills suggests that, as each institutional unit independently becomes progressively larger and more centralized the more they interact with one another, and, as a consequence of this increased interaction, become more relevant in each other’s institutional realities. In an effort to illustrate this system, Mills states that, “There is no longer, on the one hand, an economy, and, on the other hand, a political order containing a military establishment, unimportant to politics and to money-making. There is a political economy linked, in a thousand ways, with military institutions and decisions.”
Mills goes on to further elaboration as to the mechanisms by which these three institutional units exert their will. He posits that power, wealth, and prestige play very different, but interactive roles in the structuring of the positions of authority held by the said institutional units. Mills suggests that these three mechanisms are cumulative in nature; that is, “the more of it you have, the more you can get.” He further explains that not only are they cumulative, they may individually be utilized as currency by which another of the mechanisms may be purchased. In other words, “the wealthy find it easier than the poor to gain power; those with status find it easier than those without it to control opportunities for wealth.” He notes that access to these mechanisms is primarily dependent on access to major institutions. Mills is careful to explain that men of decision are engendered by (1) access to major institutions and (2) the accumulation of prestige, power, and wealth through interaction within the said major institutions.
It is interesting to me that Mills seems to suggest that the system of the power elite (i.e. the military-industrial complex’s supremacy over all aspects of the daily lives of the pedestrian citizenry), not only claims supreme ascendancy over the lay public, but also over the habitus of the top social stratum. I feel very encouraged that Mills claims that there is a split between what is “Human” and what is the “Machine.” In other words, it is a great relief to me that someone as learned as C. Wright Mills has demarcated the boundary between what it means to be an individual living as an individual and what it means to be an individual living as part of an entity encumbered by the external pressures of social engines. I often find myself wondering what it means to be a person whose life must at some point interact and, in some cases, fuse with those of “the other.” It is as though the essence of an individual seems to gain an alternative and added meaning simply though interaction with another. It would seem that Mills suggests that although the triumvirate of institutional units that make up the driving and dominant force of our social lives is the end result of a process of social creation of reality, it is presently antagonistic to the very idea of collective interpretations of individuals’ conception of reality. I feel that this logically follows from Mills’ discussion about the myth of a free market—it might have existed at one time during the infancy of our society, but no longer. I have often experienced anxiety because of the idea of gaining auxiliary meaning through interaction with others. Much to the chagrin of people in my immediate social circle, I have expressed interest in living a life of the utmost seclusion. I suppose I am anxious about losing the meaning of my identity through participation in a process of collective meaning making that ultimately results in a system that is devoid of fealty to its contributing parts. Certainly there exists a rhetoric that suggests that being part of something bigger and more important than one’s self is a noble pursuit, however, I do not currently feel that sacrificing my personal identity for the sole purpose of contributing to the mindless momentum of a system is at all noble or prudent.
Social Justice in Education 