Breaking down the question
The question centres on a quotation from C. Wright Mills contrasting institutional with psychological explanations of elite rule. The word Comment asks you to explain what Mills meant, defend the claim with his own argument, and assess it critically.
The examiner is testing your understanding of Mills's power elite thesis and, crucially, its distinctive sociological grounding — that elites rule not because of superior personal qualities but because they occupy the command posts of major institutions. You are expected to contrast this with the psychological emphasis of earlier elite theorists.
At 20 marks, you should unpack the institutional argument in depth, situate it against Pareto and Mosca, illustrate it with Mills's account of the American power elite, and then evaluate its strengths and limitations.
How to approach it
Open by explaining the quotation: Mills locates the power of elites in their institutional position rather than in innate psychological superiority. Power inheres in the office, not in the person.
Then develop the argument through Mills's analysis of the three overlapping hierarchies — the corporate, the political and the military — whose command posts confer power on those who hold them. Contrast this with Pareto's psychologically grounded residues and Mosca's organised minority, showing how Mills shifts the basis of explanation. You can direct readers to our note on the power elite and political institutions for elaboration. Then evaluate — the strengths of the structural account and the criticisms levelled by pluralists and others.
Conclude with a judgement on the value and limits of Mills's institutional theory of elite rule.
Model answer
C. Wright Mills argued, in The Power Elite, that the men at the top of American society owe their power not to any exceptional psychological endowment but to their occupation of the command posts of the major institutions. When he wrote that elites rule in institutional rather than psychological terms, he was making a deliberate break with the tradition of elite theory that grounded elite domination in the superior personal qualities of the rulers. For Mills, power is a property of institutional position; the man who commands the levers of a great corporation, the state or the armed forces wields power by virtue of the office, and would be relatively powerless outside it.
This claim distinguishes Mills sharply from the classical elite theorists. Vilfredo Pareto explained the circulation of elites through psychological residues, dividing rulers into cunning foxes and forceful lions according to their innate dispositions. Gaetano Mosca emphasised the organisational and intellectual superiority of the ruling minority. In both, elite rule rested substantially on qualities inhering in the individuals who ruled. Mills reverses this emphasis. The power elite are powerful, he insisted, because of the positions they hold in the enlarged and centralised hierarchies of modern society, not because they are inherently superior beings; indeed he was sceptical of any claim that they possessed extraordinary talents.
Mills located power in three interlocking institutional hierarchies — the large corporations, the political executive of the state, and the military establishment. In mid-twentieth-century America these had grown so vast and so centralised that decisions taken at their apex reverberated through the whole society. The command posts of these institutions constitute the strategic points from which power is exercised. Those who occupy them form the power elite because their institutions overlap and coincide at the top: personnel move between corporation, cabinet and high command through an interlocking directorate, they share similar social origins and outlooks, and they take the consequential decisions of war, economy and policy largely insulated from democratic control. The middle levels of power — Congress, interest groups, the professions — are relegated to a semi-organised stalemate, while the mass society below is rendered increasingly passive.
The institutional emphasis is the analytical core of the thesis. It implies that if the institutions did not exist in their enlarged and centralised form, there would be no power elite of comparable reach; power has been concentrated because institutions have been concentrated. It also implies that the coincidence of interest among the elite arises structurally, from the meshing of institutional hierarchies, rather than from any conspiracy or shared psychology. This structural account gives Mills's theory its distinctive sociological character and its critical edge against the pluralist claim that American power was dispersed among competing groups.
The thesis has, however, attracted significant criticism. Pluralists such as Robert Dahl argued that Mills overstated the cohesion of the elite and understated the countervailing power of organised interests, elections and competing centres of decision. Others contended that Mills relied on positional analysis — inferring power from institutional office — without demonstrating that those in the command posts actually prevail on concrete issues. There is also the question of whether the neat coincidence of three hierarchies is generalisable beyond the specific American conjuncture Mills studied, and whether psychological and ideological factors can be so cleanly separated from institutional ones, since values and worldviews shape how command posts are used.
In conclusion, Mills's dictum captures the central insight of his political sociology: that in modern mass society power flows from institutional position rather than personal superiority, and that the concentration of institutions produces a concentration of power. It marks a genuine advance over the psychologism of Pareto by grounding elite rule in social structure. Yet the thesis is not beyond challenge — it risks inferring power from position, may overstate elite unity, and cannot wholly dispense with the psychological and ideological dimensions of rule. Its enduring value lies in directing attention to the institutional command posts as the real seat of power in complex societies.
Examiner's perspective
The examiner is looking for a genuine engagement with the institutional-versus-psychological contrast at the heart of the quotation, not a general summary of the power elite. A common weakness is to describe the three hierarchies while never explaining what the institutional basis of power means or why it differs from earlier elite theory.
The strongest answers explain the quotation directly, contrast Mills with Pareto and Mosca to bring out the shift from psychology to structure, and then evaluate the thesis using pluralist and methodological criticisms. Illustrating the argument with the interlocking directorate and the passivity of the mass society, and closing with a balanced judgement, demonstrates the depth expected of a 20-mark response.