Breaking down the question
This is a short-note question on a specific concept — the power elite — which is inseparable from its author, C. Wright Mills, and his 1956 book of that name. The task is to define the concept, explain its institutional basis, and situate it within elite theory and Mills's critique of American democracy.
The examiner wants precision: the power elite is not a vague "ruling class" but a specific argument about the fusion of three institutional hierarchies. A good note also distinguishes Mills's version from the classical elite theory of Pareto and Mosca, and from Marxist class analysis.
For the wider theme, see the note on power elite and political institutions.
How to approach it
Define the power elite crisply, then identify Mills's three institutional pillars and explain what binds them. Contrast it briefly with classical elite theory and with the Marxist ruling class to show conceptual command. Add Mills's democratic critique — the passive "mass society" beneath the elite — and close with a line of criticism (the pluralist reply). Keep it compact and analytical.
Model answer
The concept of the power elite was developed by C. Wright Mills in his 1956 study The Power Elite. It refers to a small, cohesive group that occupies the command posts of the major institutions of modern society and, by virtue of those positions, makes the decisions that shape the lives of the many.
Mills's distinctive argument is institutional. Real power, he held, no longer rests with parliaments or the electorate but with the leaders of three interlocking hierarchies: the major corporations (economic power), the executive branch of the state (political power), and the military (the higher circles of the armed forces). At the apex, these three domains have become fused into a single power elite whose members share similar social origins, education, clubs and outlook, and who move easily between the boardroom, high office and military command — the interchangeability of elite personnel. Mills captured their convergence in the phrase the military-industrial complex.
This coalescence is what makes the power elite more than the sum of three separate leaderships: coordinated by common background and by the increasing interdependence of business, government and war-making, its members can act in concert on the great issues of the day.
Beneath the elite, Mills described a middle level of power — the relatively powerless world of Congress, interest groups and party politics — and, at the base, a fragmented, passive mass society of ordinary people who are shaped by the elite's decisions but excluded from making them. Democracy, on this view, is largely formal: the citizen votes but does not rule.
Mills's power elite must be distinguished from neighbouring ideas. Unlike the classical elite theory of Pareto and Mosca, which treats elite rule as an eternal, psychologically grounded law of all societies, Mills gave a historically specific account of mid-twentieth-century America. Unlike the Marxist ruling class, defined by ownership of the means of production, Mills defined his elite by institutional position across three domains, not economic class alone.
Critics — notably the pluralists such as Robert Dahl — reject the thesis, arguing that power in a democracy is dispersed among many competing interest groups, so that no single unified elite governs. Others find Mills's account of elite cohesion overstated. Nonetheless, The Power Elite remains a landmark sociological critique of the concentration of power behind the facade of democracy.
Examiner's perspective
Examiners expect immediate and correct attribution to C. Wright Mills and the three institutional pillars — corporate, political (executive) and military — named exactly. A note that describes a generic "ruling class" without this institutional specificity misses the concept.
The stronger scripts add value by contrasting the power elite with classical elite theory (Pareto, Mosca) and with the Marxist ruling class, and by including the mass society argument and the military-industrial complex phrase. A closing line on the pluralist critique shows balance. For twelve marks, an accurately attributed, institutionally precise and comparatively aware note earns the top band.