320
does one hear it invoked any long–
er as the moral source of the cor-'
porate executive's power. As we
have had in the corporation the
classic shift from ownership to
managerial control, so, on the sym–
bolic level, we have the shift from
"private property" to "enterprise"
as the justification of power. And,
as with any ideology, the symbol
itself sometimes becomes a pro–
pelling force, and "performance"
for its own sake has become a driv–
ing motive of the American cor–
porate head.
Sociologically, the break-up of
family capitalism is linked to a
series of shifts in power in West–
ern society as a whole. No longer
are there America's "Sixty Famil–
ies" (or even France's "Two Hun–
dred"). Family capitalism meant
social and political as well as eco–
nomic dominance: the leading
family used to live in the "house
on the hill."
It
does so no longer.
Many middle-sized enterprises are
still family owned, with son suc–
ceeding father (e.g., breweries) ,
and many towns, like St. Louis
and Cincinnati, still reveal the
marks of the old dominance by
families, but by and large the sys–
tem of family control is finished.
So much so that a classic study of
American life like
R.
S. Lynd's
Middletown in Transition,
with its
picture of the "X" family dominat–
ing the town, has in less than
twenty years become completely
outmoded.
Two "silent" revolutions in the
relations between power and class
position in modern society seem
to be in process. One is a change
in the
mode of access
to power in–
sofar as inheritance alone is no
longer all-determining; the other is
a change in the
nature of power–
holding itself
insofar as technical
skill rather than property, and po–
litical position rather than wealth,
have become the basis on which
power is wielded.
The two "revolutions" proceed
simultaneously. The chief conse–
quence, politically, is the break-up
of the "ruling class." A ruling class
may be defined as a power-holding
group which has both an estab–
lished
community
of interest, and
a
continuity
of interest. In effect,
there is an "upper class" and a
"ruling group." Being a member
of the "upper class" (i.e., having
differential privileges, and being
able to pass those privileges along
to one's designees) no longer means
that one is a member of the ruling
group, for rule is now based on
other than the traditional criteria
of property; the modern ruling
groups are essentially coalitions,
and the means of passing on the
power they possess, or the institu–
tionalization of any specific modes
of access to power (the political
route, or military advancement) is
not yet fully demarked and es–
tablished.
Daniel Bell
