Emerson College 13th Movie Ava DuVernay Review Write a film review of the assigned film “13th” on Netflix.  Requirements:  1-2 pages double spaced (at leas | Course Hero

Emerson College 13th Movie Ava DuVernay Review Write a film review of the assigned film “13th” on Netflix. 
Requirements: 
1-2 pages double spaced (at least ONE full page — not a paragraph). 
Summary of main points of film 
Analysis of film using THREE concepts fro m class readings for this week. 
Concepts must be written in bold and defined clearly in the analysis. 
Remember, analyzing is different than summarizing and to be able to analyze is critical to your success on the midterm and final so this would be good practice. 
Analyzing means using concepts (like ‘panopticon’ for example) and APPLYING them to the material (the film in this case) in order to illuminate the material in an interesting way. WhoRulesAmerica.net
The Class-Domination Theory of Power
by G. William Domhoff
NOTE: WhoRulesAmerica.net is largely based on my book, Who Rules America?,
first published in 1967 and now in its 7th edition. This on-line document is presented
as a summary of some of the main ideas in that book.
Who has predominant power in the United States? The short answer, from 1776 to
the present, is: Those who have the money — or more specifically, who own incomeproducing land and businesses — have the power. George Washington was one of the
biggest landowners of his day; presidents in the late 19th century were close to the
railroad interests; for the Bush family, it was oil and other natural resources,
agribusiness, and finance. In this day and age, this means that banks, corporations,
agribusinesses, and big real estate developers, working separately on most policy
issues, but in combination on important general issues — such as taxes, opposition to labor unions, and trade
agreements with other countries — set the rules within which policy battles are waged.
While this conclusion may at first seem too simple or direct, leaving little room for elected officials or voters, the
reasons behind it are complex. They involve an understanding of social classes, the role of experts, the two-party
system, and the history of the country, especially Southern slavery. In terms of the big world-historical picture,
and the Four Networks theory of power advocated on this site, large economic interests rule in America because
there are no rival networks that grew up over a long and complex history:
There is no one big church, as in many countries in Europe
No big government, as it took to survive as a nation-state in Europe
No big military until after 1940 (which is not very long ago) to threaten to take over the government
So, the only power network of any consequence in the history of the United States has been the economic one,
which under capitalism generates a business-owning class and a working class, along with small businesses and
skilled craft workers who are self-employed, and a relatively small number of highly trained professionals such
as architects, lawyers, physicians, and scientists. In this context, the key reason why money can rule — i.e., why
the business owners who hire workers can rule — is that the people who work in the factories and fields were
divided from the outset into free and slave, white and black, and later into numerous immigrant ethnic groups as
well, making it difficult for workers as a whole to unite politically to battle for higher wages and better social
benefits. This important point is elaborated on toward the end of this document in a section entitled “The
Weaknesses of the Working Class.”
Moreover, the simple answer that money rules has to be qualified somewhat. Domination by the few does not
mean complete control, but rather the ability to set the terms under which other groups and classes must operate.
Highly trained professionals with an interest in environmental and consumer issues have been able to couple
their technical information and their understanding of the legislative process with timely publicity to win
governmental restrictions on some corporate practices. Wage and salary workers, when they are organized or
disruptive, sometimes have been able to gain concessions on wages, hours, and working conditions.
Most of all, there is free speech and the right to vote. While voting does not necessarily make government
responsive to the will of the majority, under certain circumstances the electorate has been able to place restraints
on the actions of the wealthy elites, or to decide which elites will have the greatest influence on policy. This is
especially a possibility when there are disagreements within the higher circles of wealth and influence.
Still, the idea that a relatively fixed group of privileged people dominate the economy and government goes
against the American grain and the founding principles of the country. “Class” and “power” are terms that make
Americans a little uneasy, and concepts such as “upper class” and “power elite” immediately put people on
guard. Americans may differ in their social and income levels, and some may have more influence than others,
but it is felt that there can be no fixed power group when power is constitutionally lodged in all the people, when
there is democratic participation through elections and lobbying, and when the evidence of social mobility is
everywhere apparent. So, it is usually concluded by most power analysts that elected officials, along with
“interest groups” like “organized labor” and “consumers,” have enough “countervailing” power to say that there
is a more open, “pluralistic” distribution of power rather than one with rich people and corporations at the top.
Contrary to this pluralistic view, I will try to demonstrate how rule by the wealthy few is possible despite free
speech, regular elections, and organized opposition:
“The rich” coalesce into a social upper class that has developed institutions by which the children of its
members are socialized into an upper-class worldview, and newly wealthy people are assimilated.
Members of this upper class control corporations, which have been the primary mechanisms for generating
and holding wealth in the United States for upwards of 150 years now.
There exists a network of nonprofit organizations through which members of the upper class and hired
corporate leaders not yet in the upper class shape policy debates in the United States.
Members of the upper class, with the help of their high-level employees in profit and nonprofit
institutions, are able to dominate the federal government in Washington.
The rich, and corporate leaders, nonetheless claim to be relatively powerless.
Working people have less power than in many other democratic countries.
Before running through this list, it is first necessary to define the term “power” and to explain the “indicators” of
power that are used to determine who has it. Later other concepts will be introduced as they are needed. They
include “social class,” “upper class,” “corporate community,” “interlocking directorates,” the “policy-planning
network,” the “power elite,” the “special-interest process,” the “candidate-selection process,” and a few others.
All of these concepts are necessary in order to understand the nature and operation of the “power structure” in
the United States.
Power and Power Indicators
Power is one of those words that is easy to understand but hard to define in a precise manner. We know it means
“clout” or “juice” or “muscle” or “the ability to make things happen.” We know it comes from words implying
the ability to act in a strong, compelling, and direct way, but we also know that power can be projected in a very
quiet and indirect manner.
By “power” I mean “the capacity of some persons to produce intended and foreseen effects on others” (Wrong,
1995). This is a very general definition that allows for the many forms of power that can be changed from one to
another, such as economic power, political power, military power, ideological power, and intellectual power (i.e.,
knowledge, expertise). It leaves open the question of whether “force” or “coercion” is always lurking somewhere
in the background in the exercise of power, as many definitions imply. However, to say that power is the ability
to produce intended and foreseen effects on others does not mean it is a simple matter to study the power of a
group or social class. A formal definition does not explain how a concept is to be measured. In the case of power,
it is seldom possible to observe interactions that reveal its operation even in a small group, let alone to see one
“social class” producing “effects” on another. It is therefore necessary to develop what are called “indicators” of
power.
For research purposes, power can be thought of as an underlying “trait” or “property” of a social group or social
class. It is measured by a series of signs, or indicators, that bear a probabilistic relationship to it. This means that
all the indicators do not necessarily appear each and every time power is manifesting itself. Research proceeds
through a series of “if-then” statements: “if” a group or class is powerful, “then” it should be expected that
certain indicators of this power will be present. It is especially important to have more than one indicator. Ideally,
the indicators will be of very different types so that any irrelevant components in them will cancel each other out.
In the best of all possible worlds, these multiple indicators will point to the same group or class, increasing the
likelihood that the underlying concept has been measured correctly.
There are three primary indicators of power, which can be summarized as (1) who benefits? (2) who governs?
and (3) who wins? In every society there are experiences and material objects that are highly valued. If it is
assumed that everyone in the society would like to have as great a share as possible of these experiences and
objects, then the distribution of values in that society can be utilized as a power indicator. Those who benefit the
most, by inference, are powerful. In American society, wealth and well-being are highly valued. People seek to
own property, earn high incomes, to have interesting and safe jobs, and to live long and healthy lives. All of
these “values” are unequally distributed, and all may be utilized as power indicators.
Power also can be inferred from studies of who occupies important institutional positions and takes part in
important decision-making groups. If a group or class is highly over-represented in relation to its proportion of
the population, it can be inferred that the group is powerful. If, for example, a group makes up 10% of the
population but has 50% of the seats in the main governing institutions, then it has five times more people in
governing positions than would be expected by chance, and there is thus reason to believe that the group is a
powerful one.
There are many policy issues over which groups or classes disagree. In the United States different policies are
suggested by opposing groups in such “issue-areas” as foreign policy, taxation, welfare, and the environment.
Power can be inferred from these issue conflicts by determining who successfully initiates, modifies, or vetoes
policy alternatives. This indicator, by focusing on actions within the decision-making process, comes closest to
approximating the process of power that is contained in the formal definition, but it must be stressed that it is no
less an inference to say that who wins on issues is an indicator of “power” than with the other two types of
empirical observations — value distributions and positional over-representation — that are used as power
indicators.
The decisional (who wins) indicator is also the most difficult to use in an accurate way. First, it is often difficult
to gain access to decision-makers to interview them, much less observe them in action. Second, aspects of a
decision process may remain hidden. Third, some informants may exaggerate or play down their roles. Fourth,
and not least, people’s memories about who did what often become cloudy shortly after the event. Those are
some of the reasons why social scientists often end up relying on written records about key decisions, but they
often are not available until years later. So we end up historians as well as social scientists, or depending on
historians for much basic information.
In summary, all three of the power indicators have strengths and weaknesses. However, these weaknesses present
no serious problem. This is because each of these indicators involves different kinds of information drawn from
very different kinds of studies. The case for the power of a group or class should only be considered a
convincing one if all three types of indicators “triangulate” on one particular group or social class.
The Social Upper Class
One good starting point for the study of power in the United States, and the one I have preferred as a sociologist
(especially in the 1960s and 1970s, when there was far less readily available information than there is now) is a
careful consideration of the small social upper class at the top of the wealth, income, and status ladders. This is
because the social upper class is the most visible and accessible aspect of the power equation. It is not
necessarily the heart of the matter, but it is nonetheless the best place to get a handle on the overall power
structure.
By a “social class” I mean a set of intermarrying and interacting families who see each other as equals, share a
common style of life, and have a common viewpoint on the world. This general definition is accepted by most
social scientists whatever their views on the distribution of power. By the “social upper class,” hereafter to be
called simply “the upper class,” I mean that social class that is commonly agreed by most members of the society
to be the “top” or “elite” or “exclusive” class. In various times and places Americans have called such people the
“high hats,” the “country club set,” the “snobs,” and the “rich.” In turn, members of this class recognize
themselves as distinctive. They call themselves such names as the “old families,” the “established families,” and
the “community leaders.”
The upper class probably makes up only a few tenths of one percent of the population. For research purposes, I
use the conservative estimate that it includes 0.5% to 1% of the population for determining the overrepresentation of its members in corporations, nonprofit organizations, and the government. Members of the
upper class live in exclusive suburban neighborhoods, expensive downtown co-ops, and large country estates.
They often have far-away summer and winter homes as well. They attend a system of private schools that
extends from pre-school to the university level; the best known of these schools are the “day” and “boarding”
prep schools that take the place of public high schools in the education of most upper-class teenagers. Adult
members of the upper class socialize in expensive country clubs, downtown luncheon clubs, hunting clubs, and
garden clubs. Young women of the upper class are “introduced” to high society each year through an elaborate
series of debutante teas, parties, and balls. Women of the upper class gain experience as “volunteers” through a
nationwide organization known as the Junior League, and then go on to serve as directors of cultural
organizations, family service associations, and hospitals (see Kendall, 2002, for a good account of women of the
upper class by a sociologist who was also a participant in upper-class organizations).
These various social institutions are important in creating “social cohesion” and a sense of in-group “we-ness.”
This sense of cohesion is heightened by the fact that people can be excluded from these organizations. Through
these institutions young members of the upper class and those who are new to wealth develop shared
understandings of how to be wealthy. Because these social settings are expensive and exclusive, members of the
upper class usually come to think of themselves as “special” or “superior.” They think they are better than other
people, and certainly better able to lead and govern. Their self-confidence and social polish are useful in dealing
with people from other social classes, who often admire them and defer to their judgments.
For research purposes, the important thing about these social institutions is that they provide us with a starting
point for systematic studies of power. For example, these class “indicators” allow us to determine which
economic and political leaders are and are not members of the upper class. Put another way, class indicators
allow us to trace members of the upper class into the economic, political, and ideological power systems of the
society.
Starting with these class indicators, we can show that the upper class is nationwide in its scope. This is because
there is “overlapping” membership among the many social clubs around the country. A person from Chicago, for
example, might belong to clubs in New York, Boston, and San Francisco, implying that he or she interacts with
upper-class counterparts in those cities. By comparing dozens of club membership lists, we have been able to
establish the “density” of this club network. (See the pages on the Bohemian Grove for findings on social
cohesion and a photo essay; and for a wonderfully detailed and colorful portrait of what one of these clubs is
like, see this memoir of going to the Links Club in New York City, which is one of the most central clubs in the
social club/corporate executive network.)
Similarly, the alumni lists of exclusive private schools reveal that their students come from all parts of the
country. The summer addresses of those members of the upper class who are listed in in-group telephone books
called blue books and social registers show that people from all parts of the country mingle together at secluded
summer resorts that have been upper-class watering holes for many generations.
But here we must enter our first caution. The class indicators are not perfect. Some members of the upper class
do not join clubs, or list in a social register, or reveal their school affiliations in such sources as Who’s Who in
America that we have to rely on for much of our information. We cannot trace such people through the power
system. They are counted as not being upper class when they really are. On the other hand, there are local, or
scholarship children (often people of color) at some prep schools who are not members of the upper class, and
some honorary members of social clubs are not upper class. They are counted as upper class when they really are
not. In large-scale studies, these two kinds of mistakes tend to cancel each other out, so in general we obtain an
accurate picture. But it is true that the class indicators could be wrong on specific individuals. They are useful for
group studies, not for identifying individuals.
Cautions aside, there is no doubt that there is a nationwide upper class in the United States with its own
distinctive social institutions, lifestyle, and outlook. There is also no doubt that most of these people are active in
business or the professions, and that all of them are very wealthy. Their great wealth is obvious, of course, from
the large sums that it takes to maintain their homes and their style of life, but systematic studies also show that
the wealthiest families are part of the social institutions of the upper class. Combining our studies with findings
by economists on the wealth and income distributions, it is possible to say that the upper class, comprising 0.5%
to 1% of the population, owns 35-40% of all privately held wealth in the United States and receives 12-15% of
total yearly income. In short, the upper class scores very high on the “who benefits” power indicator.
The wealth and income of members of the upper class certainly imply that the upper class is powerful, but they
do not demonstrate how power operates. It is therefore necessary to turn to studies of the economy to gain further
understanding of the American power structure.
The Corporate Community
Major economic power in the United States is concentrated in an organizational and legal form known as the
corporation, and has been since the last several decades of the 19th century. No one doubts that individual
corporations have great power in the society at large. For example, they can hire and fire workers, decide where
to invest their resources, and use their income in a variety of tax-deductible ways to influence schools, charities,
and governments. The argument begins over whether the large corporations are united enough to exert a common
social power, and then moves to the question of whethe…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment