Notes on Domhoff: The Corporate Community, Upper Class, and the New Class
The Corporate Community and the Upper Class
Central paradox: In a democracy, how can there be extreme corporate domination? Historically, about of Americans have answered “yes” to this question for the past years, highlighting the tension between democratic governance and corporate power (Domhoff). The chapter explains how owners and top managers of large corporations cooperate to maintain themselves as the core of the dominant power group.
The corporate community comprises corporations, banks, and agribusinesses that form a cohesive network capable of shaping federal policy on issues that affect income, job security, and well-being for most Americans.
While there is internal competition for profit opportunities—leading to visible policy conflicts and congressional debates—the corporate community remains cohesive on issues affecting its general welfare. Rival leaders may clash, but they unite against policies that threaten their economic interests (e.g., taxes, government spending, or labor protections).
The corporate community strongly opposes government actions that could aid average workers if such actions increased taxes, impeded growth, or limited freedom. The strongest opposition is to government support for unions, since unions could become a political base for challenging corporate power.
Core issue: control of labor markets. The fear is that government actions expanding job creation, benefits, workplace rights, or publicly controlled enterprises could empower workers and reduce corporate leverage.
The corporate community also funds and directs a variety of non-profit organizations (tax-free foundations, think tanks, policy-discussion groups) to develop policy alternatives favorable to their interests. Leaders in these organizations, who serve on governing boards, become part of the power elite—the leadership core for both the corporate community and the upper class.
Although the focus is often on taxes and spending, the deeper concern is political power and influence over policy that affects labor markets, welfare programs, environmental regulation, and corporate competition.
The political dynamic: the corporate community may oppose certain government actions, but it also relies on a set of social and institutional mechanisms to sustain power (see sections below).
The Corporate Community and the Upper Class: Intertwined but not identical
The corporate community and the upper class are closely intertwined; they are not identical but share substantial overlap:
Many super-wealthy, long-standing upper-class families remain involved in direction of major corporations through family offices, investment partnerships, and holding companies.
Professional managers of middle-class origins are assimilated into the upper class socially and economically, sharing values with upper-class owners.
Social cohesion arises via two types of membership networks:
Common membership in specific social institutions (boarding schools, clubs, retreats, etc.)
Friendships and interactions within those institutions
Research on small-group dynamics indicates cohesion is strongest when groups are exclusive, high-status, and meet in relaxed settings. These conditions prevail in the upper-class social world and explain sustained cohesion (Cartwright & Zander; Hogg).
From this cohesion, a sense of “we” emerges among the upper class, reinforcing a social identity centered on ownership, investment, and elite lifestyle.
The upper class is a capitalist class as well as a social class: ownership of profit-producing investments (stocks, bonds, real estate) creates a long-term investment mindset and a broad concern with the investment climate, rate of profit, and political climate.
The upper-class worldview tends to be conservative toward labor unions and skeptical of government expansion that could threaten corporate power, though liberals or conservatives may differ on social policy issues.
The policy-planning network builds a shared policy outlook that accommodates diverse corporate sectors while managing potential conflicts; it also seeks to ensure access to government while mitigating objections from workers who rely on jobs and wage growth.
From Infancy to Power: Prep for Power
The upper class’s distinctive education starts early and continues through elite private schooling:
Preschool often linked to high-status churches; elementary years at a private day school; one or two years at a boarding school in a quiet rural setting; higher education at prestigious private universities.
Public or state schooling is less common among many upper-class children, reinforcing class distinctiveness.
This insular educational path transmits class structure and norms (Cookson & Persell).
Boarding schools act as “total institutions” that socialize students into an upper-class subculture through routines, hazing, uniforms, and esoteric sports, creating a sense of separateness and superiority.
Many private-school graduates enter business, finance, or corporate law, illustrating the intertwining of upper class and corporate power (detailed studies cited):
Hotchkiss cohort (1940–1950) study: became bankers or business executives; among the 91 businessmen, many served as presidents/VPs/partners.
St. Paul’s alumni study (early data cited): alumni were officers/directors in general; were directors in Fortune 800 firms; notable involvement in (now JPMorgan Chase after the 2000 merger).
Special recruitment programs funded by wealthy individuals and corporations have made private schools a primary launching pad for low-income students of color into elite universities and corporate careers:
A Better Chance (founded in the ) had over graduates and, by 2004, about students in boarding schools and independent day schools.
Prep for Prep (NYC) and Steppingstone Foundation (Boston/Philadelphia) support high-achieving students of color with after-school, weekend, and summer programs to access elite universities.
Prep for Prep (2001 data): among graduates in college, at Wesleyan, at Harvard, at Yale, at Penn, at Columbia, and at Brown.
Social Clubs: A Major Axis of Upper-Class Orientation
Private social clubs provide orientation, differentiation, and networking for upper-class adults and span a wide variety of purposes (family-oriented country clubs, downtown professional clubs, specialized clubs for yachtsmen, sports, gardening, hunting, etc.).
Club structure and gatekeeping:
Membership often requires nomination, multiple letters of recommendation, and interviews with membership committees; screening is rigorous.
Upper-class men and women tend to belong to clubs in multiple cities, creating a nationwide network and overlaps that reinforce social cohesion.
The club network overlaps with corporate boards: a study of the twenty largest industrial corporations in the 1960s found widespread overlap with upper-class clubs; notable examples include the Links Club (New York) and directors from major firms like General Electric, Chrysler, Westinghouse, and IBM.
At least one director from of the corporations was a member of the Links Club; several had multiple directors who were club members.
Across the top corporations in major sectors, club memberships were common; some directors belonged to multiple clubs.
Over time, these clubs faced criticisms as bastions of privilege (Christian white male dominance) and concerns about inclusion of Jewish members, African-Americans, and women; such criticisms reduced public availability of membership lists but did not erase overlaps among directors and private club networks (sources include Baltzell; Zweigenhaft & Domhoff; Driscoll & Goldberg; Barns & Sweezes).
Despite public criticism and declining visibility of membership lists, studies showed persistent overlaps: a pattern of directors clustering in a small set of clubs, with the Links Club conspicuously represented among corporate leaders.
Class Awareness: A Capitalist Mentality
The upper class persists through a network of institutions that transcend any single individual or family; members know someone who knows someone across the country via schools, resorts, clubs, and boards.
The upper class is composed of innumerable face-to-face small groups that continually shift as people move between settings; this structural dynamism sustains the class network.
Involvement in these institutions fosters class awareness, including a sense of superiority and justified privilege.
The capitalist nature of the upper class is evidenced by ownership of profit-producing investments and by attention to macro-issues like the investment climate, rate of profit, and political climate.
The upper class generally holds conservative preferences toward labor unions and government intervention, though opinions can vary on social issues and the degree of government suspicion.
The policy-planning network leverages capital power and social cohesion to forge a common policy outlook while recognizing potential disagreements across sectors; it also plans to address objections from workers with limited alternatives beyond their jobs and schooling.
The overarching aim is to safeguard corporate power while accommodating diverse interests within the corporate community, limiting the potential disruptive impact of labor movements on profits and management prerogatives.
The New Class: Intellectuals and the Rise of the New Class (Gouldner)
In the twentieth century, a New Class of intellectuals and technical intelligentsia emerges as a challenge to the groups already in economic control (businessmen, party leaders) in many countries, including in late capitalism of North America, Western Europe, and Japan.
Early European context of the New Class can be characterized by several decisive episodes; the following is a synoptic inventory rather than a full history:
1) Secularization: The intelligentsia move away from church-based training and supervision, becoming separated from traditional religious authority. Secularization dismantles sacral authority claims and supports a modern grammar of rationality and critical discourse.This secular infrastructure underpins what Gouldner calls the culture of critical discourse, enabling intellectuals to challenge established social realities and power structures.
The broader implication is that as intellectuals detach from religious oversight, they gain greater capacity to critique political and economic arrangements and contribute to new class dynamics in national and global contexts.
Connections to Foundational Principles and Real-World Relevance
The interplay between ownership, corporate governance, social institutions, and policy influence illustrates how economic power translates into political power and social control.
Social networks (boarding schools, private clubs, foundations) function as mechanisms for reproducing elite status and for coordinating policy across sectors.
The analysis helps explain real-world patterns of corporate influence in policymaking, labor relations, and public discourse, including the prevalence of think tanks and policy groups that advocate for pro-corporate positions.
The ethical and practical implications include questions about democracy, equality of opportunity, access to elite institutions, and the legitimacy of concentrated economic power in shaping public policy.
Key References and Studies Cited
Armstrong, Christopher (1974). Privilege and productivity: The cases of two private schools and their graduates. Ph.D. diss., University of Pennsylvania.
Baltzell, E. Digby (1964). The Protestant establishment: Aristocracy and caste in America. Random House.
Bonacich, Phillip & G. William Domhoff (1981). Latent classes and group membership. Social Networks 3:175–196.
Cartwright, Dorwin & Alvin Frederick Zander (1968). Group dynamics: Research and theory. Harper & Row.
Cookson, Peter W. & Caroline Hodges Persell (1985). Preparing for power: America’s elite boarding schools. Basic Books.
Domhoff, G. W. (1975). Social clubs, policy-planning groups, and corporations: A network study of ruling-class cohesiveness. Insurgent Sociologist 5:173–184.
Driscoll, Dawn-Marie & Carol R. Goldberg (1993). Members of the club: The coming of age of executive women. Free Press.
Hogg, Michael (1992). The social psychology of group cohesiveness. NYU Press.
Kendall, D. (2008). Members Only: Elite Clubs and the Process of Exclusion. Rowman & Littlefield.
Ostrander, Susan A. (1984). Women of the upper class. Temple University Press.
Zweigenhaft, Richard & G. William Domhoff (1982; 2003). Jews in the Protestant establishment; Blacks in the white elite. Rowman & Littlefield.
Notes and data references include: Hotchkiss alumni study (1940–1950), St. Paul’s alumni study, A Better Chance program statistics, Prep for Prep, Steppingstone Foundation, and various club membership analyses (1960s–1995). The Merited data for corporate board overlaps and club memberships span multiple decades and publications (e.g., 1960s corporate board overlap with clubs; 1995 and earlier summaries).