Support of the Class Dominance Theory

Domhoff uses interlocking directorate and the overlap between the upper class and corporate community to build his case for the class dominance theory. He states that at the centre of most of these ``inner circles'' of board of directors are financial institutions. These institutions are so prevalent that, in fact, small businesses and farmers are no competition to the big players. And if indeed they are, then they become a part of the system, rather than exceptions of the system.

Domhoff continues to state that there is indeed a nationwide upper class with it's own institutions based purely on wealth. And to separate it from the dormant or `status group' upper-class, they have ties with the corporate community. Additionally, because many of the upper managerial types believe that they have to be part of the ``old-boy network'' to succeed in the company, massive amounts of assimilation and social cohesion occurs (which sets the stage for the tacit agreements in the policy formation networks.)

Domhoff points out specific institutions that exist to promote all of the above points. First he touches on prep schools; he maintains that it's an important aspect of the upper class due to the fact that it passes along the class structure to the student. Another social institution is the private social clubs of the upper class. It keeps members that do not fit into their ``schema'' of a peer through a rigorous screening process. Usually new members must be nominated, recommended, and interviewed by members of the social club. Usually people belong to a number of various clubs throughout the country which causes a nationwide overlapping of memberships.

Domhoff then links the social clubs (specifically the Bohemian Club) to the ability to expand in the corporate community. In fact, through the networking and interaction at these social clubs, it was not very hard to link to major corporations like AT&T, Bank of America, Ford Motor, GM, Pacific Bell &c.