|year history. It contains further details end information on other issues as well. See The Council on Foreign Relations, A Record of Twenty-five Years, New York, 1947.|
|24.||Quoted in Kraft, op. cit., p. 68.|
|25.||Chadwick F. Alger, "The External Bureaucracy in United States Foreign Affairs" ( Administration Science Quarterly, June, 1962).|
|26.||Kraft, op. cit., p. 68.|
|27.||Karl Schriftgiesser, Business Comes of Age ( New York: Harper & Row, 1960).|
|28.||Ibid., pp. 25, 62, 162.|
|29.||RAND Corporation, The First Fifteen Years ( Santa Monica, California: The Rand Corporation, 1963).|
|30.||Arthur Herzog, The War-Peace Establishment ( New York: Harper & Row, 1965), p. 54.|
|31.||George M. Beckmann, "The Role of Foundations" ( The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, November, 1964).|
|32.||David Wise and Thomas D. Ross, The Invisible Government ( New York: Random House, 1964), p. 243.|
|33.||David Easton, The Political System ( New York: Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., 1966), pp, 50-1.|
C. Wright Mills. Metropolitan 400.
The little cities look to the big cities, but where do the big cities look? America is a nation with no truly national city, no Paris, no Rome, no London, no city which is at once the social center, the political capital, and the financial hub. Local societies of small town and large city have had no historic court which, once and for all and officially, could certify the elect. The political capital of the country is not the status capital, nor even in any real sense an important segment of Society; the political career does not parallel the social climb. New York, not Washington, has become the financial capital. What a difference it might have made if from the beginning Boston and Washington and New York had been combined into one great social, political, and financial capital of the nation! Then, Mrs. John Jay's set ("Dinner and Supper List for 1787 and 1788"), in which men of high family, great wealth, and decisive power mingled, might, as part of the national census, have been kept intact and up-to-date.1
And yet despite the lack of official and metropolitan unity, today--seventeen decades later--there does flourish in the big cities of America a recognizable upper social class, which seems in many ways to be quite compact. In Boston and in New York, in Philadelphia and in Baltimore and in San Francisco, there exists a solid core of older, wealthy families surrounded by looser circles of newer, wealthy families. This older core, which in New York was once said--by Mrs. Astor's Ward McAllister--to number Four Hundred, has made several bids to The Society of America, and perhaps, once upon a time, it almost succeeded. Today, in so far as it tries to base itself on pride of family descent, its chances to be truly national are subject to great risks. There is little doubt, however, that among the metropolitan 400's, as well as among their small-town counterparts, there is an accumulation of advantages in which objective opportunity and psychological readiness interact to create and to maintain for each generation the world of the upper social classes. These classes, in each of the big cities, look first of all to one another.
Before the Civil War the big-city upper classes were compact and stable. At least social chroniclers, looking back, say that they were. "Society," Mrs. John King Van Rensselaer wrote, grew "from within rather than from without . . . The foreign elements absorbed were negligible. The social circle widened, generation by generation, through the abundant contributions made by each family to posterity. . . There was a boundary as solid and as difficult to ignore as the Chinese Wall." Family lineage ran back to the formation of the colonies and the only divisions among upper-class groups "were those of the church; Presbyterians, Dutch Reformed and Episcopalians formed fairly