There are three primary frameworks pertaining to the subject of power: Consensus/Pluralism, Elitism, and Class. Through the course of this class, we have seen evidence that one or more of these frameworks have been at work for a very long time in both America and Latin America. These frameworks attempt to explain how and why power is distributed in society. They examine the ways in which we distribute power regarding to status measures including, but not limited to, money, job, material possession, family name, social association, and political association. These frameworks examine power in order to explain societal interaction at every level, focusing on highly visible interaction, but applicable nonetheless on all levels.
             The level at which I will attempt to examine the distribution of power is my household. This setting is small, but an excellent chance to apply the aforementioned frameworks to personal experience, bringing home their ideas, and testing their value on the small levels not always considered in the class setting.
             In order to examine the applicability of these frameworks, we must first have an understanding of what these frameworks assert. Following will be a concise look at each framework, highlighting the main points of each. Not completely exhaustive, this look will be an attempt to set up the case study of power to follow.
             This framework is based in the belief that power is dispersed among many competing interest groups. The dispersion of power leads to compromise for the good of all. This is not a framework of communism, but rather that of shared values; an agreement on what is good. This is not a framework of complete compromise, looking out for everyone, ensuring that each is as privileged as another, but more of a realization that not one person or group can have complete control. Therefore we see a form of consensus, where each group's role is understood at some level of importanc...