Elites and Society

Tom Bottomore

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2006
• Print ISBN: 9780415082716
• eBook ISBN: 9781134890361
• Edition: 2
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Sociology
• Index: Social Sciences

In this substantially revised and enlarged second edition of a classic text that has been used throughout the world in numerous translations, Tom Bottomore reconsiders élite theory in the light of more recent studies. He examines the role and significance of élites in relation to classes and class structure in both advanced industrial and developing countries, and expounds the criticism of élites and élitism that have been formulated by democratic and socialist thinkers and movements. In a new concluding chapter, Professor Bottomore considers the prospect, as humanity approaches the millenium, for a renewed advance towards more egalitarian forms of society, in which all citizens would be able to participate more fully and effectively in the shaping of their social world.
Tom Bottomore taught at the London School of Economics 1952-64, was Head of the Department of Political Science, Sociology and Anthropology at Simon Fraser University, Vancouver 1965-67, and Professor of Sociology at the University of Sussex 1968-85 where he is now Professor Emeritus. He is the author of numerous books, most recently: Theories of Modern Capitalism, Allen and Unwin (1985); Classes in Modern Society, Routledge (2nd edition, 1991) and Between Marginalism and Marxism: The Economic Sociology of J A Schumpter, Harvester Wheatsheaf (1992).

Chapter 1
The élite Concept and ideology

The word 'élite' was used m the seventeenth century to describe commodities of particular excellence; and the usage was later extended to refer to superior social groups, such as prestigious militaiy units or the higher ranks of the nobility.¹ In the English language the earliest known use of 'élite', according to the Oxford English Dictionary, is in 1823, at which time it was already applied to social groups. But the term did not become widely used in social and political writing until late in the nineteenth century in Europe, or until the 1930s in Britain and America, when it was diffused through the sociological theories of elites, notably in the writings of Vilfredo Pareto.

In his Treatise on General Sociology (1915-19) Pareto defined 'élite' in two different ways. He began with a very general definition:

Let us assume that in every branch 01 human activity each individual is given an index which stands as a sign of his capacity, veiy much the way grades are given in the various subjects in examinations in school. The highest type of lawyer, for instance, will be given 10. The man who does not get a client will be given 1 — reserving zero for the man who is an out-and-out idiot. To the man who lias made his millions — honestly or dishonestly as the case may be — we will give 10. To the man who lias earned his thousands we will give 6; to such as just manage to keep out of the poor-house 1, keeping zero for those who get in...And so onfor all the branches of human activity ... So let us make a class of the people who have the highest indices in their branch of activity, and to that class give the name of élite.

(pp. 1422-3)

Pareto himself does not make any further use of this concept of élite; it serves merely to emphasize the inequality of individual endowment in eveiy sphere of social life, and as the starting point for a definition of the 'governing élite', which is his real subject matter.

For the particular investigation with which we are engaged, a study of the social equilibrium, it will help if we further divide that class [the élite] into two classes: a governing élite, comprising individuals who directly or indirectly play some considerable part in government, and a non-governing élite, comprising the rest ... So we get two strata in a population: (1) A lower stratum, the non-élite, with whose possible influence on government we are not just here concerned; then (2) a higher stratum, the élite, which is divided into two: (a) a governing élite, (b) a non-governing élite.

(pp. 1423—4)

It is not difficult to discover, from Pareto's earlier writings, how he arrived at this conception. In his Conrs d'économie politique (1896-7) he had propounded the idea of a normal curve of the distribution of wealth in a society. In Les systémes socialistes (1902) he went on to argue, first, that if individuals were arranged according to other criteria, such as their level of intelligence, aptitude for mathematics, musical talent, moral character, etc., there would probably result distribution curves similar to that for wealth; and secondfy. that if individuals were arranged according to their degree of political and social power or influence, it would be found in most societies that the same individuals occupied the same place in this hierarchy as in the hierarchy of wealth. 'The so-called upper classes are also usually the richest. These classes represent an élite, an "aristocracy"' (vol. I, p. 28).

Nevertheless, there is an important difference in the formulation of the question in his Treatise, for Pareto here concerns himself not with a curve of distribution of certain attributes (including power and influence), but with a simple opposition between those who have power, the 'governing élite', and those who have none, the masses. This change in Pareto's conception may well have owed something to the work of Gaetano Mosca, who was the first to make a systematic distinction between 'elite' and masses — though using other terms — and to attempt the construction of a new science of politics on tins foundation. Mosca expressed his fundamental idea in these words:

Among the constant facts and tendencies that are to be found in all political organisms, one is so obvious that it is apparent to the most casual eye. In all societies — from societies that are very meagrely developed and have barely attained the dawnings of civilization, down to the most advanced and powerful societies — two classes of people appear — a class that rules and a class that is ruled. The first class, always the less numerous, performs all political functions, monopolizes power and enjoys the advantages that power brings, whereas the second, the more numerous class, is directed and controlled by the first, in a manner that is now more or less legal, now more or less arbitrary and violent.²

(1939, p. 50)

Mosea explains the rule of the minority over the majority by the fact that the former is organized —

the dominion of an organized minority, obeying a single impulse, over the unorganized majority is inevitable. The power of any minority is irresistible as against each single individual in the majority, who stands alone before the totality of the organized minority. At the same time, the minority is organized for the very reason that it is a minority.

— and also by the fact that the minority is usually composed of superior individuals—

members of a ruling minority regularly have some attribute, real or apparent, which is highly esteemed and very influential in the society in which they live.

(1939, p. 53)

Both Mosca and Pareto, therefore, were concerned with elites in the sense of groups of people who either exercised directly, or were in a position to influence veiy strongly the exercise of, political power. At the same time, they recognized that the 'governing élite' or 'political class' is itself composed of distinct social groups. Pareto (1915-19, pp. 1429-30) observed that the 'upper stratum of society, the élite, nominally contains certain groups of people, not always veiy sharply defined, that are called aristocracies', and he went on to refer to 'militaiy, religious, and commercial aristocracies and plutocracies'. The point was made more sharply in a study of elites in France by a pupil of Pareto, Marie Kolabinska (1912), who discussed explicitly the movement of individuals between the different sub-groups of the governing elite, and set out to examine in some detail the histoiy of four such groups: the rich, the nobles, the armed aristocracy and the clergy. Nevertheless. Pareto is always inclined to emphasize more strongly the division between the governing élite and the non-élite, and it is Mosca who examines more thoroughly the composition of the élite itself, especially in the modern democratic societies. Thus he refers to 'the various party organizations into which the political class is divided'(1939, p. 411), and which have to compete for the votes of the more numerous classes; and later on he remarks that

it cannot be denied that the representative system [of government] provides a way for many different social forces to participate in the political system and, therefore, to balance and limit the influence of other social forces and the influence of bureaucracy in particular.

(ibid., p. 258)

This last passage also reveals a considerable divergence between Pareto and Mosca in their interpretation of the development of political systems. Pareto always emphasizes the university of the distinction between governing élite and mases, and he reserves his most scathing comments for the modern notions of 'democracy', 'humanitarianism' and 'progress'. Mosca, on the other hand, is prepared to recognize, and in a qualified way to approve, the distinctive features of modern democracy. In his first book (1884), it is true, he observes that in a parliamentary democracy, 'the representative is not elected by the voters but, as a rule, has himself elected by them...or...his friends have him elected' (pp. 250-1); but in his later works he concedes that the majority may, through its representatives, have a certain control over government policy. As Meisel (1958) notes, it is only in his criticism of Marx that Mosca makes a sharp disjunction between masses and minorities; for the most part he presents a more subtle and complex theory in which the political class itself is influenced and restrained by a variety of 'social forces' (representing numerous different interests in society), and also by the moral unity of the society as a whole which is expressed in the rule of law. In Mosca's theoiy, an élite does not simply rule by force and fraud, but 'represents', in some sense, the interests and purposes of important and influential groups in the society.

There is another element, too, in Mosca's theory which modifies its original stark outlines. In modern times, the élite is not simply raised high above the rest of society; it is intimately connected with society through a sub-élite, a much larger group which comprises, to all intents and purposes, the whole 'new middle class' of civil servants, managers and white-collar workers, scientists and engineers, scholars and intellectuals. This group does not only supply recruits to the elite (the ruling class in the narrow sense); it is itself a vital element in the government of society, and Mosca observes that 'the stability of any political organism depends 011 the level of morality, intelligence and activity that this second stratum lias attained' (1939, p. 404). It is not unreasonable, then, to claim, as did Gramsci (1964a), that Mosca's

political class... is a puzzle. One does not exactly understand what Mosca means, so fluctuating and elastic is the notion. Sometimes he seems to think of the middle class, sometimes of men of property in general, and then again of those who call themselves 'the educated'. But on other occasions Mosca apparently lias in mind the 'political personnel'.

(p. 140)

And later, with more certainty:

Mosca's 'political class' is nothing but the intellectual section of the ruling group. Mosca's term approximates Pareto's élite concept — another attempt to interpret the historical phenomenon of the intelligentsia and its function in political and social life.³

(Gramsci 1964b, p. 4 n1)

The conceptual scheme which Mosca and Pareto have handed down thus comprises the following common notions: in every society there is, and must be, a minority whichrules overthe rest of society; this minority — the 'political class' or 'governing élite', composed of those who occupy the posts of political command and, more vaguely, those who can directly influence political decisions — undergoes changes in its membership over a period of time, ordinarily by the recruitment of new individual members from the lower strata of society, sometimes by the incorporation of new social groups, and occasionally by the complete replacement of the established elite by a 'counter-élite', as occurs in revolutions. This phenomenon, the 'circulation of élites', will be examined more fully in a later chapter. From this point, the conceptions of Pareto and Mosca diverge. Pareto insists more strongly upon the separation between rulers and ruled in every society, and dismisses the view that a democratic political system differs from any other in this respect.⁴ He explains the circulation of élites in mainly psychological terms, making use of the idea of residues (sentiments) which he set out at great length in the earlier parts of his Treatise (1915-19, chaps 6-8). Mosca, on the other hand, is much more aware of the heterogeneity of the elite, the higher stratum of the political class, itself; of the interests or social forces which are represented in it; and, in the case of modem societies, of its intimate bonds with the rest of society, principally through the lower stratum of the political class, the 'new middle class'. Thus Mosca also allows that there is a difference between modern democracies and other types of polity, and to some extent he recognizes that there is interaction between the ruling minority and the majority, instead of a simple dominance by the former over the latter. Finally, Mosca explains the circulation of elites sociologically as well as psychologically, insofar as he accounts for the rise of new élites (or of new elements in the élite) in part by the emergence of social forces which represent new interests (be they techno logical, economic, or cultural) in the society.⁵

Many later studies of élites followed Pareto and Mosca, especially the latter, closely in their concern with problems of political power. Thus H.D. Lasswell, both in his early writings, which were commended by Mosca himself, and later in the Hoover Institute Studies on élites, devoted himself particularly to the study of the political élite, whichhe defined in the following terms: 'The political élite comprises the power holders of a body politic. The power holders include the leadership and the social formations from which leaders typically come, and to which accountability is maintained, during a given period' (Lasswell et al., 1952). The difference from the conceptions of Pareto and Mosca is that the political élite is here distinguished from other elites winch are less closely associated with the exercise of power, although they may have a considerable social influence, and that the idea of 'social formations' (including social classes) from which élites are typically recruited is re-introduced into a scheme of thought from which, especially in Pareto's theory, it had been expelled. A similar development is apparent in the writings of Raymond A1011 (1950, 1960), who was also chiefly concerned with the élite in the sense of a governing minority, but attempted to establish a relation between the élite and social classes,⁶ at the same time emphasizing the plurality of élites in modem societies and examining the social influence of the intellectual élite, which does not ordinarily form part of the system of political power (Aron 1957).

The fresh distinctions and refinements which have been made in the concept of the elite call for a more discriminating terminology than has been employed hitherto.⁷ The term 'élite (s)' is now generally applied, in fact, to functional, mainly occupational, groups which have high status (for whatever reason) in a society; and I shall use it, though with some later qualifications, in this sense. The study of such élites may be fruitful in several ways: the siz£ of the élites, the number of different élites, their relations with each other and with the groups that wield political power, are among the important facts which have to be considered in distinguishing between different types of society and in accounting for changes in social structure; so, too, is the closed or open character of the élites, or in other words, the nature of the recruitment of their members and the degree of social mobility which this implies. If the general term 'élite' is to be applied to these functional groups, we shall need another term for the minority which rules a society, which is not a functional group in the same sense, and is in any case of such great social importance that it deserves to be given a distinctive name. I shall use here Mosca's term, the 'political class", to refer to all those groups which exercise political power or influence, and are directly engaged in struggles for political leadership: and I shall distinguish within the political class a smaller group, the political elite, or governing élite, which comprises those individuals who actually exercise political power in a society at any given time. The extent of the political élite is, therefore, relatively easy to determine: it will include members of the government and of the high administration, military leaders, and, in some cases, politically influenti...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title
• Copyright
• Contents
• 1 The élite: concept and ideology
• 2 From the ruling class to the power élite
• 3 Politics and the circulation of élites
• 4 Intellectuals, managers and bureaucrats
• 5 Tradition and modernity: élites in the developing countries
• 6 Democracy and the plurality of élites
• 7 Equality or élites
• 8 Into the millennium
• Bibliography
• Name index
• Subject index