The elite : concept and ideology

Tom bottomore

The word elite was used in the 17th century to describe commodities of particular excellence ; and
the explanation was later extended to refer to superior social groups. Vilfred Pareto later
popularized the concept in his writings.

Pareto defined ‘elite’ to refer to that class of people who have the highest indices in their branch
of activity. It serves merely to emphasize the inequality of individual endowment in every sphere
of social life. he viewed elites having divided into two classes :

(a) a governing elite : consists of individuals who directly play some considerable part in
government .
(b) a non-governing elite : indirectly play some considerable part in government .

thus we get strata in population (i) a lower straum , the non-elite , whuch equally important in
understanding state . both contributes towards the state activities.

(ii) higher stratum,the elite , which is divided into (a) a governing elite and (b) non-governing
elite.

Pareto arrgued further that the same individiuals ocuppied the same place in the heirarchy of
wealth . the so called upper class are usually the richest . just as in indian caste system upper
caste is also upper class. these classes represent an elite , an ‘aristocracy’.

Though pareto talks of the difference between ‘governing elite’ and masses , it was in real sense
mosca who was the first to make a systematic distinction between ‘elite’ and masses – and thus
try to develop a new science of politics on this foundation. Mosca points out that in all societies
from the ones least developed to the most advanced there are two classes of people that appear –
a class that rules and a class that is ruled.

The firs always the less numerous , performs all political functions , monopolizes power and
enjoys the advantage that power brings , whereas the second , the more numerous class , is
directed and controlled by the first , in more or less legal terms , more or less violent. Mosca
explained the rule of majority over minority by the fact that the latter is organized .the
dominance of minority over the unorganized majority is inevitable. the minority is organized for
the very reason that it is minority – and also by the fact that the minority is usually composed of
superior individuals. These minority are highly esteemed and very influential in the society in
which they live.

Thus according to mosca and pareto , elites are groups of people who either exercised directly or
were in a position to influence very strongly the exercise of political power. pareto observed that
the upper stratum of the society , the elite , defined as aristocracies . thus he says elites consists
of religious, commercial aristocracies and plutocracies . pareto is always inclined to emphasize
more strongly the division between the governing elite and the non-elite , it is mosca who
examines more thorouhly the composition of elites , in modern democratic societies.

There however exists difference between pareto and mosca’s interpretation . pareto always
emphasizes the universality of the distinction between government elite and masses . mosca on
other hand, is prepared to recognize the distinctive features of modern democracy which
influences them.according to him ,’social forces’ can influence the composition of elites. in his
theory , an elite doesnot rule by force or fraud but represents in some sense the interests and
purposes of important and influential groups in the society .

Mosca also talks abut another element , ‘sub-elite’. It is through this sub-elite that the elites are
connected to rest of the society. this group much larger than elites comprises a whole new middle
class of civil servants , managers and white collar workers, scientists. This group supplies not
only recruits to elites but it is itself a vital element in the government of society. mosca maintains
that the stability of any political organism depends on the level of morality , intelligence and
activity that this second stratum has attained.

Mosca and pareto talks of the of the circulation of elites which refers to the change of the
establishent of elites or rise of new elites due emergence of social forces which represents new
interests (technological and economic). For pareto the circulation of elites was a psychological
unlike mosca for whom it was a sociological as well as pschyological process .

The later studies comprised of concerns of political power . thus the political elites consists of
power holders that include the leadership and the social formations from which leaders typically
come. These elites are different from other elites which are less closely associated with exercise
of power. it includes members of government , high administration , military leaders and in some
cases , politically influential families of an aritocracy or royal house and leaders of powerful
economic enterprises. The political elites are a smaller group of the larger political class , which
refers to a group which excercises political power or influence .

The study of elites is fruitful in several ways : the size of elites , the number of elites , their
relations with each other . these helps in distinguishing between different types of society and in
accounting for changes in social structure.

It was seen that there is a opposition between the idea of elites and the idea of democracy may be
expressed in two forms :

(a) the insistence of elite theories upon inequality is opposed to the fundamental strand in
democratic political thought of maintaining equality .
(b) the notions of governing minority contradicts the democratic theory of majority rule .

democracy will then be treated as a type of society in which the elites – economic , cultural , as
well as political are open in principle and are in fact recruited from different social strata on the
basis of individual merit . thus democracy provides equality of oppurtunity and also a sense of
political competition amongst the different stratas of people.

The ‘realsitic science’ which pareto, weber , mosca has developed was intended to refute marx’s
theory of social classes on two essential points :

(a) marxist conception of ruling class is erroneous , by demonstrating the continual

circulation of elites , which prevents in most societies , specially modern industrial
societies , the formation of stable ruling class.
(b) To show classless society is impossible since in every society there must be a
minority which actually rules and exploits.

The elitist theory point out that one type of political society is universal and necessary , but the
marxists deny the universal validity of the law of elites and masses.

Thus the concept of elites refers to an observable social phenomenon and takes its place in
theories which seek to explain social happeings , especially political changes.
Pareto and mosca’s theory of elites was in opposition to marx’s theory . marx’s theory may be
stated briefly in the following positions –

i) In every society beyond the most primitive , two categories of people may be
distinguished :
(a) Ruling class (b) one or more subject classes.
ii) The dominant position of the ruling class is to be explained by its possesion of the
major instruments of economic production , but its political dminance is consolidated
by the hold which it establishes over military force and over the production of ideas.
iii) There is a perpetual conflict between the ruling class and the subject class or clases ;
and the nature and course of such conflict is influenced primarily by the development
of productive forces ,i.e by changes of technology.
iv) Class conflicts are most clearly seen in modern capitalist societies , because in such
societies the divergence of economic interests appears most clearly seen.
v) The class stuggle within capitalist societty will end with the victory of the working
class , and this victory will be followed by the construction of a classless society.

However his theory has been be criticised on various grounds , at one level it deals with
monocausal theory which cannot possibly do justice to the complexity of historical changes. He
saw every thing in light of economic interpretation even religion – the development of protestant
ethic with rise of capitalism. (reductionists in nature)

It was seen that the formation of ruling class requires consolidation of a ruling class requires the
concentration of the various types of power – economic , military and political – that as a matter
of fact ,in most societies emerges from economic power.

Again , C.WRIGHT MILLS , prefered the term ‘power elite’ than ‘ruling elites’ . ‘ruling class’ is
a badly loaded phrase , ‘class’ is an economic term ; the rule is a political one . the phrase thus
means an economic class rules politically. Mills defines power elite in a much similar way as
pareto defined his ‘governing elite . mills distinguishes between three major elites in the USA –
the corporation heads, the political leaders and the military chiefs and tries to see whether these
three form a single power elite. They do form single elite because they are representative of an
upper class , which is to be regarded as ruling class.
However criticsms has been raised against this idea by mosca and pareto . the assumption that
the men of power do constitute a cohesive group is problemative . in a recent paper on the upper
strata of british society , it was seen that the rulers are not so much in the centre of a solar
system . they are not closely knit or united. They are not a single establishment but ring of
establishment. No one man can stand in the centre , for there is no centre. There is no ruling class
as such although there may be men of power ; there is no power elite .

Mills like mosca and pareto , thus says that however much a a consitution might be democratic ,
there exists a governing elite of unprecedented power and unaccountability.

The concepts of ‘ruling class’ and ‘governing elite’ are used in descriptions and explainitions of
political happenings. However there exists difference in the two concepts of ‘ruling class’ and
‘governing elites’. The concept of ‘governing elite’ contrasts the organized, ruling minority with
the unorganizd majority or masses , while the concept of a ‘ruling class’ contrasts the dominant
class with subject classes , which may themselves be organised or be creating organisation .

thus from these different conceptions arise differences in the way of conceiving the relations
between rulers and ruled. For marxists theory , the concept of ruling class , the conflict between
clases becomes the principle force producing changes in the social structure .but in elite theories
the relation between organized minority(govening elites) and unorganized majority are
necessarily represented as more passive. Thus this two are complementary at one level or
contradictory on the other level, and refers to different types of political system or different
aspects of same political system. Thus we can see societies with ruling class at same time elites
which represent particular aspects of its interest ; societies in which no ruling class but elites are
found whose power are based upon control of administration , military force rather than upon
property ownership and inheritence .

A further difference between them is that , governing elites are assumed to be a cohesive group ,
unless other considerations , such as their membership of wealth or their aristocrattic family
origins are introduced. But the ruling class which owns major instruments of economic
production in a society is shown to be cohesive social group ; first because members have
definite economic interests in common and secondly because it is engaged permanently in a
conflict with other classes in society , through which its self awareness and solidarity are
continually enchanced.

Futhermore the basis of minority’s ruling position , namely its economic dominance , while the
concept of governing elites says little about bases of power which elite posses.

In modern democracies,however the ruling class doesnot enjoy undisputed or unrestricted

political power , in the sense it can no more maitain easily its property rights or to transmit them
unimpared from generation to generation . the second type of situation in which divergence
from the ‘ruling class-subject classes’ model is that in which the ruling group is no a class in
marx’s sense , one instance is provided by those societies in whch a stratum of intellectuals or
bureacrats may be said to weild supreme power – in china under the rule of the literati or under
the rule of brahmins.

There is another element in the position of a ruling class, which is –the circulation of elites.
power of ruling class arises from its ownership of property and since this property can easily be
transmitted from generation to generation , the class has enduring character. Its composition is
not entirely immutable for new families may enter it and old families may decline , but part of its
members continue from generation to generation. Only when there are rapid changes in the
whole system of production and property ownership does the composition of rulig class change
signifcantly , in this sense one ruling class has replaced another. In a particular society, the
movement of individuals and families was so continuos and so extensive that no group of
families was able to maintain itself for any length of time in a situation of economic and
political pre-eminence. Thus we see the concept of ‘circulation of elites’ or ‘social mobility’.

With regards to circulation of elites two veiws are given by pareto –

i) Individuals circulate between the elite and the non-elite

ii) to a process in which one elite is replaced by another

the former one predominates . when pareto studies the decay and renewal of aristocracies , he
observes that the governing class is restored not only in numbers but also in quality , by families
rising from the lower class. According to pareto ,circulation of elites psychological changes in
characteristics of members of elites on one side and on the lower status on the other side . in the
context of ‘circulation of elites’ ,pareto talks of two kind of governing elites : it may be
maintained by either cunning or by force . paretos two types of elites – ‘speculators’ and ‘rentier’
bears a close resemblance to machiavelli’s ‘foxes’ and ‘lions’ .

kolabinska , pareto’s pupil further distinguishes between three types of circulation . i) between
different categories of governing elites (ii) circulation between (a) individuals from lower strata
may enter existing elite (b) individuals from lower strata may form new elite groups.

Kolabinska tried t further explain the ‘circulation of elites’ phenomenon . however like pareto it
faced he same problems of inadequate historical illustration. It takes into some of the changes
seen in the families but that doesnot tells nothing of the extent of circulation.

Mosca describes the elite circulation in the follwing terms - as aptitude to command and to
exercise political control is no longer the sole possesion of the legal rulers but has become
common enough among other people when outside the ruling class another class has formed
which is deprived of power though having the capacity to share in the responsibilities of
governmrnt . this new class is antagonistic to the class that holds possession of the legal
government. He refers occassionally to intellectual and moral qualities of member of elite but not
as pareto. For pareto there is endless cyclical movement in which a declining elite is restored to
vitality by recruiting of new members from lower strata of population.

Mosca , pirenne and schumpeter on the contrary social groups may be formed in a society as a
result of economic or cultural changes, and this may lead to changes in the political system.
Even theory of Mosca , pirenne and schumpeter have problems as they lacke proper method of
investigation . not one of these studies makes it possible to establish that there is or not a
constant connection between the amount of circlulation of individuals and the groups in society
and the extent of changes iin the economic , political and culural system : first because they
present no systematic comparisions between societies ,a nd secondly because they provide no
exact measurement of the phenomenon with which they deal. Thus, mosca ,pareto , pirenne and
schumpeter all succed in showing that some individuals move from elite to non-elite, one class
to another . but this doesnot provide us with the most important information : proportion of the
elite or upper class is recruited from the lower strata.
Thus the conclusion which emerges is that the simple distinction between elites and non-elites is
inadequate. Study of circulation of data would be meaningless unless we know the size and
structure of the elite and about general class structure in a parrticular society. pareto have
focused on movement of elites in the circulation of elites . others donot seen to the author as
having developed beyond marx’s origin and development of social classes. Eg- mosca’s social
force is very like marx’s class interst. Thus in studying the circulation of elites we face lots of
difficulties .