Elite theory

1. Elite theory.

1.1.The origin of the term “elite” and its modern meaning

1.2.Basic theories of the elite

1.3.Typology and elite recruitment systems2.Types of political culture and their characteristics

2.1.The essence of political culture

2.2.Functions of political culture

2.3.Typology of political culture

2.4.Political subcultures

Bibliography

1. ELITE THEORY.

1.1. The origin of the term "elite" and its modern meaning

The word "elite" translated from French means "best, selected, chosen", "best of its kind".

In another, more narrow sense, the concept of “elite” refers to the best, most valuable group for society, standing above the masses and called upon, due to the possession of special unique qualities, to manage them, create models and norms of behavior, and guide social development.

The first ideas about the meaning and role of the elite in social life arose within the framework of slave-holding and feudal societies, where the aristocracy (from the Greek aristos - the best) acted as the chosen elite in the form of Indian castes (kshatriyas and brahmins), ancient Roman patricians, noble classes (nobility and clergy) of Medieval Europe.

Such outstanding political thinkers as the ancient Chinese philosopher Confucius (the doctrine of “noble men” who, due to high moral qualities, are called upon to rule the state), the ancient thinker Plato (the theory of a hierarchical class state under the rule of sages) wrote about the need to divide society into higher and lower ones. philosophers (guardians)), N. Machiavelli (his idea about the eternal conflict between the aristocracy and the people), English historian T. Carlyle (the doctrine of the special role of heroes and outstanding personalities in history), the German philosopher F. Nietzsche (the doctrine of a superman standing above moral standards and realizing their power instincts).

In the subsequent period of development of social and philosophical thought, they began to distinguish intellectual (H. Ortega - and - Gasset), creative (A. Toynbee), property and status - i.e. persons with the highest prestige and status (G. Lassuel), power - i.e. endowed with the desire for power (G. Mosca) or special powers (A. Etzioni), managerial - with special knowledge in the field of management (J. Galbraith) and other types of elite.

In political science, the elite is traditionally understood as the bearers of the most pronounced political and managerial qualities and functions, all those who have a significant influence on the functioning of government and policy formation. Simply put, the political elite is a small group of people occupying a leading position in the political life of society - both public (president, prime minister, cabinet members, leaders and leading members of parties, members of parliament) and “shadow” (members of pressure groups , big businessmen, mafia, leading journalists, political experts and advisers).

1.2.Basic theories of the elite

On the question of the nature of the elite and its role in the life of society, political thinkers are divided into several schools or directions. The Machiavellian school (political Machiavellianism) is based on the ideas of the Italian Renaissance thinker N. Machiavelli about the inevitability of dividing society into aristocrats and the bulk of citizens, into managers and the governed, and about the inevitability of the struggle between them for power.

The most famous representatives of the Machiavellian school are the Italian sociologists G. Mosca (1858 - 1941) ("Fundamentals of Political Science") and V. Pareto (1848 - 1923) ("Treatise on General Sociology"), as well as the German sociologist R. who lived in Italy. Michels (1876 - 1936). Despite all the differences in theoretical concepts, all Machiavellians are united by the following ideas: 1) The elite of any society has special qualities received from nature or instilled by education - first of all, the ability to exercise control and the desire to fight for power; 2) All these qualities are passed on to the next generations of the elite through inheritance - thanks to this, any ruling elite has a hereditary character; 3) The elite unites into a single group, united by a common social status and the perception of itself as a group of selected people called upon to lead society; 4) An elite inevitably appears in any society, since people are not equal by nature, and it is necessary to select the best of them who can effectively govern; 5) Only the composition and character of the ruling class of society changes (previously it was headed by monarchs, now by presidents, before there were nobles, now by a layer of “super-rich people”), but the privileged elite of society remains in any case; 6) The condition for the survival of the elite as a layer is the gradual renewal of its composition and the infusion of “fresh blood” into it; 7) Any elite goes through the stages of formation, flourishing (peak popularity), weakening and death; 8) The formation and change (circulation) of elites occurs during the struggle for power: the winner receives power and privileges, and the loser goes into oblivion - as V. Pareto wrote, “history is the cemetery of aristocracies”; 9) An elite isolated from the broad masses inevitably forms not only on the scale of the entire society, but also within the framework of any established social organization (administrative institution, political party, trade union) - sooner or later, a group of officials - managers who take control the main levers of power (“the iron law of oligarchy”).

So, for example, the sociologist R. Michels mentioned by us, considering in his study “The Sociology of a Political Party in Democracy” the relations within the German Social Democratic Party at the turn of the 19th - 20th centuries, showed how the top party officials, moving away from ordinary party members , gradually usurped power.

The value theory of the elite notes other characteristic features in it: 1) The belonging of a certain member of society to the elite is determined by the presence of qualities that are useful for the whole society - talent, professional competence and willingness to serve public interests; 2) The elite is formed not as a result of a fierce struggle for power, but as a result of “natural selection” by society of the most valuable and gifted individuals; 3) The elite unites not on the basis of existing privileges and opposition to the majority of society, but in the process of professional cooperation in resolving certain issues of public life; 4) The interaction between the elite and society is not a relationship of domination and suppression, but the power of the more experienced and knowledgeable based on public trust; 5) Without the presence of a high-quality and highly educated elite, society will not be able to develop and function normally - it will inevitably degrade and fall into decay;

Following this approach, the Russian philosopher N.A. Berdyaev, based on studying the development experience of different countries and peoples, derived the so-called “elite coefficient” - the percentage ratio of the number of the ruling elite to the total number of literate people in the country - an indicator of over 5% means that society is developing normally, less than 1% - declines and degenerates. A different approach to understanding the nature and purpose of the “highest and ruling layer of society” is offered by the democratic theory of the elite, among the most famous representatives of which are the American economist J. Schumpeter and the English sociologist K. Mannheim. Its main provisions boil down to the following: 1) Democracy inevitably leads to limiting the power and privileges of the elite, to strengthening public control over it, but still does not completely eliminate them, since even with it natural social inequality and the need for qualified management remain; 2) Democracy is impossible without a democratic elite that remains faithful to the fundamental values ​​of democracy and is capable of ensuring the effective operation of the complex mechanism of a legal democratic state (separation of powers, parliamentarism, respect for laws and human rights); 3) The masses, unlike the educated elite of society, often gravitate not towards democracy, but towards a “strong hand” and dictatorship - therefore the elite must educate and guide them. This is especially relevant due to the fact that many mass movements that existed in history under democratic slogans ultimately led to the establishment of a dictatorship (labor, socialist, national liberation, etc.); 4) In this regard, social apathy of the majority of society members is more favorable for democracy than their active political participation; 5) The main content of democracy in this case comes down to competition between potential leaders for the trust and votes of voters. At the same time, researchers of the 60s and 70s criticized the claims of this theory about the democratism of the elite and the authoritarian inclinations of the masses. As it turned out, although representatives of the upper strata of society are more committed to the values ​​of democracy, are civilized and tolerant, at the same time they are often inclined to ignore the rights of ordinary citizens to work, social security, strike, etc. and to neglect the interests of the majority of society. The theory of pluralism of elites, one of the main developers of which is the German political scientist E. Holtmann, is based on the following provisions: 1) The ruling elite is not something single and monolithic, but is divided into groups according to functions and types of activities - it follows from this that its power and influence are by no means absolute. Thus, on the basis of a functional approach, the German sociologist R. Dahrendorf identified among the elite: a) political leaders; b) economic leaders; c) professors and teachers; d) clergy; e) outstanding journalists; f) high-ranking military personnel; g) high-status judges and lawyers. 2) In modern society, political power is divided between various institutions and groups, each of which can prevent decisions unfavorable for it from being made (the so-called “veto groups”) - thus, not a single serious political decision can be implemented without prior approvals For example, a study conducted in 1950 by the American psychologist F. Hunter showed that in the relatively small city of Atalanta it is impossible for one person or group to have absolute power, but there are a large number of competing interest groups. 3) Various groups and segments of the elite do not rise over society, but are directly related to and dependent on the support of the social groups that nominated them - professional, economic, ethnic, religious, territorial, etc.; 4) In addition, there are various mechanisms of social and group control over them - elections, rotation, referendum;5) In a democratic society, almost all educated and active citizens can become members of the political elite. The left-liberal theory of the elite, authored by the American sociologist and publicist of left-radical (neo-Marxist) orientation C.R. Mills (1916 - 1962), offers a general critical analysis of the true nature and role of the “ruling layer” of American society: 1) The main principle underlying the formation of the ruling elite is not outstanding individual qualities, but the possession of leadership positions; 2) The ruling elite includes not only “professional politicians”, but also closely associated and supportive corporate executives, senior civil servants and officers, and privileged intellectuals; 3) The US elite is a closed caste, and people from the people have very little chance of rising up the social ladder; 4) Belonging to the elite is inherited by subsequent generations through elite upbringing and education, as well as a system of connections and acquaintances (this gives an advantage to the heirs of elite families over people from the people); 5) The ruling elite of America does not strive to satisfy the needs of society, but to strengthen its own dominance and the economic well-being of the business groups associated with it - it is precisely this task that its management tasks are subordinated to. Thus, according to Mills, the ruling elite is a closed group that challenges the entire society with its way of life. Thus, in modern political science there are different approaches to understanding the essence and social purpose of the ruling elite, and each of them contains a certain amount of truth. At the same time, one should not exaggerate any of the aspects of the elite - neither its isolation and hostility to the majority of society, nor its selflessness in serving public interests, nor the degree of unity of the elite, nor the severity of the existing internal contradictions between its various groups. One way or another, the following provisions should be recognized as true: 1) In any highly developed society, there is social and economic inequality and division into managers and managed - this makes the division of society into managers and managed inevitable; 2) The chances of different people in society to achieve success, to make a political or administrative career are initially unequal - it is much easier for the offspring of the elite to do this.

For example, French sociologists P. Birnbaum and R. - J. Schwarzenberg, on the basis of their research, came to the conclusion that power in their country was usurped by the elite of higher educational institutions - in France, people from the middle class receive predominantly a liberal arts education and are engaged in teaching or scientific research activities, and the children of the ruling class are sent to higher educational institutions (Administrative School, Polytechnic School, Ecole Normale, etc.), which train personnel for senior government posts, ministries and departments, which practically guarantees them a successful administrative career; 3) Since the entire society, purely physically and due to the lack of special knowledge, cannot participate in making political decisions, they are inevitably made by a limited circle of people; 4) Social and economic inequality persists even in democracy, and citizens do not always strive to participate in the management of society and are able to effectively control power; 5) The character and quality of the ruling elite inevitably depend on the level of development (economics, culture, civic consciousness, etc.) of a particular society - they determine the ability of citizens to get the ruling stratum to follow certain legal and moral norms, to realize public, and not their own corporate interests.

The functions of the political elite traditionally include: 1) Study, analysis and reflection in political programs and policies of the interests of various social groups: classes, strata, nations; 2) Development of political ideology, political programs and doctrines, constitutions, laws; 3) Creation of a mechanism for the implementation of political plans and programs - i.e. developing a strategy for the economic and social development of the country, defining its long-term goals, choosing effective ways to implement them, forming domestic and foreign policies; 4) Management, development and adoption of political decisions; 5) Formation (appointment, relocation, removal) of the apparatus of the country’s political governance bodies, promotion of political leaders from among themselves.

1.3. Typology and systems of elite recruitment

In modern political science, the following classifications of elites are distinguished by type based on certain criteria: 1) Depending on the sources of influence and authority, elites are divided into: a) hereditary, i.e. those who received their status by inheritance (for example, knighthood or noble aristocracy); b) value-based - i.e. elevated due to the possession of qualities valuable to society (education, authority, high morality); c) powerful - due to the possession of power; d) functional - depending on the profession that performs a certain function in society. 2) In relation to state power:

a) power, which includes all those who have power, i.e. "party in power"; b) oppositional - i.e. elite groups removed from power and seeking to return to it. 3) By the nature of relations with society: a) open - i.e. allowing into its ranks people from various walks of life; b) closed - i.e. recruiting new members from within its own group or layer (for example, the nobility); 4) In relation to one or another level of management: a) highest - government leaders directly involved in making important political decisions; b) average - members of society with high status, elite profession or education (on average about 5% of the population of any country); c) marginal - persons with high scores in only one or two of the above characteristics: for example, high-quality education without high income, or high income without a prestigious position or education; 5) According to the style of management and the nature of relations with society: a) democratic - expressing the opinions and interests of the majority, allowing the participation of the broad masses in management; b) authoritarian - imposing its will on the majority and not allowing members of society to exercise control; c) liberal - taking into account the opinions of the governed and allowing them to participate in the discussion of decisions made; 6) By type of activity:

a) political elite - i.e. those who directly make political decisions (top officials of the state) and are able to effectively influence politics in their own interests (leading businessmen involved in politics, lobbyists, etc.);

b) economic - large owners, monopoly owners, directors and managers of the largest private companies;

c) bureaucratic - officials of the highest and middle levels of the government apparatus;

d) ideological - leading figures of science and culture, representatives of the clergy and journalists who have a significant influence on public opinion.

Among the conditions that ensure the successful functioning and strong political positions of the ruling elite are usually mentioned: 1) Representativeness - a strong connection between a certain segment of the elite and the group that “gave birth” and nominated it - for example, the connection between trade union “bosses” and ordinary members of their union , party leaders - with grassroots cells and ordinary party members; 2) Efficiency - i.e. the ability of the ruling elite to successfully solve problems facing society; 3) Integration - i.e. the unification of various groups of the ruling elite of society or an agreement on certain values ​​or “rules of the game” in order to maintain their own positions and stability in society (pacts, consent agreements, consensus); 4) Full recruitment of the elite (i.e., replenishment of its composition, selection of new members, taking into account certain requirements for them. Political scientists identify two main systems for recruiting elites - the guild system and the so-called entrepreneurial (entrepreneurial) system. Features of the guild system are: 1) Closedness from society, limited access to the elite of new members; 2) New members are recruited mainly from the lower layers of this elite itself; 3) The presence of large restrictions and requirements (filters) for new members joining the elite: education, origin, loyalty, party affiliation, length of service, leadership characteristics, etc.; 4) Limited number (circle) of persons selecting new members into the elite; 5) Due to the recruitment (selection) of their own kind, the basic socio-psychological features of the existing type of elite are preserved. The strengths of the guild recruitment system are: continuity of composition and preservation of harmony within the elite, cutting off potential oppositionists and internal stability. Its obvious disadvantages are bureaucracy, conformism, the difficulty of moving talented people to the top who are capable of initiating the necessary changes, stagnation and inability to respond to changing situations and crises. The features of the entrepreneurial (entrepreneurial) recruitment system are accordingly: 1) Openness, ample opportunities for people from the broadest strata of society to join the elite; 2) A relatively small number of restrictions and requirements for new people recruited into the elite (talentedness, competence, initiative, compliance with moral requirements, etc.); 3) A wide circle of people who select new members to the elite (within the framework of democracy, this includes the majority of society, all voters of the country); 4) Intense rivalry, competition for the right to occupy leadership positions; 5) During the selection process, the personal qualities and individual merits of the applicant for a place in the elite are of great importance. A similar recruitment system exists in countries with an established democratic form of government. The advantages of the entrepreneurial system are that it values ​​gifted and extraordinary people, is open to new leaders and innovations, and is generally controlled by society. Its shortcomings are equally obvious: a high degree of risk and the threat of instability, the danger of acute confrontation and splits in the elite, the possibility of choosing for a leadership post not a professional responsible to society, but a demagogue and populist. It should be remembered that even in a democracy, along with elements of the entrepreneurial system, there are elements of the guild selection system: they are subject to the formation of the highest echelons, promotion to the “upper floors” of power and the recruitment of law enforcement agencies (army, police) and intelligence services.

2. TYPES OF POLITICAL CULTURE AND THEIR CHARACTERISTICS

2.1. The essence of political culture

Political culture is a set (system) of norms and values ​​that are shared by the majority of society, contribute to the normal functioning of the political system and its institutions, maintain public order and harmony, and regulate the participation of citizens in politics.

Political culture has several levels. There are the political culture of the whole society, the political culture of a certain social layer (group) and the political culture of an individual.

In addition, political culture can also be divided into the following levels:

1) Worldview - it includes the ideas of society, groups and individuals about politics and the political picture of the world, as well as norms, values, symbols, attitudes and guidelines that guide participants in political life;

2) Civil - includes the motives for which people go into politics, the skills, means and ways by which people achieve their goals in politics;

3) The actual political level - it is formed by the positions of political subjects on specific issues, namely their attitude to the existing political system and regime (support or disapproval), to the means of implementing policy used by the authorities, to their supporters and opponents.

The nature and characteristics of the political culture of individual people are determined by their belonging to various professional, demographic, territorial, ethnic, religious and other groups.

Political culture is a fairly ancient phenomenon, and has existed as long as society has existed. Much of what constitutes the content of political culture (rules of political participation and norms of behavior in politics, forms of people’s attitudes towards power, political ideas, stereotypes and values) was described by ancient political thinkers (Confucius, Shang Yang, Plato, Aristotle, etc.) . At the same time, a comprehensive study of political culture as an integral phenomenon began in Western political science in the 50s - 60s. twentieth century, and is associated primarily with the names of such researchers as G. Almond, S. Verba, D. Powell and others.

In science, there are two main approaches to understanding the nature of political culture. Some scientists identify it with the subjective content of politics and include in it various forms of political consciousness, attitudes, stereotypes and values ​​that determine the nature of the political behavior of various political subjects (G. Almond, S. Verba, D. Devine, Yu. A. Krasnov, etc. .).

Another group of scientists, seeing in political culture a manifestation of normative requirements for political behavior (S. White), a set of typical patterns of behavior in politics (J. Plano), a method of political activity (W. Rosenbaum), consider it an integral part and one of the manifestations of politics.

Based on a generalization of existing approaches, we can consider political culture as a complex phenomenon, which is based on values ​​and normative (ideal) ideas about power and models of the political structure of society, which give rise in its consciousness to certain guidelines in political life and goals of political activity, which are then transformed in knowledge about the means, methods and certain skills necessary to achieve these goals within certain types of political activities (voting, participation in the activities of political parties and pressure groups, the use of violence, etc.) Thus, we can agree with the generalized definition of political culture as an individual’s style of activity in the sphere of politics (I. Shapiro, P. Sharan).

The study of the political culture of a society is necessary because it allows us to understand the meaning of those phenomena of political life, the nature of which cannot be revealed by a formal study of the structure and functioning of political institutions, the content of political processes, constitutions and laws:

1) The study of the political culture of different peoples and countries makes it possible to find out why the same political processes proceed differently in them and the same political institutions function differently (president, parliament, court, state bureaucracy, etc.);

2) Its study makes it possible to better understand the motives of the political behavior of citizens and the adoption of political decisions by government leaders, the causes of numerous and varied political conflicts that cannot be explained by the struggle for power and the redistribution of resources alone (ethnic, religious, ideological and other conflicts);

3) Allows us to better understand the causes of “failures” (dysfunctions) in the work of the political system and its institutions, as well as the reasons for the failure of reforms and other large-scale social transformations.

A clear confirmation of the importance of studying the political culture (i.e., the system of preferences for certain political values ​​and values) of a particular society are studies conducted in the 50s - 70s. based on the material of some provinces of Italy. For example, the American psychologist E. Banfield came to the conclusion that depending on the preference for one or another specific form of satisfying their interests - through family, personal and narrow corporate connections or through the creation of broad civil associations that publicly defend the interests of their members - residents of different regions Italy gives preference to political or semi-criminal mechanisms. For example, what acts as a party in Turin and Milan, in Naples and Palermo (Sicily) can be replaced by a clientele (a group of individuals serving one patron), a trade union by a racketeer gang, an association by a branch of the mafia, etc. Accordingly, in politics, the inhabitants of these very different provinces behave differently: the Turinians and Milanese are conscious and active, while the Neapolitans are predominantly apolitical. Another famous American sociologist R. Putnam, who studied institutions established in Italy in the 70s. regional self-government bodies came to essentially similar conclusions (See: R. Putnam, Making Democracy Work. M., 1996). The main one is that the effectiveness of democratic and self-government mechanisms depends on the level of citizenship of the local population. In the North of Italy, where this level has traditionally been high, regional governments have worked successfully for the benefit of society. In the South, according to Putnam, the very concept of “citizen” is distorted; individuals believe that the administration works only in the interests of themselves or “close people” (bosses, politicians, big businessmen) and very few participate in decision-making; Corruption and favoritism are rampant.

Russian sociologists V.A. Kolosov and A.D. Krindach, who conducted their research in the 90s, respectively divided the population of Russian regions according to the principle of cultural orientation into three main macrogroups:

1) residents of both capitals and large interregional centers, who are characterized by the formation of group interests, active participation in politics, and the presence of a developed party system - which predetermines the public and civilized nature of the political process;

2) residents of regional and republican centers, large regional centers close to them, with their characteristic orientation towards the figure of the local boss and his guardianship; group interests and mechanisms for their expression are not clearly formed, and participation in politics is reduced to their support not of party politicians, but of figures known to the local population;

3) residents of small towns and settlements in rural areas, who generally lack a formed model of political consciousness and behavior, and local affairs and interests have practically supplanted interest in political processes on a national scale; At the same time, the people themselves are politically passive, and expect instructions or encouragement from their immediate superiors and higher authorities.

Thus, the connection between the characteristics of individual and group political culture of individuals on the one hand, and the scale and forms of their participation in politics on the other, is quite obvious.

2.2. Functions of political culture

Political culture performs a number of important functions in the political life of society, and without it, maintaining political stability, the normal functioning of the political system and the full participation of the individual in politics are impossible.

In general, modern political science identifies the following main functions of political culture:

1) Identification - political culture strengthens a person’s awareness of his belonging to society, a country or a certain social group, helps to determine possible means and methods of personal, group and public interests through institutions and policy mechanisms;

2) Orientation - provides a person with a meaningful perception of political phenomena, helps him better understand his place and opportunities in the field of politics, and more successfully realize his rights and interests within the framework of a specific political system;

3) Adaptation (adaptation) - allows a person to adapt to a changing political situation, to new opportunities, to certain restrictions in political activity;

4) Socialization - it is in the process of assimilating the political culture of his society that a person masters the skills and means that allow him to defend his interests in politics (technologies for holding elections, “information wars” and making political decisions, various methods of putting pressure on the authorities, skills of political analysis and participation in voting, etc.);

5) Stabilization of political life - it is political culture that contributes to the formation among members of society of a favorable attitude towards the existing political system and its institutions;

6) Integration - by uniting various layers and groups of society on the basis of common ideas, perceptions and values, political culture thereby strengthens the unity of the state and society;

7) Communications - ensures interaction between institutions of power and other political subjects (parties, movements, social strata and groups) based on their acceptance of common values ​​and “rules of the game” in politics, as well as through the use of common concepts and symbols;

8) Renewal of the political system and political life of society - new ideas about changing the political structure of society that have formed and become established within the framework of political culture lead to the creation of new political institutions, procedures and mechanisms (for example, the ideas of constitutional limitation of the powers of the monarch, separation of powers, universal suffrage and etc.);

9) Ensuring continuity in the political structure and in political life - political culture achieves this by connecting new ideas with previous political experience.

2.3. Typology of political culture

It is quite natural that in the course of the historical development of various countries and peoples, they formed special, different types of national political culture. As a result, they are characterized by the predominance of different political values ​​and attitudes (submissiveness or the desire for freedom, collectivism or individualism), different attitudes towards the state and different forms of attitude towards power.

Differences in political culture are predetermined by a number of political circumstances, including national and religious characteristics, the open or closed nature of society, the dominance of a certain ideology in it and the nature of the political regime.

The most famous and widespread classification of types of political culture was developed by American political scientists G. Almond and S. Verba and outlined in their essay “Civic Culture” (New York, 1963). Comparing the political systems of Great Britain, Italy, the USA, Germany and Mexico, they identified three main types of political culture:

1) Patriarchal, which is characterized by a lack of interest of citizens in the political life of the country and society, concern only with local problems, a low level of activity and participation in the life of society (this is predominant for underdeveloped (African and part of Asian) countries with strong remnants of tribal and compatriot relations, and in developed countries - for some residents of rural areas);

2) Subjective, with the predominance of which people have general ideas about the political system and its institutions, but do not seek to actively participate in politics, perceive the state, power and politics as something “superior” in relation to their private life, and expect the authorities to punish for disobedience and rewards for submission and discipline (most often found in “transitional” and transformative societies, where new principles and forms of political relations are just being formed);

3) Activist - with it, citizens are politically literate and conscious, interested in politics and actively participate in political life, influencing government power in order to satisfy their own interests (developed democratic states).

At the same time, in real political life, all of the above types of political culture exist not in a “pure” form, but in a “mixed” form. Combining in a certain combination and proportion, they form the civil culture of society. For the existence of a stable and sustainable democracy, a harmonious combination of activist and submissive types of political culture is necessary, since democracy is not only freedom and activity, but also responsibility, submission to laws, rules and principles.

In addition to the “classical” one, there are quite a large number of other classifications of political culture in political science. The same G. Almond, in another, later study, accordingly distinguishes its homogeneous, fragmented, mixed and totalitarian types. Each of them is characterized by the following general features:

1) The homogeneous society that exists in Anglo-Saxon countries with a liberal democratic system is characterized by the presence in society of a large number of different, but “peacefully coexisting” and generally complementary values ​​and attitudes (pluralism), predominantly non-violent resolution of political conflicts and disputes on based on legal norms and taking into account the interests of all parties involved in the conflict. At the same time, the majority of society accepts the existing political system, its institutions and mechanisms;

2) Fragmented political culture is associated with the presence in society of different and conflicting values, ideas and attitudes, with a lack of public agreement regarding the basic principles of the political structure and rules of conduct in politics (i.e. there may be quite significant and influential political forces allowing the violent overthrow of the political system). This type of political culture is characteristic of countries and societies that are underdeveloped in socio-economic and cultural terms, split into warring groups along national, religious, cultural and political grounds (the countries of the “Third World”);

3) The mixed type of political culture combines its homogeneous and fragmented types - i.e. on some issues there is agreement in society, but on others there remains harsh confrontation (for example, in some of the developed and multinational countries of the West (Canada, Great Britain, Belgium) there is a consensus regarding the existing socio-economic model, but at the same time confrontation and tension in interethnic relationships);

4) The totalitarian type of political culture is characterized by the predominance of collectivist psychology and values ​​in society, general intolerance of dissent, ignoring individual and group interests that differ from the “national”, the cult of unlimitedly strong state power, reliance on force in resolving conflicts, the search for internal and external enemies , on which universal hatred is directed in order to unite and mobilize society (exists under totalitarian and partly under authoritarian regimes).

2.4.Political subcultures

The very concept of political subculture was introduced into political science by researchers influenced by the ideas of G. Almond and S. Verba.

A political subculture is formed and takes place when the political attitudes and values ​​of a certain group (political, professional, ethnic, religious, etc.) differ markedly from the norms, values ​​and ideas that form the basis of the political culture of the majority of society.

At the same time, there are a certain number of countries in the world where there is no national political culture at all and therefore it is impossible to distinguish subcultures (for example, Nigeria, where enmity between various tribes and nationalities has already led to protracted conflicts and even war, or Northern Ireland (Ulster), where there are irreconcilable contradictions between the Catholic and Protestant communities, which could result in mutual extermination and civil war).

Typically, the carriers of political subcultures are groups living in a certain part (region) of the country. For example, French-speaking residents of Canada (province of Quebec), residents of the southern states of the USA and mining towns in the northwest of England, various territorial groups of Cossacks (Don, Black Sea, Ural, Siberian) and indigenous residents of the northwestern regions (Pomors) in Russia.

At the same time, there are subcultures that were formed not according to territoriality, but according to religious, social, household or age and gender characteristics, and are widespread in various regions of the country (for example, the youth subculture of the 60s, associated with many radical ideas, widespread in many countries West). Thus, in particular, even F. Engels, in his studies, noted significant sociocultural differences between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat in England.

In general, the presence of subcultures in society is a completely normal and natural phenomenon, but only under the following conditions: 1) if the values ​​and norms of a certain subculture do not enter into an irreconcilable conflict that cannot be resolved by civilized means with the values ​​of the national culture; 2) if the group expressing it is tolerant and respectful of the subcultures and values ​​of other groups; 3) if within the framework of society and national culture there are common values ​​and norms shared by representatives of various subcultures (for example, respect for the institutions of democracy, for human rights and freedoms, for the rule of law). Compliance with all these conditions allows society to maintain stability and ensure the agreement of the majority of its members on certain issues.

If this is not the case, and groups with irreconcilable political attitudes and values ​​exist and are active in society, it is doomed to social division and instability (Canada, weakened by regional separatism, experiencing all the negative consequences of the Jewish-Arab (Palestinian) confrontation with Israel).

This problem is especially acute in some developing countries that have embarked on the path of modernization, i.e. massive introduction into public life of the norms, values ​​and institutions of Western civilization. When carrying out such transformations, the question inevitably arises of how it is possible to relatively organically combine Western and traditional national values, not split society, and create a unified national culture on the basis of existing national-tribal and territorial subcultures (especially typical for African countries).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

2. 1..Pugachev V.P., Solovyov A.I. introduction to political science. M., 1995, Chapter 7. Chapter 16.

3. Mukhaev R.T. Political science. M.: PRIOR, 1998. Chapter 7. Chapter 12.

4. Mosca G. Ruling class. // Socis, 1994, No. 10 - 12.

5. Ashin G.A. Modern theories of the elite. M., 1985; His own. The ruling elite and society. // Free thought, 1993, No. 7; His own. Change of elites. // General Sciences and Modernity, 1995, No. 1.

6. Afanasyev M.N. Statism is a test of the fitness of the Russian elite. // Power, 1996, No. 12.

7. Badovsky D.V. Transformation of the Russian political elite. // Polis, 1994, No. 6.

8. Kryshtanovskaya O.V. Transformation of the old nomenklatura into the new Russian elite. // General Sciences and Modernity, 1995, No. 2.

9. Rivera S. Trends in the formation of the post-communist elite of Russia: reputational analysis. // Polis, 1996, No. 6.

10.Zheltov V.V. Modern Western political science. Kemerovo: KemSU, 1993, Chapter 6.

11.Almond G., Verba S. Civil culture and stability of democracy. // Polis, 1992, No. 4.

12. Gadzhiev K.S. Polit. culture: conceptual analysis. // Polis, 1991, No. 6.

13. Ryabov A.I., Chistyakov B.B. Political culture. // Bulletin of Moscow State University. Ser.12. 1994, no. 1.

14. Simon G. Fundamentals of political culture in Russia. // Social Sciences and Modernity, 1996, No. 1.

15. Rukavishnikov V.O. Political culture in post-Soviet Russia. // Social - political magazine, 1998, No. 1.

The first classical concepts of elites arose at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries.

The Italian jurist Gaetano Mosca, in his two-volume work “Fundamentals of Political Science,” substantiated the idea that in all societies, from the most moderately developed and barely reaching the beginnings of civilization to the enlightened and powerful, there are two classes of persons: the class of managers and the class of the governed. The first is always smaller in number, but carries out all political functions and monopolizes power, and the second, more numerous, is controlled and regulated by the second, in addition, supplies it with the material means of support necessary for the viability of the political body. Mosca also analyzed the problem of forming (recruiting) the political elite and its specific qualities. He believed that the most important quality in the formation of a political class (elite) is the ability to control other people, i.e. organizational ability, as well as material, moral and intellectual superiority over others.

According to the concept of this famous sociologist, the political class is gradually changing and in its dynamics there are two trends: aristocratic and democratic. The aristocratic tendency is clearly expressed in the desire of the political class to become hereditary, if not legally, then in fact. The predominance of this trend leads to the degeneration of the elite and social stagnation. The democratic tendency is expressed in the renewal of the political class at the expense of the most capable of governing and the active lower strata. Such renewal prevents the degeneration of the elite and makes it capable of effectively leading society. Balance, Mosca said, between aristocratic and democratic tendencies is most desirable for society, because it ensures both continuity and stability in the leadership of the state.

Independently from G. Mosca, the theory of political elites was developed by Vilfredo Pareto in the scientific work “On the Application of Sociological Theories.” He also proceeded from the fact that the world has always been and should be ruled by a select minority endowed with special psychological and social qualities - the elite. This elite differs from others in its high performance and operates with high performance in one or another field of activity. The totality of such individuals constitutes the elite. It is divided into the ruling elite, which directly or indirectly participates in governance, and the non-ruling counter-elite. Counter-elite are people who also have the psychological qualities characteristic of the elite, but who do not have access to leadership functions due to their social status and various kinds of barriers. The development of society, as Pareto imagined, occurs through periodic change and circulation of elites. The reason for this circulation is that the ruling elite seeks to preserve its privileges and pass them on to people with non-elite qualities. This leads, on the one hand, to a qualitative deterioration in its composition, and on the other, to a quantitative growth of the counter-elite. The latter, relying on the dissatisfied masses, overthrows the ruling elite and establishes its own dominance. There are plenty of such examples in history, and as we see, the elite still comes to power, but with a more different content than the previous one.

The contributions of Mosca and Pareto to modern political theory relate mainly to defining the structure of power and focusing on the group nature of the exercise of power in any form.

A major contribution to the development of the theory of political elites was made by Robert Michels, also a representative of the Italian school of sociology. The principle of minority rule was outlined in his work “The Sociology of Party Organizations in Modern Democracy.” Robert Michels studied the social mechanisms that give rise to elitism in society. Agreeing with his predecessors, he particularly highlights organizational abilities as the causes of elitism, as well as the organizational structures of society that stimulate elitism and elevate the governing stratum. Michels formulated the so-called “iron law of oligarchic tendencies.” This law is sometimes called "Michels' law". According to this law, the very organization of society requires elitism and naturally reproduces it. The creation of large organizations inevitably leads to their oligarchization and the formation of an elite due to the action of a whole chain of interrelated factors. Human civilization is impossible without the presence of large organizations. They cannot be managed by all members of the organizations. The effectiveness of such organizations requires the rationalization of functions, the allocation of a leadership core and apparatus that gradually but inevitably leaves the control of ordinary members, breaks away from them and subordinates politics to the management’s own interests and cares primarily only about maintaining their privileged position. The masses of members of organizations are passive and show indifference to the daily activities of organizations and politics in general. As a result, even in a democratic society, it is always the oligarchic, elitist group that actually rules. From all this Michels drew pessimistic conclusions regarding the possibilities of democracy.

The main directions of modern elite theories.
The concepts of the elites of Mosca, Pareto and Michels gave impetus to broad theoretical and subsequently (mainly after the Second World War) empirical studies of groups that lead the state or pretend to do so. Modern theories of elites are varied. Historically, the first group of theories that have not lost their modern significance are the already briefly discussed concepts of the Machiavellian school (Mosca, Pareto, Michels, etc.). They are united by the following ideas:
1. Special qualities of the elite, associated with natural talents and upbringing and manifested in its ability to govern or at least to fight for power.
2. Group cohesion of the elite. This is the cohesion of a group, united not only by a common professional status, social status and interests, but also by an elite self-awareness, the perception of itself as a special layer called upon to lead society.
3. Recognition of the elitism of any society, its inevitable division into a privileged ruling creative minority and a passive, uncreative majority. This division naturally follows from the natural nature of man and society. Although the personal composition of the elite changes, its dominant relationship to the masses is fundamentally unchanged. So, for example, in the course of history, tribal leaders, monarchs, boyars and nobles, people's commissars and party secretaries, ministers and presidents were replaced, but the relations of dominance and subordination between them and the common people always remained.
4. Formation and change of elites during the struggle for power. Many people with high psychological and social qualities strive to occupy a dominant privileged position. However, no one wants to voluntarily give up their posts and positions to them.
5. In general, the constructive, leading and dominant role of the elite in society. It performs the management function necessary for a social system, although not always effectively. In an effort to preserve and inherit their privileged position, the elite tends to degenerate and lose its outstanding qualities. Machiavellian theories of elites are criticized for exaggerating the importance of psychological factors, anti-democraticism and underestimation of the abilities and activity of the masses, insufficient consideration of the evolution of society and the modern realities of states of “universal prosperity”, a cynical attitude towards the struggle for power. Such criticism is largely not without foundation.
The value theories of the elite are trying to overcome the weaknesses of the Machiavellians (N. Berdyaev, H. Ortega y Gasset). They, like Machiavellian concepts, consider the elite to be the main constructive force of society, however, they soften their position in relation to democracy and strive to adapt the elite theory to the real life of modern states. The diverse value concepts of the elites differ significantly in the degree of protection of aristocracy, attitude towards the masses, democracy, etc. However, they also have a number of the following common settings:
1. Belonging to the elite is determined by the possession of high abilities and performance in the most important areas of activity for the entire society. The elite is the most valuable element of the social system, focused on satisfying its most important needs. In the course of development, many old needs, functions and value orientations die out in society and new needs, functions and value orientations arise. This leads to the gradual displacement of the bearers of the most important qualities for their time by new people who meet modern requirements. Thus, in the course of history, there was a replacement of the aristocracy, which embodied moral qualities and, above all, honor, education and culture, with entrepreneurs, whose economic initiative society needed. The latter, in turn, are replaced by managers and intellectuals - bearers of knowledge and managerial competence so important for modern society.
2. The elite is relatively united on the basis of the healthy leadership functions it performs. This is not a union of people seeking to realize their selfish group interests, but cooperation of individuals who care primarily about the common good.
3. The relationship between the elite and the masses is not so much in the nature of political or social domination, but rather of leadership, implying managerial influence based on the consent and voluntary obedience of the governed and the authority of those in power. The leading role of the elite is likened to the leadership of the elders, who are more knowledgeable and competent in relation to the younger ones, who are less knowledgeable and experienced. It meets the interests of all citizens.
4. The formation of an elite is not so much the result of a fierce struggle for power, but rather a consequence of the natural selection by society of the most valuable representatives. Therefore, society should strive to improve the mechanisms of such selection, to search for a rational, most effective elite in all social strata.
5. Elitism is a condition for the effective functioning of any society. It is based on the natural division of managerial and executive labor, naturally follows from equality of opportunity and does not contradict democracy. Social equality should be understood as equality of life chances, and not equality of results and social status. Since people are not equal physically, intellectually, in their vital energy and activity, it is important for a democratic state to provide them with approximately the same starting conditions. They will reach the finish line at different times and with different results. Social “champions” and underdogs will inevitably emerge.
Value ideas about the role of the elite in society prevail among modern neoconservatives, who argue that elitism is necessary for democracy. But the elite itself must serve as a moral example for other citizens and inspire respect for itself, confirmed in free elections.

The antipode of pluralistic elitism is left-liberal theories of the elite. According to the authors of this theory, the upper level of power is occupied by the ruling elite, which does not allow the rest of the population to determine real policy. Elitism is derived from the special psychological and social qualities of people. People who come from the people can occupy high positions in the social hierarchy, but they have no real chance. The ruling elite is not limited to the political elite. The dominant idea is that the ruling elite is closed.

Introduction

1. History and background of the theory of elites

2. Characteristics of the ideas of G. Mosca and V. Pareto

3. The meaning of the ideas of Pareto and Mosca

4. The theory of oligarchy and understanding of the elite by Robert Michels

Conclusion

Bibliography

Introduction

The word “elite” translated from French means “best”, “selected”, “chosen”. In everyday language it has two meanings.

The first of them reflects the possession of some pronounced traits, the highest on a particular measurement scale. In this meaning, the term “elite” is used in such phrases as “elite grain”, “elite horses”, “sports elite”, “elite troops”, “thieves’ elite”, etc.

In the second meaning, the word “elite” refers to the best, most valuable group for society, standing above the masses and called upon to rule them. This understanding of the word reflected the reality of a slave-owning and feudal society, the elite of which was the aristocracy. The term “Aristos” itself means “the best,” respectively, aristocracy means “the power of the best.” But we are only interested in this type of elite - the political elite.

The political elite is a minority of society that is directly involved in making and implementing decisions related to the use of government power. Let's write further. Characteristics of the political elite: this is an independent, highest, privileged group, endowed with special qualities - psychological, social and political. This group occupies dominant positions in the social hierarchy.

That is, all elite theories are based on a very specific idea of ​​society. That society consists of two dissimilar parts - the elite, which is engaged in management, and the rest of society.

The purpose of this work is to study the theory of elites.

Job objectives:

.Study literature on the subject of work.

.Consider the historical background of the emergence of the theory of elites.

.Characterize the ideas of G. Mosca and V. Pareto and their significance for the theory of elites.

.Analyze the theory of oligarchy and understanding of Robert Michels's edit.

1. History and background of the theory of elites

Interpretations of the term “elite” are different, some believe that the authenticity of the elite is ensured by noble origin, others rank the richest in this category, and still others - the most gifted. It is believed that entry into the elite is a function of personal merit and merit, while G. Mosca and V. Pareto believe that for inclusion in the elite, the social environment from which a person came is primarily important, and only then personal sympathy or antipathy leader.

Plato compared political inequality with the quality of the soul inherent in certain groups of the population: “... the rational part of the soul, the virtue of which lies in wisdom, corresponds to the class of rulers-philosophers (this is the elite); the fierce part, whose virtue is manifested in courage, is the warrior class; the base, lustful part of the soul, mired in joys and pleasures, corresponds to the class of artisans and farmers...” Plato developed a system for forming the ruling elite: selection into the elite, education and training of potential elite leaders.

But Confucius divided society into “noble men” (the ruling elite) and “low people” (common people) based on their attitude to moral precepts. He revealed the image of the ruling elite through social qualities; the former, in his opinion, follow duty and act in accordance with the law; they are demanding, first of all, of themselves, in contrast to the latter, who care only about personal gain. According to his theory, adherence to moral standards gave the right to govern.

All justifications for this division were initially built on various kinds of religious, moral and ethical views, and the first who built the concept of elites on the experience of observing real political events were representatives of the Italian school of political sociology: N. Machiavelli, G. Mosca, V. Pareto, J. Sorel, R. Michels, E. Jenning. This school is otherwise called Machiavellian, since it was Machiavelli who singled out politics as an independent sphere of society. He was one of the first to develop the concept of civil society, for the first time used the word “state” to denote the political organization of society; in his works one can find ideas about the separation of powers and prerequisites for parliamentarism. The ideas of N. Machiavelli gave birth to the modern sociological theory of elites.

2. Characteristics of the ideas of G. Mosca and V. Pareto

G. Mosca - Italian researcher, general, one of the founders of political science. The main works of Gaetano Mosca are “Theory of Government and Parliamentary Government”, “Fundamentals of Political Science”, “History of Political Doctrines”. Mosca devoted the first part of his life to criticizing representative democratic regimes, which he called plutodemocracies. But in the second half of his life, when he had the opportunity to become acquainted with harsh totalitarian regimes, Mosca argued that, despite their flaws, plutodemocratic oligarchies - democratic elites - were the least dangerous to individual freedom.

Elite theories are theories about the division of people in any society into elites and masses. Mosca developed the idea that “in all societies (from the underdeveloped or with difficulty achieving the foundations of civilization to the most developed and powerful) there are two classes of people - the ruling class and the ruled class. The first, always less numerous, performs all political functions, monopolizes power and enjoys the advantages that power gives, while the second, more numerous class is controlled and controlled by the first...” Developing his theory, Mosca developed the “law of social dichotomy”, gave the concept of a political class, defined two types of organization of political governance, the qualities of the political class and the conditions of access to it, ways of consolidating the power of the political class and its renewal, identified two trends in the development of the political class, etc. .

Gaetano Mosca analyzed political dominance based on an organizational approach. “...people acting in a coordinated and uniform manner will defeat a thousand people among whom there is no agreement...”. Access to the political class requires special qualities and abilities. For example, in primitive society military valor and courage were valued, and later money and wealth. But the most important criterion for selection into the elite is the ability to govern, knowledge of the mentality of the people, their national character. G. Mosca cited three ways to update the elite: inheritance, elections or co-optation (replenishing the composition of a body with missing workers without holding new elections, the volitional introduction of new members).

He noted two trends in the development of the ruling class: the desire of representatives of this class to make their functions and privileges hereditary, and on the other hand, the desire of new forces to replace the old ones. If the first tendency (aristocratic) prevails, then the ruling class becomes closed and society stagnates. Depending on the principle of transfer of political power, G. Mosca distinguished autocratic and liberal types of governance. With the first, power is transferred from top to bottom, and with the second, it is delegated from bottom to top.

Independently from Mosca, the concept of elites was developed by Vilfredo Pareto, the founder of empirical sociology and an economist married to Alexandra Bakunina. Pareto was interested in the theory of anarchism and studied Russian. In the field of political science, Pareto became famous for his theory of ideology and theory of political elites. In his works “The Rise and Fall of the Elites” and “Treatise on General Sociology,” he formulated the main provisions of his theory. 8, p.116

According to Pareto, the elite is a valueless term that includes all those who occupy the highest place on a scale that measures any social value: be it power, wealth, knowledge, prestige. The elite is divided into ruling and non-ruling (counter-elite). There are two types of elites - “lions” (tough, decisive leaders who rely on force in management) and “foxes” (flexible leaders who use methods of negotiation, concessions, and persuasion). The development of society occurs through the circulation or cycle of elites: “The history of mankind is the history of a constant change of elites; some rise, others decline.” Pareto considered the issue of "mass circulation of elites" or revolution: the displacement and replacement of the old elite by a counter-elite with the help of the masses. In this process of revolutionary change of elites, many representatives of the old elite (which had fallen into decline) are killed, imprisoned, exiled, or reduced to the lowest social level. However, some of them save themselves by betraying their class, and they often occupy leading positions in the revolutionary movement. Pareto's conclusion is that the main result of revolutionary change is the emergence of a new elite with some admixture of the old.

Vilfredo Pareto (1848-1923) held slightly different views on the formation and justification of the theory of the elite. He talks about the cycle of elites, about their constant change. V. Pareto calls history a cemetery of elites, that is, privileged minorities who fight, come to power, use this power, decline and are replaced by other minorities. Elites tend to decline, and “non-elites”, in turn, are able to create worthy successors to the elite elements. After all, often the children of the elite may not have all the outstanding qualities of their parents. The need for constant replacement and circulation of elites is due to the fact that the former elites are losing energy, the energy that once helped them win a place in the sun.

The idea of ​​maintaining a stable dynamic balance in society, ensuring its entry into a regime of economic, social and cultural well-being, runs as a connecting thread through the economic and sociological works of Vilfredo Pareto. An important factor in sustainable development is the renewal and circulation of elites as an indispensable condition for the coming to power of people with qualities that meet their purpose. This approach can be seen as a kind of Pareto's ideological credo.

Pareto's theory of elites is based on three starting points:

) Society is always heterogeneous, people differ from each other physically, morally, intellectually, social strata arise;

) Power is always concentrated in the hands of a narrow group of people, separated from society by a number of barriers;

) There is a circulation of elements between different parts of society.

To simplify the task, Pareto reduces the multiplicity of social strata and groups to two: 1. The highest stratum, that is, the elite. 2. Lowest layer. In the upper stratum there are two parts: (a) - the ruling elite, and (b) - the non-ruling elite. The elite is broadly defined by Pareto as a group of people distinguished by the highest achievements in a particular field of activity. Belonging to it is determined on the basis of a single criterion - the success of a person’s actions, without assessments in terms of usefulness or harm to society, as well as in ethical and moral terms, the qualities that ensure such success. But later, when using the concept of elite, Pareto appears some ambiguity: he also uses the concept of elite in a narrow sense as a designation of the dominant social stratum. At the same time, the activity approach (the elite consists of those who have achieved the best results and acquired a high reputation through personal efforts) is based on a different principle than the positional or status approach, in which the elite includes all persons occupying the highest positions in formal power structures . This conceptual ambiguity reflects the realities of political relations: the role of the elite is performed both by people worthy of this title and by those who lack elite characteristics. On the one hand, the emergence of an elite is a kind of result of natural selection, during which leading positions are occupied by people due to success in open struggle with rivals; on the other hand, Pareto argues that the label of elite can also be given to people who received it by inheritance or thanks to the patronage of the powerful of this world. The reduction of requirements for those who occupy leadership positions, as the Italian classic of sociology shows, is most clearly manifested in the case when society is in a state of degradation or is embarking on this path. The ruling class's ability to self-preserve depends on its ability to defend its dominance.

The effectiveness of such protection is determined, according to Pareto, by the qualities of the elite, the optimal distribution of “remainders” within it, the presence of circulation within it (between its components), as well as between the dominant and subordinate parts. With a strong slowdown (or artificial limitation) of circulation, there is a danger of weakening the ruling elite, as well as the solidification (“crystallization”) of society. In the case of strong isolation of the dominant group, society, while maintaining its structure unchanged, loses the ability to adapt to changing external conditions and inevitably degrades, since the internal social balance is disrupted, elements of poor quality accumulate in the upper classes and are not removed, which often caused political crises and revolutions.

He considered the justification for the role of the elite to be the desire of society for social balance, and this state is ensured by the interaction of many forces, called elements by V. Pareto. He identified four main elements: political, economic, social and intellectual. Pareto paid special attention to the motivation of human actions, so for him politics is largely a function of psychology. Thus, using a psychological approach in the analysis of society and politics, V. Pareto explained the diversity of social institutions by the psychological inequality of individuals. “Human society is heterogeneous,” wrote Pareto, “and individuals differ intellectually, physically and morally.” We can conclude that V. Pareto defined the elite by its innate psychological properties, and the main idea of ​​the term “elite” is superiority. He even developed a scoring system that characterizes an individual’s abilities in a particular field of activity.

The elite is divided into two parts: “ruling” and “non-ruling”, the first is directly involved in management, and the second is far from directly making government decisions. This small class is kept in power partly by force and partly by the support of the subordinate class. The “resource of consent” is based on the ability of the ruling class to convince the masses that they are right. The likelihood of agreement depends on the elite's ability to manipulate the feelings and emotions of the crowd. V. Pareto wrote: “... government policy is more effective the more successfully it uses emotions...”. But the ability to persuade does not always help one stay in power, so the elite must be prepared to use force.

The theories of the Machiavellian school were widespread in Italy, Germany, and France between the First and Second World Wars. But they became widely known on the American continent. In the 30s A seminar on the study of Pareto was held at Harvard University (his theory of social action was later reworked by structural functionalism). G. Mosca's ideas about the empirical approach to understanding political phenomena, that the object of research is living reality, also contributed to the formation of the Chicago School of Political Science. The World Congress of Political Scientists (Munich, 1970) noted the special role of the Italian school, which served as the starting point for numerous studies of political elites.

3. The meaning of the ideas of Pareto and Mosca

elite oligarchy Mosca Pareto

Assessing the contribution of Gaetano Mosca to the development of Italian and world sociology, we note that his name, like the name of Vilfredo Pareto, is associated with the transition from classical liberal concepts to elite concepts.

The dispute between Mosca and Pareto about priority in this area, which flared up at the beginning of the 20th century, seems pointless in our time. The differences in the theories of both sociologists, as well as in the concepts (“power elite” for Pareto and the “ruling class” for Mosca), while the results are similar, only indicate that both of them saw similar features of the development of their country and expressed a premonition of the onset of totalitarianism.

Researchers of Italian sociology note that the concept of elites was developed in more detail by Pareto, with an emphasis on economic phenomena. Mosca focused on the structure of the political mechanism.

Mosca's main merit is the identification of the elite as a special object of study, the analysis of its structure, the laws of functioning, the rise to power, the causes of degeneration and decline, and its replacement by the counter-elite.

He rejected Marxism quite clearly, and nevertheless, his acquaintance with the works of Marx did not pass without a trace, since in the problem of formation and change of ruling classes, along with psychological factors, the role of private ownership of land, and the emergence of new sources of wealth, and some other ideas were taken into account Karl Marx. Even in his criticism of Marxism, he formally used Marxist terms and style.

Mosca, however, is not a conservative. Rather, he is a thoughtful analyst and astute politician for whom the political situation of his time did not give rosy hopes. His works are painted in minor tones, but he is not a complete pessimist, since he strives to find at least some grounds for political development towards more complete democracy (despite the illusory nature of hopes for democratic ideals), overcoming the bureaucratization of society and the tendency to form an oligarchy .

4. The theory of oligarchy and understanding of the elite by Robert Michels

Robert Michels, a political scientist and sociologist, was born on January 9, 1876 in Cologne, died in Rome on May 3, 1936. He was German by origin, and in 1926 he accepted Italian citizenship. Along with G. Mosca, V. Pareto is considered one of the founders of elitology, as well as the sociology of political parties. That is, unlike Pareto and Mosca, he studied primarily political parties, and not the entire society as a whole.

A completely different rationale for dividing society into a passive majority and a ruling minority was proposed by Robert Michels (1876-1936).

R. Michels is one of the founders of political sociology. He authored a work entitled “The Sociology of Political Parties in Democracy.” Robert Michels discovered the law governing all social organizations and called it the “iron law of oligarchy.” According to this law, human social life is impossible without the presence of large organizations, the leadership of which cannot be exercised by all of their members. In a state organization, as well as in parties, trade unions and other public organizations, churches, etc., power is concentrated in the hands of those who are capable of management, in higher structures that are beyond the control of ordinary members. Even in parties, the ordinary masses, incapable of governing, nominate leaders who, over time, break away from the ordinary members and turn into the party elite. “Historical evolution laughs at all the preventive measures that are used to prevent oligarchy. If laws are passed to control the dominance of leaders, then it is the laws that weaken, not the leaders.”

He explained the reasons for the impossibility of democracy by the following three trends; they are inherent in the essence of man, the characteristics of the political struggle and the specifics of the development of the organization. The development of democracy into oligarchy is partly explained by the psychology of the masses. Michels’ concept of the mass is interpreted as “... a set of mental properties of the mass man in the street: political indifference, incompetence, the need for leadership, a feeling of gratitude to the leaders, the creation of a cult of personality of the leaders...”. These masses cannot themselves manage the affairs of society, so an organization is needed that will inevitably divide any group into those in power and those ruled. Michels later became one of the supporters of fascism, first in Italy and then in Germany. And the embodiment of the strong-willed class that replaced the crisis parliamentarism was fascism led by B. Mussolini.

Michels's first political science works were characterized by maximalism; they argued that true democracy is immediate, direct democracy, and representative democracy carries within itself the germ of oligarchy. However, in his main work, “The Sociology of a Political Party in a Democracy” (1911), Michels comes to the conclusion that oligarchy is an inevitable form of life for large social structures.

Michels's fame is associated primarily with the “iron law of oligarchic tendencies” that he formulated: democracy, in order to preserve itself and achieve stability, is forced to create an organization, and this is associated with the identification of an elite - an active minority in which the masses must trust, since they cannot carry out their direct control over this minority. Therefore, democracy inevitably turns into oligarchy.

Democracy cannot exist without an organization, a managerial apparatus, an elite, and this leads to the consolidation of positions and privileges, to separation from the masses, to the irremovability of leaders, to leaderism. Functionaries of even left-wing parties, especially those elected members of parliaments, change their social status and turn into the ruling elite. Charismatic leaders who raise the masses to active political activity are replaced by bureaucrats, and revolutionaries and enthusiasts are replaced by conservatives and opportunists.

Michels also explored the social mechanisms that give rise to the elitism of society. He especially emphasizes organizational abilities, as well as the organizational structures of society, which stimulate elitism and elevate the governing stratum. He concluded that the very organization of society requires elitism and naturally reproduces it. In society, as in parties, the “iron law of oligarchic tendencies” operates. Its essence is that the development of large organizations inevitably leads to the oligarchization of social management and the formation of an elite, since the leadership of such associations cannot be carried out by all of their members. The effectiveness of their activities requires functional specialization and rationality, the allocation of a leadership core and apparatus that gradually but inevitably escapes the control of ordinary members, breaks away from them and subordinates politics to their own interests, caring primarily about maintaining their privileged position. Ordinary members of organizations are insufficiently competent, passive and indifferent to everyday political activities. As a result, any organization, even a democratic one, is always virtually ruled by an oligarchic, elitist group. These most influential groups, interested in preserving their privileged position, establish various kinds of contacts among themselves, unite, forgetting about the interests of the masses.

From the operation of the “law of oligarchic tendencies” Michels drew pessimistic conclusions regarding the possibilities of democracy in general and the democracy of social democratic parties in particular. He actually identified democracy with the direct participation of the masses in government.

Conclusion

Theories of political elites G. Moschi, V. Pareto. R. Michels. The concept of elites, developing the theme of political power, is an integral part of modern political science. The founders of the theory are representatives of the Italian school, Italians V. Pareto (1848-1923), G. Mosca (1858-1941) and the German R. Michels (1876-1936), who moved from Germany to Italy. Their views belong to the “Machiavellian” school, since it is believed that the elite as a ruling group in society was first considered in the works of their compatriot Machiavelli.

The concepts of the elites of Mosca, Pareto and Michels combine the following ideas:

Special qualities of the elite associated with natural talents and upbringing and manifested in its ability to govern or at least to fight for power.

Elite group cohesion. This is the cohesion of a group, united not only by a common professional status, social status and interests, but also by an elite self-awareness, the perception of itself as a special layer called upon to lead society.

Recognition of the elitism of any society, its inevitable division into a privileged ruling creative minority and a passive, uncreative majority. This division naturally follows from the natural nature of man and society. Although the personal composition of the elite changes, its dominant relationship to the masses is fundamentally unchanged. So, for example, in the course of history, tribal leaders, monarchs, boyars and nobles, people's commissars and party secretaries, ministers and presidents were replaced, but the relations of dominance and subordination between them and the common people always remained.

Formation and change of elites during the struggle for power. Many people with high psychological and social qualities strive to occupy a dominant privileged position. However, no one wants to voluntarily give up their posts and positions to them. Therefore, a hidden or overt struggle for a place in the sun is inevitable.

The leading and dominant role of the elite in society. It performs the management function necessary for a social system, although not always effectively. In an effort to preserve and pass on their privileged position, the elite tends to degenerate and lose its outstanding qualities.

Listliterature

1. Aron R. Democracy and totalitarianism / Transl. from fr. M., 2011.
2. Aron R. Stages of Development of Sociological Thought / Transl. from fr. M., 2013.
3. Gadzhiev K.S. Political science. -M., 2011.
4. Ilyin V.V. Political science. - M., 2012.
5. Makeev A.V. Political science. - M., 2013.
6. Michels R. Sociology of political parties in democracy // Anthology of world political thought. T. 2. - M., 2011
7. Mosca G. Ruling class // Anthology of world political thought: In 5 volumes. M., 1997. Vol. 2.
8. Panarin A.S. Political science. - M., 2014.

Tutoring

Need help studying a topic?

Our specialists will advise or provide tutoring services on topics that interest you.
Submit your application indicating the topic right now to find out about the possibility of obtaining a consultation.

The ideas of political elitism, according to which the function of governing society should be performed by the chosen, the best of the best, aristocrats, appeared in ancient times. We present descriptions of the most common elite theories.

The ideas of political elitism, according to which the function of governing society should be performed by the chosen, the best of the best, aristocrats, appeared in ancient times. These ideas can be most clearly seen in the works of Confucius, Plato, Machiavelli, Carlyle, and Nietzsche. But these ideas have not yet received serious sociological justification. As a certain system of views, elite theories were formulated at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries in the works of Italian thinkers Gaetano Mosca (1858-1941), Wilfred Pareto (1848-1923) and the German sociologist Robert Michels (1878-1936).

G. Mosca's theory of elites

G. Mosca in his work “The Ruling Class” argued that in all societies there are two classes: the class of managers (elite) and the class of the governed. The ruling class is small in number, it monopolizes power and carries out management functions. The dominance of a minority is predetermined by the fact that it is the dominance of an organized minority over an inert, unorganized majority.

The ruling class seeks to strengthen its dominance, using its knowledge and experience in the field of government, military force, priestly status, disseminating and supporting in society the ideology that helps legitimize its power. Entry into the ruling class, according to G. Mosca, is determined by the following criteria: the ability to manage other people (organizational ability), as well as intellectual, moral and material superiority. The ruling class is gradually being renewed.

There are two trends in its development. The aristocratic tendency manifests itself in the desire to transfer power to heirs or close associates, which gradually leads to the degeneration of the elite. The democratic tendency is realized through the inclusion of the best representatives from the governed class into the ruling class, which prevents the degeneration of the elite. The optimal combination of these two trends is most desirable for society, because will ensure continuity and stability in the leadership of the country and a qualitative renewal of the ruling class.

The theory of “circulation of elites” by V. Pareto

V. Pareto, who introduced the term “elite” into political science, just like Mosca, believed that all societies are divided into managers (elite) and the governed. In the elite, he identified two main types, successively replacing each other: the “lion” elite and the “fox” elite. “Lions” are characterized by the use of forceful methods of government and conservatism. “Foxes” prefer to maintain their power through propaganda; they are masters of political and financial combinations, deception, cunning, and resourcefulness. The rule of “foxes” is effective when the political system is unstable, when innovators and combinators are required. But "foxes" are not capable of using violence when it is necessary. Then they are replaced by the “Lions” elite, who are ready to act decisively. The constant replacement of one elite by another is due to the social dynamics of society. Each type of elite has a certain advantage, which gradually ceases to meet the needs of leading society. Therefore, ensuring the balance of the social and political system requires the constant replacement of one elite by another.

Pareto also distinguished between ruling and non-ruling elites. Representatives who are part of the potential elite (counter-elite) are endowed with qualities characteristic of the elite, but do not have power due to their social status. Over time, the ruling elite begins to degenerate and manage society ineffectively, then the counter-elite becomes more active, vying for power. But to come to power, she needs the support of the masses, whom she encourages to take active action and with the help of which she overthrows the ruling elite. Over time, the next ruling elite will also lose its outstanding qualities, fall into decline and be removed from power by a new counter-elite. After some time, the process of “elite circulation” will repeat again and again. Pareto believed that the constant change and circulation of elites makes it possible to understand the historical movement of society, which appears as the history of a constant change of aristocracies: their rise, dominance, decline and replacement by a new ruling privileged minority. Therefore, revolutions, from Pareto’s point of view, are only a struggle between elites, a change in the ruling and potential elite.

“The Iron Law of Oligarchic Tendencies” by R. Michels

R. Michels studied the social mechanisms that give rise to elitism in society and came to the conclusion that the very organization of society requires elitism and naturally reproduces it. The “iron law of oligarchic tendencies” operates in society. Its essence is that the development of society is accompanied by the formation of large organizations. The management of such organizations cannot be carried out by all its members. For effective functioning, organizations (including political parties) require the creation of a system of hierarchically organized management, which ultimately leads to the concentration of power in the hands of the ruling core and apparatus. Thus, the formation of a ruling elite occurs. The ruling elite has advantages over ordinary members: it has greater skills in political struggle, has superior knowledge and information, and exercises control over formal means of communication. Ordinary members of the organization are insufficiently competent, informed and often passive.

The ruling elite gradually escapes the control of its ordinary members, breaks away from them and subordinates politics to its own interests, taking care of maintaining its privileged position. As a result, any organization, even a democratic one, is actually ruled by an oligarchic group, whose members do not cede their power to the masses, transferring it to other leaders. In all parties, regardless of their type, “democracy leads to oligarchization.” This is a pattern of development of a political organization. Oligarchization means that power in an organization is concentrated in the hands of the management apparatus, and the role of ordinary members of the organization in decision-making is decreasing.

The difference between the interests and ideological position of party leaders and members is increasing, with the interests of the leadership predominant. Essentially, Michels formulated one of the first concepts of the bureaucratization of the ruling elite.

Modern concepts of elitism

Classical theories of elites served as the basis for the formation of modern concepts of elitism. In the second half of the twentieth century, various approaches to studying the problem of elitism in society emerged, the leading ones being Machiavellian, value-based, structural-functional and liberal.

Machiavellian approach

The foundations of the Machiavellian approach are laid in the works of G. Mosca and V. Pareto. Representatives of this approach (J. Burnham) are characterized by the idea of ​​the elite as a ruling privileged minority with outstanding qualities and abilities to manage in all spheres of society, and primarily in politics and economics. The main function of the elite is recognized as its managerial, administrative function, which determines its leading, dominant position in society in relation to the passive, uncreative majority of the population. The formation and change of elites occurs during the struggle for power. At the same time, attention is not focused on the moral qualities of elite representatives and the moral aspects of their struggle for power.

Value Approach

In the value approach (Ortega y Gasset, N. Berdyaev), the elite is considered not only as an organized governing minority, but also as the most valuable element of the social system, with high abilities and performance in the most important areas of government activity, caring primarily about the common good . The elite is the most creative and productive part of society, possessing high intellectual and moral qualities. The relationship between the elite and the masses takes on the character of management based on the well-deserved authority of those in power. The formation of the elite occurs as a result of the natural selection by society of the most valuable representatives.

Structural-functional approach

It is typical for the structural-functional approach (G. Lasswell, S. Lipset) to highlight its social status in the system of power structures as the main characteristic of the elite. The elite includes individuals with a high social position in society, occupying key command positions in the most important institutions and organizations of society (economic, political, military), carrying out the most important management functions in society, having a decisive influence on the development and adoption of the most important decisions for society. . G. Lasswell, in particular, believed that intellectual knowledge plays the main role in the development and adoption of political decisions. Therefore, he considered the political elite to be those who possess this knowledge and have the greatest prestige and status in society.

Liberal approach

The liberal approach to the elitism of society (J. Schumpeter, C. Mills) is distinguished by democracy and the denial of a number of rigid attitudes of classical theories of elites. Democracy is interpreted in this approach as competition between potential leaders for the trust of voters. Thus, democracy does not mean the absence of an elite stratum; it is characterized by a new method of recruitment and a new self-awareness of the elite. The elite is viewed as a ruling minority that occupies strategic positions in state and economic institutions of society and has a significant influence on the lives of the majority of people.

Elite theory- a concept that assumes that the people as a whole cannot govern the state and this function is assumed by the elite of society. Elites from different eras were selected based on a variety of characteristics - strength, origin, education, experience, abilities, wealth, etc., developed societies necessarily included the possibility of nominating the most capable representatives of the people.

Gaetano Mosca(1854-1941). He analyzed political dominance based on an organizational approach. “...people acting in a coordinated and uniform manner will defeat a thousand people between whom there is no agreement...” Access to the political class requires special qualities and abilities. But the most important criterion for selection into the elite is the ability to govern, knowledge of the mentality of the people, their national character. Three ways to update the elite: inheritance, elections or co-optation (replenishing the composition of a body with missing workers without holding new elections, the volitional introduction of new members). Trends in the development of the ruling class: the desire of representatives of this class to make their functions and privileges hereditary, and on the other hand, the desire of new forces to replace the old ones. If the first tendency (aristocratic) prevails, then the ruling class becomes closed and society stagnates. Depending on the principle of transfer of political power.

Vilfredo Pareto(1848-1923) He talks about the cycle of elites, about their constant change. Elites tend to decline, and “non-elites”, in turn, are able to create worthy successors to the elite elements. After all, often the children of the elite may not have all the outstanding qualities of their parents. The need for constant replacement and circulation of elites is due to the fact that the former elites are losing energy, the energy that once helped them win a place in the sun.

He considered the rationale for the role of the elite to be society’s desire for social balance, and this state is ensured by the interaction of four main elements: political, economic, social and intellectual. The elite is divided into two parts: “ruling” and “non-ruling”, the first is directly involved in management, and the second is far from directly making government decisions. This small class is kept in power partly by force and partly by the support of the subordinate class.

Robert Michels(1876-1936). He explained the reasons for the impossibility of democracy by the following three trends; they are inherent in the essence of man, the characteristics of the political struggle and the specifics of the development of the organization. The development of democracy into oligarchy is partly explained by the psychology of the masses. The concept of the mass is interpreted as “... a set of mental properties of the mass man in the street: political indifference, incompetence, the need for leadership, a feeling of gratitude to the leaders, the creation of a personality cult of the leaders...”. These masses cannot themselves manage the affairs of society, so an organization is needed that will inevitably divide any group into those in power and those ruled.