Elite theory

1. The theory of elites.

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

1.2 Basic theories of the elite

1.3 Typology and systems of elite recruitment 2. 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" in translation from French means "the best, selected, selected", "the best of its kind."

In another, narrower meaning, the concept of "elite" refers to the best, most valuable group for society, standing above the masses and called upon by virtue of possessing special unique qualities to control them, create models and norms of behavior, and direct social development.

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

Such outstanding political thinkers as the ancient Chinese philosopher Confucius (the doctrine of "noble men" who, due to their high moral qualities, are called upon to rule the state), the ancient thinker Plato (the theory of a hierarchically-estate state under the rule of sages - philosophers (guards)), N. Machiavelli (his idea of ​​the eternal conflict between the aristocracy and the people), the 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 the superman standing above moral norms and realizing their power instincts).

In the subsequent period of development of social - philosophical thought, intellectual (H. Ortega - and - Gasset), creative (A. Toynbee), property and status - i.e. persons with the highest prestige and status (G. Lassuel), domineering - i.e. endowed with a 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 carriers of the most pronounced political and managerial qualities and functions, all those who have a significant impact on the functioning of power and the formation of politics. 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 party members, parliament members) and "shadow" (members of pressure groups , business leaders, mafia, leading journalists, political experts and advisers).

1.2 Basic theories of the elite

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

The most famous representatives of the Machiavellian school are the Italian sociologists G. Mosca (1858 - 1941) ("Foundations of Political Science") and V. Pareto (1848 - 1923) ("Treatise on General Sociology"), as well as the German sociologist R. Michels (1876 - 1936). With all the differences in theoretical concepts, all Machiavellianists are united by the following ideas: 1) The elite of any society has special qualities obtained from nature or inculcated 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 according to inheritance - thanks to this, any ruling elite has a hereditary character; 3) The elite rallies into a single group, united by a common social position and the perception of themselves as a collective of selected people, called upon to lead society; 4) The elite inevitably appears in any society, since people are not equal by nature, and it is required to select the best of them who can effectively manage; 5) Only the composition and character of the ruling class of society changes (before it was headed by monarchs, now presidents, before there were nobles, now there is 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 a gradual renewal of the composition and the infusion of "fresh blood" into it; 7) Any elite goes through the stages of formation, flourishing (peak of popularity), weakening and death; 8) The formation and change (circulation) of elites occurs in the course of the struggle for power: the winner gets power and privileges, and the loser goes into oblivion - as V. Pareto wrote, “history is a cemetery of aristocrats”; 9) An elite cut off from the broad masses is inevitably formed not only on the scale of the entire society, but also within the framework of any established public organization (administrative institution, political party, trade union) - sooner or later a group of officials - managers who take control of the main levers of power ("the iron law of the oligarchy").

So, for example, the sociologist R. Michels mentioned by us, examining in his study "Sociology of a political party in a democracy" the relations within the German Social Democratic Party at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries, showed how the elite of 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 readiness to serve the 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 rallies not on the basis of existing privileges and opposition to the majority of society, but in the process of professional cooperation in solving 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 decline;

Following this approach, the Russian philosopher N.A. Berdyaev, on the basis of studying the experience of the development of different countries and peoples, derived the so-called "elite coefficient" - the percentage of the ruling elite to the total number of literate people in the country - an indicator 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 "upper and ruling stratum 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 C. Mannheim. Its main provisions boil down to the following: 1) Democracy inevitably leads to the limitation of the power and privileges of the elite, to the strengthening of public control over it, but still does not completely eliminate them, since even with it, natural social inequality and the need for qualified management persist; 2) Democracy is impossible without a democratic elite that remains faithful to the fundamental values ​​of democracy and is able to ensure 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, in contrast to the educated elite of society, more often gravitate not towards democracy, but towards the "strong hand" and dictatorship - therefore, the elite must educate and guide them. This is especially relevant in connection with the fact that many mass movements that existed in history under democratic slogans ultimately led to the establishment of a dictatorship (workers', socialist, national liberation, etc.); 4) In this regard, the social apathy of the bulk of members of society is more favorable for democracy than their active political participation; 5) The main content of democracy in this case is reduced to the competition between potential leaders for trust and votes. At the same time, researchers of the 60s and 70s criticized the statements of this theory about the democracy 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, 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 disregard 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, proceeds from the following provisions: 1) The ruling elite is not something single and monolithic, but is divided into groups according to functions and types of activity - from this it follows that its power and influence are by no means absolute. Thus, on the basis of the functional approach, the German sociologist R. Darendorf singled out among the elite: a) political leaders; b) economic leaders; c) professors and teachers; d) the 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 the adoption of decisions unfavorable for it (the so-called "veto group") - thus, no serious political decision can be implemented without prior coordination. For example, a 1950 study by the American psychologist F. Hunter showed that in the relatively small city of Atalanta it is impossible to possess the absolute power of one person or group, and there is a large number of competing interest groups. 3) Various groups and segments of the elite do not rise over society, but are directly related 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 be nominated to the political elite. The left-liberal theory of the elite, authored by the American sociologist and publicist of the left-wing (neo-Marxist) orientation Charles R. Mills (1916 - 1962), offers a general critical analysis of the true nature and role of the "ruling stratum" of American society: 1) The main principle underlying the formation of the ruling elite - not outstanding individual qualities, but the possession of leading positions; 2) The ruling elite includes not only "professional politicians", but also closely related and supportive corporate leaders, 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 climbing up the social ladder; 4) Belonging to the elite is inherited by the next generations through elite upbringing and education, as well as a system of connections and acquaintances (this gives the heirs of elite families an advantage over those who come from the people); 5) America's ruling elite strives not to meet the needs of society, but to strengthen its own domination and economic well-being of the business groups associated with it - it is to this task that its management tasks are subordinated. Thus, according to Mills, the ruling elite is a closed group, with their way of life challenging the entire society. Thus, in modern political science there are various 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 aspect of the elite - neither its isolation and hostility to the majority of society, nor its disinterestedness in serving public interests, nor the degree of unity of the elite, nor the acuteness of 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 governors - this makes the division of society into managers and governed inevitable; 2) The chances of various 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 the power in their country was usurped by the elite of higher educational institutions - in France, people from the middle class receive mainly liberal arts education and are engaged in teaching or 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 higher government posts, ministries and departments, which practically guarantees them a successful administrative career; 3) Since the whole society is purely physically and due to the lack of special knowledge cannot participate in making political decisions, they are inevitably taken by a limited circle of people; 4) Social and economic inequality persists in a democracy, and citizens do not always strive to participate in the management of society and are able to effectively control power; 5) The nature and quality of the ruling elite inevitably depend on the level of development (economy, culture, civic consciousness, etc.) of a particular society - they determine the ability of citizens to achieve from the ruling stratum adherence to certain legal and moral norms, the realization of public, and not their own corporate interests.

The functions of the political elite traditionally include: 1) Study, analysis and reflection in political programs and attitudes 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 ideas and programs - i.e. developing a strategy for the country's economic and social development, defining its long-term goals, choosing effective ways to implement them, shaping domestic and foreign policies; 4) Implementation of management, development and adoption of political decisions; 5) Formation (appointment, relocation, removal) of the apparatus of the political governing bodies of the country, promotion of political leaders from among them.

1.3. Typology and systems for recruiting elites

In modern political science, the following classifications of elites by type are distinguished on the basis of certain criteria: 1) Depending on the sources of influence and authority, the elites are subdivided into: a) hereditary, i.e. those who received their status by inheritance (for example, chivalry or noble aristocracy); b) value-based - i.e. elevated due to the possession of valuable qualities for society (education, authority, high morality); c) imperious - 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) imperious, which includes all those who have power, i.e. "party in power"; b) oppositional - i.e. elite groups removed from power and striving to return to it. 3) By the nature of relations with society: a) open - i.e. admitting people from the most diverse strata of their society into its ranks; b) closed - i.e. recruiting new members from their own group or layer (for example, the nobility); 4) In relation to one or another level of management: a) the highest - state leaders who are directly involved in the adoption of important political decisions; b) middle - members of society with a high status, elite profession or education (on average, about 5% of the population of any country); c) marginal - persons who have high indicators only in one or two of the above characteristics: for example, high-quality education without high income, or high income without a prestigious job or education; 5) By 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 their will on the majority and not allowing members of society to exercise control; c) liberal - taking into account the views of the managed and allowing them to participate in the discussion of the decisions made; 6) By occupation:

a) the 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, lobbyists, participating in politics, etc.);

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

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

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

Among the conditions that ensure the successful functioning and strong political positions of the ruling elite are usually named: 1) Representation - a strong connection of a certain segment of the elite with the group that "spawned" and nominated it - for example, the connection of trade union "bosses" with ordinary members of their trade union , party leaders - with grassroots cells and rank-and-file party members; 2) Efficiency - i.e. the ability of the ruling elite to successfully solve the problems facing society; 3) Integration - i.e. unification of various groups of the ruling elite of society or an agreement on certain values ​​or "rules of the game" in order to preserve their own positions and stability in society (pacts, agreements of consent, consensus); 4) Full-fledged recruiting of the elite (i.e. replenishment of its composition, selection of new members to it, taking into account certain requirements for them. Political scientists distinguish two main systems for recruiting the elite - the guild system and the so-called entrepreneurial (entrepreneurial) system. are: 1) Closure from society, restricting access to the elite of new members; 2) New members are recruited mainly from the lower layers of this very same elite; 3) The presence of large restrictions and requirements (filters) for new members entering the elite: education, origin, loyalty, party affiliation, seniority, characteristics of the leadership, etc.; 4) The limited number (circle) of persons who select new members to the elite; 5) Due to the recruitment (selection) of their own kind, the main social and psychological features of the existing type of elite are preserved. The strengths of the guild recruiting system are: the continuity of the composition and the preservation of agreement within the elite, the cut-off of potential oppositionists and internal stability. Its obvious disadvantages are bureaucracy, conformism, difficulty in promoting "upward" talented people who are capable of initiating the necessary changes, stagnation and inability to respond to changes in the situation and crises. The features of the entrepreneurial (entrepreneurial) recruiting system, respectively, are: 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 (giftedness, competence, initiative, compliance with moral requirements, etc.); 3) A wide range of people who select new members to the elite (within the framework of democracy, they include the majority of society, all voters in the country); 4) Sharp rivalry, competition for the right to take leading positions; 5) The personal qualities and individual merits of the applicant for a place in the elite are of great importance in the selection. A similar recruiting system exists in countries with an established democratic form of government. The advantages of the entrepreneurial system are that it values ​​gifted and outstanding people, is open to new leaders and innovations, and is generally under the control of society. Its shortcomings are just as obvious: a high degree of risk and threat of instability, the danger of acute confrontation and split in the elite, the possibility of choosing to a leading position not a professional who is responsible to society, but a demagogue and populist. It should be remembered that even in a democracy, along with elements of an entrepreneurial system, there are elements of a guild selection system: they are subordinate to the formation of higher echelons, advancement on the "upper echelons" of power, and recruitment of power structures (army, police) and special 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 citizens' participation in politics.

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

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

1) World outlook - it includes the ideas of society, a group and an individual about politics and the political picture of the world, as well as norms, values, symbols, attitudes and guidelines that are guided by participants in political life;

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

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

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

Political culture is a fairly ancient phenomenon, and it exists as long as there is a society. Much of what constitutes the content of political culture (rules of political participation and norms of behavior in politics, forms of people's attitude to power, political ideas, stereotypes and values) were described by the political thinkers of antiquity (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. XX 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 scholars 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 subjects of politics (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. Pleino), a way of political activity (W. Rosenbaum) consider it an integral part and one of the manifestations of politics.

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

The study of the political culture of society is necessary, since it allows us to understand the meaning of those phenomena of political life, the nature of which does not allow us to reveal 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 state leaders, the causes of numerous and varied political conflicts that cannot be explained by the struggle for power and for the redistribution of resources (ethnic, religious, ideological and other conflicts);

3) Allows you to better understand the reasons for "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.

Studies carried out in the 50s - 70s are a clear confirmation of the importance of studying political culture (i.e., the system of preferences for certain political values ​​and values) of a particular society. 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 one's interests - through family, personal and narrow corporate ties or through the creation of broad civic associations that publicly defend the interests of their members - residents of different regions Italy is given 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 persons serving one patron), a trade union by a racketeer gang, an association by an offshoot of the mafia, etc. Accordingly, in politics, the inhabitants of these so different provinces behave differently: Turin and Milanese are conscious and active, while the Neapolitans are predominantly apolitical. Another famous American sociologist R. Patnam, who investigated the institutions established in Italy in the 70s. the bodies of regional self-government, had to draw essentially similar conclusions (See: R. Putnam For Democracy to Work. M., 1996). The main one is that the effectiveness of democratic and self-government mechanisms depends on the level of civicness of the local population. In the north of Italy, where this level was traditionally high, regional governments have successfully worked for the good 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 participate in decision-making in an extremely small number; corruption and favoritism flourish.

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

1) residents of both capitals and large interregional centers, which are characterized by the formation of group interests, active participation in politics, 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 inherent orientation towards the figure of the local chief and his guardianship; at the same time, group interests and mechanisms of 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 do not have a formed model of political consciousness and behavior at all, and local affairs and interests have practically supplanted interest in political processes on a national scale; At the same time, people themselves are politically passive, and expect instructions or encouragements from their immediate superiors and higher authorities.

Thus, the connection between the characteristics of the individual and group political culture of individuals with one, 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, it is impossible to maintain political stability, the normal functioning of the political system and the full participation of the individual in politics.

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

1) Identification - political culture reinforces in a person the consciousness of his belonging to a society, country or a particular social group, helps to determine the possible means and methods of personal, group and public interests through the institutions and mechanisms of politics;

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

3) Adaptation (adaptation) - allows a person to adapt to the changing political environment, 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 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 of a favorable attitude among members of society towards the existing political system and its institutions;

6) Integration - uniting various strata 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) Communication - ensures the interaction of institutions of power and other subjects of politics (parties, movements, social strata and groups) on the basis of 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, formed and established within the framework of political culture, lead to the creation of new political institutions, procedures and mechanisms (for example, the idea of ​​a constitutional limitation of the powers of the monarch, separation of powers, universal suffrage, etc. etc.);

9) Ensuring continuity in the political structure and in political life - political culture achieves this by combining 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, special, different types of national political culture were formed in them. As a result, they are characterized by the predominance of various political values ​​and attitudes (obedience or the desire for freedom, collectivism or individualism), a different attitude towards the state and different forms of attitude towards power.

Differences in political culture are predetermined by a number of political circumstances, among which are 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 the types of political culture was developed by the American political scientists G. Almond and S. Verba and described by them in the essay "Civic Culture" (New York, 1963). Comparing the political systems of Great Britain, Italy, USA, West 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 (prevailing for underdeveloped (African and part of Asian) countries with strong remnants of tribal and compatriot relations, and in developed countries - for a part of rural residents);

2) Subject, with the prevalence of which people have a general understanding of 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 punishment from the authorities for disobedience and rewards for obedience and discipline (most often found in "transitional" and undergoing transformation societies, where new principles and forms of political relations are still being formed);

3) Activist - under him, citizens are politically literate and conscious, are interested in politics and actively participate in political life, influencing the state 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", but in a "mixed" form. Combining in a certain combination and proportion, they form the civic culture of the society. For the existence of a stable and sustainable democracy, a harmonious combination of activist and subject types of political culture is necessary, since democracy is not only freedom and activity, but also responsibility, obedience to laws, rules and principles.

In addition to the "classical" one, in political science there is a fairly large number of other classifications of political culture. The same G. Almond in his other, later research, respectively, distinguishes its homogeneous, fragmented, mixed and totalitarian types. Each of them is characterized by the following general features:

1) The homogeneous one 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 over based on the rule of law and taking into account the interests of all parties to 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 on the basic principles of the political structure and rules of behavior 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 socio-economic and culturally underdeveloped countries and societies, split into warring groups on national, religious, cultural and political grounds (countries of the "Third World");

3) A mixed type of political culture combines its homogeneous and fragmentary types - i.e. on some issues there is consensus in society, but on others, tough confrontation persists (for example, in some of the developed and multinational countries of the West (Canada, Great Britain, Belgium) there is a consensus on 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 prevalence of collectivist psychology and values ​​in society, general intolerance of dissent, ignorance of individual and group interests different from the "national", the cult of an unlimitedly strong state power, relying on force in resolving conflicts, the search for internal and external enemies , on which, with the aim of rallying and mobilizing society, universal hatred is directed (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.

The 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 is 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 hostility 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 can result in mutual extermination and civil war).

Usually, 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 United States and mining towns in the north-west in England, various territorial groups of Cossacks (Don, Black Sea, Ural, Siberian) and indigenous people of the north-western regions (Pomors) in Russia.

At the same time, there are subcultures that were formed not according to territorial, but according to religious, social, household or gender and age 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 socio-cultural 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 and insoluble conflict 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 bearers of different 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 consent 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 actively acting 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 to split society, to create a single national culture on the basis of existing national - tribal and territorial subcultures (especially typical for African countries).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

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

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

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

5. Ashin G.A. Modern theories of the elite. M., 1985; Its the same. The ruling elite and society. // Free thought, 1993, no. 7; Its the same. Change of elites. // Common Science and Modernity, 1995, No. 1.

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

7. Badovsky D.V. Transformation of the political elite of Russia. // Polis, 1994, no. 6.

8. Kryshtanovskaya OV Transformation of the old nomenclature into a new Russian elite. // Common science and modernity, 1995, no. 2.

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

10. Zheltov V.V. Contemporary Western Political Science. Kemerovo: KemSU, 1993, Ch. 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 the political culture of Russia. // Social sciences and modernity, 1996, No. 1.

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

The first classical concepts of elites emerged in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

The Italian legal scholar Gaetano Mosca, in his two-volume work Fundamentals of Political Science, substantiated the idea that in all societies, from the most average developed and barely attained the rudiments of civilization to the enlightened and powerful, there are two classes of persons: the class of managers and the class of the ruled. 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, it supplies him with the material means of support necessary for the viability of the political organism. Mosca also analyzed the problem of forming (recruiting) the political elite and its specific qualities. He believed that the most important quality of 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 there are two trends in its dynamics: 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 prevalence 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 managing and active lower strata. Such renewal prevents the degeneration of the elite and makes it capable of effectively leading society. The 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 of G. Mosca, the theory of political elites was developed by Vilfredo Pareto in his scientific work "On the Application of Sociological Theories." He also proceeded from the fact that the world at all times should be ruled by an elected minority endowed with special psychological and social qualities - the elite. This elite differs from others in high performance and operates with high performance in a particular field of activity. The totality of such individuals constitutes the elite. It is divided into the ruling, which directly or indirectly participates in management and the non-ruling counter-elite. The counter-elite are people who also have psychological qualities characteristic of the elite, but 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 a periodic change, the circulation of elites. The reason for this circulation lies in the fact that the ruling elite strives to preserve their privileges and pass them on to people with non-elite qualities. This leads, on the one hand, to a qualitative deterioration in its composition, on the other, to a quantitative growth of the counter-elite. The latter, relying on the disaffected masses, overthrows the ruling elite and establishes its own rule. 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 contribution of Mosca and Pareto to modern political theory is mainly associated with the definition of the structure of power and focusing on the group nature of the implementation 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 investigated the social mechanisms that give rise to the elitism of society. Agreeing with his predecessors, he emphasizes organizational abilities as the reasons for elitism, as well as the organizational structures of society that stimulate elitism and raise the ruling stratum. Michels formulated the so-called "iron law of oligarchic tendencies." This law is sometimes called the "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 organizations. The effectiveness of such organizations requires the rationalization of functions, the allocation of a leading nucleus and apparatus, which gradually, but inevitably, get out of the control of ordinary members, break away from them and subordinate politics to the leadership's own interests and are primarily concerned only with 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, an oligarchic, elite group is always in fact ruled. From all this, Michels drew pessimistic conclusions about 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 later (mainly after the Second World War) and empirical studies of groups leading the state or claiming it. Contemporary theories of elites are diverse. Historically, the first group of theories that have not lost their modern significance are the concepts of the Machiavellian school already briefly considered (Mosca, Pareto, Michels, etc.). They are united by the following ideas:
1. Special qualities of the elite associated with natural gifts and upbringing and manifested in its ability to manage or at least to struggle for power.
2. Group cohesion of the elite. This is the cohesion of the group, united not only by a common professional status, social position and interests, but also by elite self-awareness, the perception of oneself 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, non-creative majority. This division naturally follows from the natural nature of man and society. While the personal composition of the elite is changing, 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 relationship of domination and subordination between them and the common people was always preserved.
4. Formation and replacement 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 surrender their posts and positions to them.
5. In general, a constructive, leading and dominant role of the elite in society. It performs the function of management necessary for the social system, although not always effectively. In an effort to preserve and inherit its privileged position, the elite tends to degenerate, the loss of their outstanding qualities. Machiavellian theories of elites are criticized for exaggerating the importance of psychological factors, antidemocracy and underestimation of the abilities and activity of the masses, insufficient consideration of the evolution of society and modern realities of the states of "universal prosperity ”, a cynical attitude to the struggle for power. This criticism is largely justified.
The value theories of the elite (N. Berdyaev, H. Ortega y Gasset) are trying to overcome the weaknesses of the Machiavellianists. They, like Machiavellian concepts, consider the elite to be the main constructive force of society, but soften their position in relation to democracy, seek to adapt the elite theory to the real life of modern states. Diverse value concepts of 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 general attitudes:
1. Belonging to the elite is determined by the possession of high abilities and indicators in the most important spheres of activity for the whole society. The elite is the most valuable element of the social system, focused on meeting its most important needs. In the course of development, many old ones die off in society and new needs, functions and value orientations arise. This leads to the gradual displacement of the carriers of the most important qualities for their time by new people who meet modern requirements. Thus, in the course of history, there was a change in the aristocracy, embodying moral qualities and, above all, honor, education and culture, by entrepreneurs, whose economic initiative society needed. The latter, in turn, are replaced by managers and intellectuals - bearers of knowledge and managerial competence that are so important for modern society.
2. The elite are relatively cohesive on the healthy basis of their leadership functions. This is not an association of people striving to realize their selfish group interests, but cooperation of persons who care first of all about the common good.
3. The relationship between the elite and the masses is not so much of the nature of political or social domination as of leadership, which presupposes 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, less knowledgeable and experienced. It is in the interests of all citizens.
4. The formation of the elite is not so much the result of a fierce struggle for power as a consequence of the natural selection of the most valuable representatives by society. 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, not equality of results, 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 come to the finish line at different times and with different results. Social “champions” and outsiders will inevitably appear.
Valuable ideas about the role of the elite in society are prevalent 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 the leftist 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 politics. Elitism is derived from the special psychological and social qualities of people. Natives of the people can take 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 prerequisites for the emergence of the theory of elites

2. Characteristics of the ideas of G. Mosk 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" in translation from French means "the 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 scale of measurements. In this sense, the term "elite" is used in such phrases as "elite grain", "elite horses", "sports elite", "elite troops", "thieves' elite", etc.

In the second sense, 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 very term "aristos" means "the best", respectively, the aristocracy - "the rule 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 the adoption and implementation of decisions related to the use of state power. We write further. Characteristics of the political elite: it is an independent, superior, privileged group, endowed with special qualities - psychological, social and political. This group occupies dominant positions in the social hierarchy.

That is, all theories of the elites are based on a well-defined concept of society. That society consists of two dissimilar parts - the elite, which is in charge of government and the rest of the society.

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

Work tasks:

.Examine the literature on the subject of work.

.Consider the historical prerequisites for the emergence of the theory of elites.

.To characterize the ideas of G. Mosk and V. Pareto and their significance for the theory of elites.

.Analyze the theory of oligarchy and the understanding of Edita Robert Michels.

1. History and prerequisites for the emergence of the theory of elites

Interpretations of the term "elite" are different, some believe that the authenticity of the elite is provided by a noble origin, others rank the richest in this category, and still others - the most gifted. It is believed that entering the elite is a function of personal merit and merits, while G. Mosca and V. Pareto believe that for inclusion in the elite, the social environment from which a person emerged is first of all 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 estate of rulers-philosophers (this is the elite); the furious part, the virtue of which is manifested in courage, is the class of warriors; 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 the formation of the ruling elite: selection into the elite, upbringing and education of potential elite leaders.

But Confucius divided society into "noble men" (the ruling elite) and "low people" (commoners) on the basis of their attitude to moral commandments. He revealed the image of the ruling elite through social qualities; the former, in his opinion, follow the 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. In accordance with his theory, observance of moral standards gave the right to rule.

All the rationales for this division were originally based on various kinds of religious, moral and moral views, and the first to build the concept of elites based on the experience of observing real political events were representatives of the Italian school of political sociology: N. Machiavelli, G. Mosca, V. Pareto, Zh 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, was the first to use the word "state" to denote the political organization of society, in his writings one can find the ideas of the separation of powers, the preconditions for parliamentarism. The ideas of N. Machiavelli gave life to the modern sociological theory of elites.

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

G. Mosca - Italian researcher, general, one of the founders of political science. Major works of Gaetano Moschi "Theory of government and parliamentary government", "Foundations 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 get acquainted with harsh totalitarian regimes, Mosca argued that, despite their flaws, the pluto-democratic oligarchies - democratic elites - are 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 those who have hardly reached 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 ruled and controlled by the first ... ". Developing his theory, Mosca developed the "law of social dichotomy", gave the concept of the political class, defined two types of organization of political governance, the quality of the political class and the conditions of access to it, ways to consolidate 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 through an organizational approach. "... people acting in a consistent and uniform manner will defeat a thousand people between whom there is no agreement ...". Access to a political class presupposes special qualities and abilities. For example, in primitive society, military valor and courage were valued, later money and wealth. But the most important criterion for selection to the elite is the ability to govern, the availability of knowledge about the mentality of the people, their national character. G. Mosca cited three ways to renew the elite: inheritance, elections, or co-optation (replenishment of the composition of a body with missing workers without holding new elections, 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 old ones. If the first tendency (aristocratic) prevails, then the ruling class becomes closed and society stagnates. Depending on the principle of the transfer of political power, G. Mosca singled out an autocratic and liberal type of government. In the first, power is transferred from top to bottom, and in the second, it is delegated from the bottom up.

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

According to Pareto, the elite is a meaningless 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 relying on strength in management) and "foxes" (flexible leaders using methods of negotiation, concessions, persuasion). The development of society takes place through the circulation or circulation 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 the counter-elite with the help of the masses. In this process of revolutionary elite change, many members of the old (declining) elite are killed, imprisoned, expelled, or reduced to the lowest social level. However, some of them escape by betraying their class, and they often occupy leading positions in the revolutionary movement. Pareto's conclusion is that the main result of revolutionary changes is the emergence of a new elite with some admixture of the old.

Vilfredo Pareto (1848-1923) adhered to several different views in the formation and substantiation of the theory of the elite. He talks about the cycle of elites, about their constant change. V. Pareto calls history a graveyard 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 for elite elements. After all, children of the elite often do not have all the outstanding qualities of parents. The need for constant replacement and circulation of elites is due to the fact that the former elites are losing energy, the one that helped them once to win a place under the sun.

The idea of ​​maintaining a stable dynamic balance in society, ensuring its entry into the 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 viewed as a kind of Pareto ideological credo.

The Pareto elite theory is based on three basic assumptions:

) 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;

) Between different parts of society, there is a circulation of elements.

To simplify the problem, Pareto reduces the multiplicity of social strata and groups to two: 1. The upper stratum, that is, the elite. 2. The lowest layer. In the upper stratum, there are two parts: (a) - the ruling elite, and (b) - not the ruling elite. The elite in a broad sense is defined by Pareto as a group of people distinguished by the highest achievements in a particular field of activity. Belonging to it is revealed 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 the ethical and moral plan of the qualities that ensure such success. But in the future, when using the concept of elite, Pareto has some ambiguity: the concept of elite is also used by him in a narrow sense as a designation of the dominant social stratum. At the same time, the activity approach (the elite is made up of those who have achieved the best results and acquired a high reputation thanks to personal efforts) is based on a different principle than the positional, or status approach, in which all persons occupying the highest positions in formal power structures are referred to the elite. ... This conceptual ambiguity reflects the realities of political relations: the role of the elite is played by both people worthy of this title and those who are devoid of elite characteristics. On the one hand, the emergence of the elite is a kind of result of natural selection, in the course of which people occupy leading positions due to their success in open struggle with rivals, on the other hand, Pareto argues that the elite label can also have people who inherited it or thanks to the patronage of the strong. of this world. Reducing the demands on those who occupy a leading position, as the Italian classic of sociology shows, is most clearly manifested in the case when society is in a state of degradation or enters this path. The ability of the ruling class to preserve itself depends on its ability to defend its rule.

The effectiveness of such protection is determined, according to Pareto, by the qualities of the elite, the optimal distribution of "residues" in it, the presence of circulation within itself (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 solidification ("crystallization") of society. In the case of strong isolation of the dominant group, while maintaining its structure unchanged, society loses its ability to adapt to changing external conditions and inevitably degrades, since the internal social balance is disturbed, elements of poor quality accumulate and are not removed in the upper classes, which often caused political crises and revolutions.

The rationale for the role of the elite, he considered society's striving for social balance, and this state is provided by the interaction of many forces, named by V. Pareto, elements. He identified four main elements: political, economic, social and intellectual. Pareto paid special attention to the motivation of human actions, therefore, for him, politics is to a large extent a function of psychology. Thus, using the 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 not homogeneous," wrote Pareto, "and individuals differ intellectually, physically and morally." It can be concluded 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 point grading system that characterizes the ability of an individual 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 direct decision-making in power. This small class is held 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 of their own righteousness. The likelihood of consent depends on the ability of the elite to manipulate the feelings and emotions of the crowd. V. Pareto wrote: "... the government's policy is the more effective, the more successfully it uses emotions ...". But the ability to persuade does not always help to stay in power, so the elite must be ready to use force.

The theories of the Machiavellian school were spread in Italy, Germany, France between the First and Second World Wars. But wide fame came to them 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 an empirical approach to the cognition of 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 the concepts of elites.

The dispute between Mosca and Pareto about the priority in this area, which flared up at the beginning of the 20th century, seems pointless in our time. Differences in the theories of both sociologists, as well as in concepts (the "ruling elite" in Pareto and the "ruling class" in Mosca), despite the similarity of the results, 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 in 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.

Moska's main merit is the identification of the elite as a special object of research, analysis of its structure, the laws of functioning, coming to power, the reasons for its 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 the formation and change of the 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 a shrewd politician, who was not given bright hopes by the political situation of his time. His works are painted in minor tones, but he is not a complete pessimist, as he seeks to find at least some basis for political development towards more complete democracy (despite the illusory hopes for democratic ideals), overcoming the bureaucratization of society and the tendency towards the formation of 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 a German by birth, in 1926 he took Italian citizenship. Along with G. Moska, 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 political parties in the first place, and not the whole society as a whole.

A completely different justification 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 penned a work entitled "The Sociology of Political Parties in a Democracy." Robert Michels discovered the law governing all social organizations and called it "the iron law of the oligarchy." According to this law, human social life is impossible without the presence of large organizations, the leadership of which cannot be carried out by all of their members. In a state organization, as well as in parties, trade union and other public organizations, churches, etc., power is concentrated in the hands of those who are capable of management, in higher structures that are getting out of the control of ordinary members. Even in parties, the rank-and-file masses, incapable of governance, nominate leaders who, over time, break away from the rank and file 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 domination of the leaders, then from this the laws are weakened, and not the leaders. "

He explained the reasons for the impossibility of democracy with the following three tendencies, they are inherent in the essence of a person, in the peculiarities of political struggle and in the specifics of the development of an organization. The growth of democracy into an oligarchy is partly due to the psychology of the masses. Michels interprets the concept of mass as "... the totality of the mental properties of the common man: political indifference, incompetence, the need for leadership, a sense of gratitude to the leaders, the creation of a cult of the leaders' personality ...". These masses cannot manage the affairs of society themselves, therefore an organization is needed that will inevitably divide any group into ruling and subordinate. Later Michels 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.

The first political science works of Michels were distinguished by their maximalism; they asserted that true democracy is direct, direct, democracy, and representative democracy bears the germ of oligarchism. However, in his main work Sociology of a Political Party in Democracy (1911) Michels comes to the conclusion that oligarchy is an inevitable form of life for large social structures.

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

Democracy cannot exist without an organization, an administrative apparatus, an elite, and this leads to the consolidation of posts and privileges, to separation from the masses, to the irreplaceability of leaders, to leadership. Even the functionaries of left-wing parties, especially those elected by parliament members, change their social status and turn into the ruling elite. Charismatic leaders, who roused 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 emphasizes organizational skills, as well as the organizational structures of society, stimulating elitism and uplifting the governing layer. 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 lies in the fact that the development of large organizations inevitably leads to the oligarchization of the management of society 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 governing nucleus and apparatus, which gradually, but inevitably, get out of the control of rank-and-file members, break away from them and subordinate politics to their own interests, care, first of all, to preserve their privileged position. Ordinary members of organizations are not competent enough, passive and indifferent to everyday political activities. As a result, any organization, even a democratic one, is always actually ruled by an oligarchic, elite group. Such most influential groups, interested in preserving their privileged position, establish various kinds of contacts with each other, rally, 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. In fact, he equated democracy with the direct participation of the masses in government.

Conclusion

Theories of political elites G. Mosca, 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, the Italians V. Pareto (1848-1923), G. Mosca (1858-1941) and the German R. Michels (1876-1936), who moved from Germany to Italy. Their views are attributed to the "Machiavellian" school, since it is believed that for the first time the elite as the ruling group in society was considered in the works of their compatriot Machiavelli.

The concepts of the elites of Mosca, Pareto and Michels are united by the following ideas:

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

Group cohesion of the elite. This is the cohesion of the group, united not only by a common professional status, social position and interests, but also by elite self-awareness, the perception of oneself 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, non-creative majority. This division naturally follows from the natural nature of man and society. While the personal composition of the elite is changing, 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 relationship of domination and subordination between them and the common people was always preserved.

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 surrender their posts and positions to them. Therefore, a hidden or explicit struggle for a place under the sun is inevitable.

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

Listliterature

1. Aron R. Democracy and totalitarianism / Per. with fr. M., 2011.
2. Aron R. Stages of Development of Sociological Thought / Per. with 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. Moska G. The ruling class // Anthology of world political thought: In 5 volumes. M., 1997. V. 2.
8. Panarin A.S. Political science. - M., 2014.

Tutoring

Need help exploring a topic?

Our experts will advise or provide tutoring services on topics of interest to you.
Send a request with the indication of 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 managing society should be performed by the chosen, the best of the best, aristocrats, appeared in ancient times. We present descriptions of the most common theories of elites.

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

The theory of elites by G. Mosca

G. Mosca in his work "The Ruling Class" asserted that in all societies there are two classes: the class of managers (elite) and the class of the ruled. The ruling class is small in number, it monopolizes power and exercises administrative functions. The dominance of the 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 consolidate its domination, using its knowledge and experience in the field of government, military force, priestly status, spreading and supporting in society the ideology that contributes to the legitimization of its power. Joining the ruling class, according to G. Mosca, is conditioned 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 renewing itself.

There are two trends in its development. The aristocratic tendency is manifested 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 ruled class in the ruling class, which prevents the degeneration of the elite. The optimal combination of these two tendencies is most desirable for society, since will ensure continuity and stability in the country's leadership and a qualitative renewal of the ruling class.

The theory of "circulation of elites" 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 governed. In the elite, he singled out two main types, successively replacing each other: the elite of "lions" and the elite of "foxes". The "lions" are characterized by the use of forceful methods of government, conservatism. "Foxes" prefer to maintain their power with propaganda, they are masters of political and financial combinations, deception, cunning, 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 necessary. Then they are replaced by the elite of "lions" 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 the leadership of society. Therefore, ensuring the balance of the social and political system requires the constant replacement of one elite with another.

Pareto also singled out the ruling and non-ruling elites. Representatives of the potential elite (counter-elite) are endowed with qualities characteristic of the elite, but do not have power because of their social status. Over time, the ruling elite begins to degenerate and ineffectively manage society, then the counter-elite becomes more active, claiming power. But in order to come to power, it needs the support of the masses, which it encourages to take action and with the help of which it overthrows the ruling elite. The next ruling elite will eventually lose its outstanding qualities, decline and be ousted from power by the new counter-elite. After a while, the process of “circulation of elites” will repeat itself over and over 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 aristocrats: their rise, rule, decline and replacement by a new ruling privileged minority. Therefore, revolutions, from the point of view of Pareto, are only a struggle of elites, a change of the ruling and potential elite.

"The iron law of oligarchic tendencies" by R. Michels

R. Michels studied the social mechanisms that give rise to the elitism of 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 lies in the fact that the development of society is accompanied by the formation of large organizations. The leadership of such organizations cannot be exercised by all of its members. For organizations (including political parties) to function effectively, it is necessary to create 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 the ruling elite is taking place. The ruling elite has advantages over the rank-and-file members: it is more skilled in political struggle, has superiority in knowledge and information, and exercises control over formal means of communication. Ordinary members of the organization are not competent enough, informed and often passive.

The ruling elite is gradually getting out of the control of its rank-and-file members, breaking away from them and subordinating 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 regularity in the 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 leaders and members of parties is growing, with the predominance of the interests of the leadership. Essentially, Michels formulated one of the first concepts of 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 the study of the problem of elitism of society developed, the leading among which are Machiavellian, value, structural and functional and liberal.

Machiavellian approach

The foundations of the Machiavellian approach were 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 possessing outstanding qualities and abilities to manage in all spheres of society, 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 replacement of elites takes place in the course of the struggle for power. At the same time, attention is not focused on the moral qualities of the elite and the moral aspects of its struggle for power.

Value approach

In the value approach (Ortega-y-Gasset, N. Berdyaev), the elite is viewed not only as an organized governing minority, but also as the most valuable element of the social system, possessing high abilities and performance in the most important spheres of state 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 is acquiring the character of governance based on the well-deserved authority of those in power. The formation of the elite occurs as a result of natural selection by society of the most valuable representatives.

Structural-functional approach

For the structural-functional approach (G. Lasswell, S. Lipset), it is typical to single out its social status in the system of power structures as the main feature 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), performing the most important managerial functions in society, having a decisive influence on the development and adoption of decisions that are most important for society ... G. Lasswell, in particular, believed that intellectual knowledge plays the main role in the development and adoption of political decisions. Therefore, he referred to the political elite 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 denial of a number of rigid attitudes of the classical theories of elites. Democracy is interpreted in this approach as a competition between potential leaders for the confidence of voters. Thus, democracy does not mean the absence of an elite stratum; it is characterized by a new way of recruiting and a new identity of the elite. The elite is viewed as a ruling minority that occupies strategic positions in the state and economic institutions of society and has a significant impact on the lives of most people.

Elite theory- a concept that assumes that the people as a whole cannot rule the state and this function is assumed by the elite of the society. Elites of different epochs were selected according to various criteria - strength, origin, education, experience, ability, 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 through an organizational approach. "... people acting in a consistent and uniform manner will defeat a thousand people between whom there is no agreement ...". Access to a political class presupposes special qualities and abilities. But the most important criterion for selection to the elite is the ability to govern, the availability of knowledge about the mentality of the people, their national character. Three ways to renew the elite: inheritance, elections or co-optation (replenishment of the composition of any body with missing workers without holding new elections, 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 old ones. If the first tendency (aristocratic) prevails, then the ruling class becomes closed and society stagnates. Depending on the principle of the transfer of political power.

Wilfredo 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 elite elements. After all, children of the elite often do not have all the outstanding qualities of parents. The need for constant replacement and circulation of elites is due to the fact that the former elites are losing energy, the one that helped them once to win a place under the sun.

The rationale for the role of the elite, he considered society's striving for social balance, and this state is provided 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 direct decision-making in power. This small class is held 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 with the following three tendencies, they are inherent in the essence of a person, in the peculiarities of political struggle and in the specifics of the development of an organization. The growth of democracy into an oligarchy is partly due to the psychology of the masses. The concept of the masses is interpreted as "... the totality of the mental properties of the common man in the street: political indifference, incompetence, the need for leadership, a sense of gratitude to the leaders, the creation of a cult of the leaders' personality ..". These masses cannot manage the affairs of society themselves, therefore an organization is needed that will inevitably divide any group into ruling and subordinate.