From the Ruling Class to the Power Elite

Content

1 Introduction

2 Historical and theoretical background of the term “elites”

3 Classic elite theory by Mosca
3.1 Organized and superior minority
3.2 Monopolization efforts of the Ruling Class

4 Functional elite theories
4.1 Social openness and pluralism
4.2 Selection according to performance
4.3 Strategic elites
4.4 Conclusion and comparison of functional elite theories

5 Critical elite theories
5.1 The Power Elite
5.2 Social cohesion in the upper class
5.3 Reproduction of the Ruling Class
5.4 Conclusion and comparison of critical elite theories

6 Conclusion

7 Bibliography

1 Introduction

Everyone has heard the term “elite” before. But very few know what it means or who exactly it refers to. Defined by the Cambridge Dictionary, the “elite” are “those people or organizations that are considered the best or most powerful compared to others of a similar type”¹. But what makes them “the best” or “most powerful” and how do they get into this privileged position? In our democratic society, it is assumed that education, performance and success are decisive for advancing one to an elite position. Allegedly, anyone can ascend to a privileged elite position. Open access to the elites is one of the central norms of a representative democracy (Hoffmann-Lange, 1986, p. 319).

But does democracy really live up to this norm? Can in fact everyone belong to an elite? To answer this question I would like to present and critically examine three elite theories that differ in content and time. I am not only concerned with access to the elites, i.e. how they recruit themselves, but in the overall context with how a group of influential and powerful people emerges and how they maintain themselves. My argument is that I believe that access to an elite can be understood much better by examining how they emerge and try to maintain their position in society. The question of social access to the elites, therefore, is always a question of how they emerged and how they are maintained. But the main focus will ultimately be on the question of the access of individuals to elites. In this work I will therefore identify the social factors that determine the emergence of, the access to and the maintenance of elites.

I will start with a small historical and theoretical background to the term “elites” itself, since it is often unclear what is meant by elites. Indeed, the term can be used in different ways and with different meanings, as we will see. This is followed by Mosca’s classical elite theory. Unfortunately, due to the limited scope of the work, I have to cut back on the classics of elite theories. However, in terms of the content of Mosca’s theory to the other classics, such as Pareto and Michels, they hardly differ.

The fourth chapter then deals with a contemporary and currently applied elite theory. We are talking about the so-called functional elite theories, which became established in the German social sciences after the Second World War. In English, the representatives of these theories are also called elitists, because they research the elites primarily from their socially relevant and useful side. In this chapter, I will examine both German and English representatives of this theory and discuss their most important findings regarding the access to elites.

The fifth chapter deals with the theories of the critical elite theorists who do not mince their words in criticizing the holders of social power. I will focus on the power-elite theory of C. Wright Mills and the popular French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu. The representatives of critical elite theories deal with elites in their overall social position and their relationship to the other classes. One focus of research is also the question of the interests which the elites represent. In the course of my research this will lead to interesting results.

In the concluding part I would like to summarize briefly what the theories have revealed in relation to my question and thus try to find a powerful answer to my research question. The final part may also ask open questions and, if necessary, give an outlook on further theories and empirical work.

2 Historical and theoretical background of the term “elites”

The phenomenon of elite groups in a society is not a modern phenomenon. The so-called social “elites” have always existed in a variety of societies. The term “elite” originally comes from the Latin word “eligere” or “exlegere”, which means “selected”. In the sociological sense it describes a grouping – actually or presumably – of above-average qualified persons (functional elites, performance elites) or the ruling or influential social groups (power elites, economic elites) (Hartmann, 2018). Elites are thus defined as all those persons who have an outstanding influence on socially significant decisions, that is, who exercise social power (Hoffmann-Lange, 1986, p.318).

The phenomenon of the “selected” was first researched at the turn of the 19th to the 20th century by the classics of elite sociology, such as Mosca (1896), Michels (1911) and Pareto (1916). In the early stages of elite sociology, it was believed that the rule of a small political elite over a large majority of society was inevitable. Unfortunately, this sociological theory was used by the fascist parties in Europe during the Second World War as an ideology to legitimize the establishment of the “leader principle”. Due to the fascist discrediting, the concept of elite in classical theory was redefined in the post-war period (Hartmann, 2004, p. 9). New elite theories and concepts emerged, as we will see later.

Historically, the term “elite” was coined by the emerging middle class as a political slogan against the nobility and clergy during the French Revolution (Hartmann, 2004, p. 9). It’s principle was that individual performance and not family background should become the decisive prerequisite for top and managerial positions in society. In the 19th century, the use of the term changed profoundly. Now it was used as an antonym to the term “mass”. The bourgeoisie was now the “elite” and the industrial working class the urban “mass” from which one wanted to differentiate. The bourgeoisie saw the prevailing order as endangered by political unrest and revolutionary efforts by the masses (ibid.). At this time, the classic elite theories emerged, as I highlighted at the beginning.

To understand the concept of elite in its current meaning and usage, one must examine and contrast classical elite theories and contemporary elite concepts. In the following section I will therefore start with the classic elite theory by Mosca.

3 Classic elite theory by Mosca

The essence of Mosca’s elite theory – outlined in his seminal work “Elementi di Scienza Politica” (1895) – is that there is or must be a minority in every society or state that controls the majority of society. He calls this minority the “classa politica”, which is always translated into “ruling class” in the english version of his book, although “political class” would have been a better translation (Wickel, 1954, p. 589). With the concept of the “classa politica” – in the sense of a “political class” – Mosca wanted to turn decisively against the Marxist approach of class analysis with its concept of the “ruling class” and to express this also in a terminological distinction (Röhrich, 1977, p. 16 ff.). In Mosca’s view, the explanation of the history of domination from economic causes is too one-sided, but nevertheless of great importance. The “political class” in his sense is that class which makes the real political decisions. The starting point of his statement is, that “in all societies – from societies that are very meagerly developed and have barely attained the dawnings of civilization, down to the most advanced and powerful societies – two classes of people appear – a class that rules and a class that is ruled. The first class, always the less numerous, performs all political functions, monopolizes power and enjoys the advantages that power brings, whereas the second, the more numerous class, is directed and controlled by the first, in a manner that is now more or less legal, now more or less arbitrary and violent, and supplies the first, in appearance at least, with material means of subsistence and with the instrumentalities that are essential to the vitality of the political organism” (Mosca, 2008, p. 268).

But what are the specific reasons for a minority to become so powerful? The next section deals with this question and the extent to which this determines access to the elites.

3.1 Organized and superior minority

In Mosca’s view, “the domination of an organized minority, obeying a single impulse, over the unorganized majority is inevitable” (Mosca, 2008, p. 270). A smaller group can logically organize itself much more easily than a larger group of people. Therefore, for organizational reasons alone, a minority has an elementary advantage over a majority or in Mosca’s words “a hundred men acting uniformly in concert, with a common understanding will triumph over a thousand men who are not in accord” (Mosca, 2008, p. 270). So, the ability to organize oneself well is a crucial aspect in taking on the role of a ruling class in Mosca’s theory, and the smaller the group, the more successful it is. We see already here that a “common understanding” and a consensus of values are important for the social cohesion of a ruling class. Moreover, the more united an organization is, the better it functions.

Mosca also sees another advantage in the “ruling minority”. According to him, the ruling minority mostly consist of individuals, who are distinguished from the mass of the ruled “by qualities that give them a certain material, intellectual, or even moral superiority” (ibid.). It is also interesting that he mentions the heirs of persons who possessed these qualities as belonging to the ruling class (ibid.). The members of the ruling class regularly have real or apparent characteristics that are highly valued and that have a great influence on their society (ibid.). Mosca comes to the conclusion that the “intellectual” superiority of the ruling minority does not lie in the biological inheritance of certain characteristics, but – entirely in keeping with Bourdieu and Mills – in their upbringing, the family transmission of behavior and attitudes, as well as other environmental influences. More than anything else, traditions and milieu influences determine the strength, weakness and mediocrity of such qualities in every larger group of people (Mosca, 1950, p. 63).

As far as “intellectual superiority” is concerned, Mosca sees in science or in the professions based on it a new social force, which however balances the material influence of the rich and the moral influence of the clergy only to a certain extent (Mosca, 1950, p. 126). This shows that, according to Mosca, social access to the ruling class is linked to exclusive personal qualities or to being a descendant of the members of the ruling class. It depends on economic, intellectual or moral qualities whether one is part of the ruling class. These characteristics are often socialized or, as Bourdieu would say, habitually learned.

With regard to “material superiority”, he points out that in advanced societies it is above all wealth that becomes the characteristic feature of the ruling class, instead of the warlike capacity that was decisive in earlier stages of a society's development. Wealth now forms the basis of political power. His conclusion is that “the ruling classes are now the rich and no longer the strong” (Mosca, 1950, p. 58). Historically, wealth was initially based on the ownership of land, but increasingly, due to industrialization and trade, wealth is based on money. Mobile wealth in the form of money was also superior to immobile wealth in the form of land because it was easier to organize. Again, organization is an important factor in the emergence and maintenance of a ruling class in Mosca’s theory.

Mosca even goes so far as to say that the “plutocracy”, that is, the rule of money or the rich, is the most powerful of all material forces. A “tiny number of men” could control all the major banks, transport companies or other corporations in a country. This tiny number of men, who would have hundreds of millions at their disposal, could win over “economic groups of every kind” or even “intimidate and corrupt ministries, legislative bodies, and newspapers” (Mosca, 1950, p. 128). We will see later that this concept of elites has many parallels to Mill’s “power elite” and Bourdieu’s “ruling class”. One parallel to Mill’s and Bourdieu’s theory of elites that becomes very clear here is the dominance of the economic or wealthy group of people within the elites.

3.2 Monopolization efforts of the Ruling Class

Regarding the emergence and maintenance of the ruling class, Mosca makes a very interesting basic statement. The ruling class owes its rule not to hereditary traits – this idea was still widespread at the time – but to the possession of “social forces” which gave them the necessary intellectual and economic superiority. Therefore, any change in the social forces – such as the establishment of money as a new source of wealth – must also lead to changes in the composition of the ruling class (Mosca, 2008, p. 274). Consequently, this would inevitably lead to disputes over power. He concludes that the whole of history can be explained “by the conflict between the desire of the ruling class to monopolize and inherit political power and the aspiration of new forces to change the balance of power” (Mosca, 1950, p. 64). We are currently familiar with this phenomenon in the political debate about ‘left’ and ‘right’ politics or liberal and conservative attitudes. These descriptions of Mosca show us that the ruling class is not spared from the “Zeitgeist”.

Mosca sees another factor in the maintenance of a ruling class in its tendency to heredity, both factual and often legal. As mentioned above, wealth and formerly military courage would be passed on in families through tradition and direct inheritance, and thus even children are familiarized with the practice of high politics. This aspect is also addressed by Mills in his theory of the power elite. With regard to public offices, which are theoretically accessible to everyone through service rendered, the barriers remained, since the majority of the population lacks the resources for the long education, but also the lack of connections in an “unaccustomed milieu without leaders and helpers” (Mosca, 1950, p. 62). This passage is reminiscent of Bourdieu, who would describe the lack of resources as lacking “economic capital”, which serves to be transformed into “cultural capital”, i.e. education. Since the ruling class has a material superiority over the masses, it can afford the long education of its children, which in turn leads to the maintenance – or as Bourdieu would say “reproduction” – of the ruling class.

Mosca explains the extent to which access to the ruling class is limited. In his view, relatively stable social conditions favor the monopolization efforts of the ruling class. This includes parliamentary systems of government. In his view, the absence of major crises makes it increasingly easy for the younger generation to “move into the positions of their fathers”. Thus, “a small world would emerge, a clique of influential families into which new men would have difficulty finding entry” (Mosca, 1950, p. 218). Even capable men from the lower class would be restricted in their advancement. According to Mosca, the consequence of this is that the ruling class is becoming “increasingly poor in bold, combative characters and richer in soft, yielding individuals” (Mosca, 1950, p. 104). One might think that the members of the ruling class become weary of success with continued rule, especially if they are already the descendants of members of the ruling class. The lack of energy of the ruling class could be compensated to some extent by its higher culture, greater wealth and strong cohesion, but in the long run the ruling class is no longer able to respond adequately. The political regime would collapse “at the first serious blow from outside or inside” (Mosca, 1950, p. 105).

We have already seen that the ruling class seeks to monopolize power in order to maintain itself. In the long run, however, this would not be possible because there are always newer forces with a will to rise. As a result, a part of the lower class is forced to interpenetrate the upper class. Mosca emphasizes once again how important it is that the characteristics of the ruling class are contemporary. For if they are not, that is, if they lose their significance or disappear completely, then the ruling class is threatened with an inevitable downfall. In such a case, the composition of the ruling class will inevitably change (Mosca, 1950, p. 65). This is why it is so important not to close the door to the ruling class completely, as is the case in aristocracies. According to Mosca, the work of rulers only has lasting significance if they “bring about a contemporary transformation of the ruling class” (Mosca, 1950, p. 277).

The democratic tendency to open up access to the ruling class, on the other hand, can only be evaluated as positive if the social climbers have the prerequisites to quickly “acquire the best qualities of the old ruling class”. It would be harmful if the “old masters were to a certain extent absorbed and assimilated by the newcomers,” because the ruling class would then not receive the necessary “refreshment of blood,” but would become “a mob itself” (Mosca, 1950, p. 344). In these drastic words, Mosca’s low esteem for the masses or lower classes is evident. This is probably also the biggest difference to the “more modern” elite theories of the postwar period, which do not assume a dichotomous power relation between elite and masses. With this knowledge, Mosca laid the first building blocks for further theoretical elaboration of elite theories before the end of the Second World War. The functional elite theory is therefore examined in the following chapter.

4 Functional elite theories

In the post-war period, a new concept in elite research was increasingly discussed. The starting point was the criticism of the thesis of a dichotomous distribution of power in the models of the classic elite theorists. It was criticized that these models would not be applicable in the current socio-political system due to the high degree of differentiation and complex forms of division of labor (Weege, 1992, p. 41). Various authors then came to the conclusion that due to the differentiation of society as a whole into different subsystems, society-wide leadership groups would also have to be composed of different parts of the elite. A political elite would therefore only be a partial elite that would have to share power in a society with other partial elites (Weege, 1992, p. 42). The best-known German representatives of this theory are Dahrendorf, Dreitzel, Zapf and Stammer (Hartmann, 2004, p. 50). Otto Stammer defined this elite theory as follows:

“Elites are the more or less closed social influence groups that break away from the broad strata of society and its larger and smaller groups by way of delegation or competition in order to assume a certain function in the social or political organization of the system” (translated from: Stammer, 1965a, p. 71).

Thus, “functional elites” are social or political leadership groups that have special influence in a differentiated, pluralistic society, bear certain responsibilities and assume specific performance, planning and coordination functions. For Stammer, in the political system these are primarily the government bodies, the leading parliamentary faction groups, the higher ministerial bureaucracy, the top positions in the provincial administration, the union leadership groups, and the spokespersons of politically relevant associations. According to the model, the functional elites should represent the will of the people in the process of political decision-making, through the initiation and articulation of interests, and contribute to social integration by balancing heterogeneous group interests. In this sense, they assume the necessary steering functions in society and thus contribute to the functioning of democracy (Felber, 1986, pp. 26, 44). But how does one get in an elite position according to the functional elite model?

[...]

¹ (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/elite)