involvement and detachment, from principles to practice bloyce and murphy 2007

© Copyright Irish Journal ofSociotogy ISSN 0791-6035Vol. 16.1, 2007, pp. 3-21

Involvement and detachment, from principles to practice:A critical reassessment of The Established and the Outsiders

DANIEL BLOYCE and PATRICK MURPHYDepartment of Sport and Exercise ScienceUniversity of Chester

ABSTRACT: In this paper we revisit The Established and the Outsiders (Eliasand Scotson 1965; second edition 1994). We argue that Elias was so intentupon demonstrating the heuristic value of his theory of established-outsiderrelations that he allowed these concerns to cloud his assessment of Scotson'sdata. We argue that the paradox is Elias had already developed more sophis-ticated and flexible tools for analysing the dynamic complexities of humanfigurations. Finally, we suggest that the problems Elias encountered inmaintaining an effective degree of detachment in this study may lead to awider appreciation of the difficulties facing anyone wishing to move from anunderstanding of the principles of the involvement-detachment thesis totheir practical application.

KEYWORDS: established-outsiders, power relationships, human figurations,involvement and detachment.

Preamble

We shall begin this paper by refiecting upon the way in which the problem thatforms its centrepiece emerged. When we attempted to apply the concepts 'estab-lished' and 'outsiders' in the context of writing and supervising a doctoral thesis,they proved to be unhelpful (Bloyce 2004). The difficulties we encountered donot seem to have been recognised by figurational sociologists or their critics.This experience led us to return to Elias's seminal work, co-authored with JohnL. Scotson, The Established and the Outsiders, which was first published in 1965.Elias is rightly coming to be regarded as one of the most important sociologistsof the twentieth century and we readily acknowledge our intellectual debt to Eliasand others working within a figurational framework. Accordingly, our aim in thispaper is to assess the value of this theory within the parameters of the figurationaltradition.

4 Irish Journal of Sociology

We set out to trace the aetiology of the two concepts in Elias's intellectual deve-lopment and how these processes resulted in The Established and the Outsiders.We shall outline the specific roots of this book and how the empirical data used inthis study were gathered by Scotson in the course of researching for his MA thesis,a project that centred on a particular community and its delinquency problems. Weshall next provide a synopsis of the book and explore how Elias's commitment todemonstrating the heuristic value of the concepts 'established' and 'outsiders' led

• him to neglect a range of relevant issues. In this connection we shall survey theevidence that we think was probably gathered yet remained unreported, the ques-tions that were left unasked, the avenues that went unexplored and the speculativeleaps made - leaps that were, in our view, probably engendered by a desire tosustain their overall thesis. We then move on to an assessment of how Elias cameto subordinate his broader commitment to an approach that was based on examiningthe complex dynamics of power relationships to the specific concerns that pre-occupied him when writing this book. How then are these shortcomings to beunderstood? In our view Elias and Scotson's analysis seems to have been undulyinfluenced by the former's overriding wish to demonstrate the heuristic value of theconcepts of the established and the outsiders and this concern particularly affectedElias's selection and interpretation of the evidence. We conclude that theirargument can best be understood as a kind of self-fulfilling prophesy because theirtreatment of evidence seems to have been geared to a prior objective. Thus, TheEstablished and the Outsiders provides an interesting example of the way in whichintellectual commitments - in much the same way as ideological commitments -can lead to a level of involvement that detracts trom the adequacy of the emergingexplanation.

The theory of established-outsider relations

Stephen Mennell (1989: 115-6) characterises the emergence of the theory ofestablished-outsider relations as follows:

[Elias] sought categories which, though simpler in themselves, would yetenable him to grapple better with the complexities of inequality actuallyobserved within the flux of social relationships. The eventual outcome washis theory of established-outsider relationships... The model arose out of astudy of a small community near Leicester in the middle years of the twen-tieth century. The outcome was the book The Established and the Outsiders:A Sociological Enquiry into Community Problems (1965).

According to Mennell and Goudsblom (1998: 25), Elias's flrst reference to theestablished-outsiders distinction was 'in the report on an empirical study, carriedout with John L. Scotson'. For Mennell, the continuity between the subsequentbook - The Established and the Outsiders - and Elias's earlier concerns is deep and

Involvement and detachment 5

readily apparent. He poitits to 'a clear connection with discussions in TheCivilising Frocess of elite manners, of the shame mechanism and of ambivalentrelationships between social groups, which have played so impoiiant a part in thelonger term development of societies on a larger scale' (1989: 120-1). He alsomakes reference to EHas's 'earliest published discussion of an established-outsiderrelationship, his 1935 essay on the expulsion of the Huguenots from France',(1989: 121; see Elias, 2006). It therefore seems certain that in The Established andthe Outsiders, Elias was pursuing problems that had long occupied his mind.There also appears to be a high level of unanimity in 'figurational circles' on themore general applicability of the theory. As Mennell (1989: 27) points out, 'Eliaslater spelt out how the model could be applied to a whole range of socialinequalities - between ethnic groups, colonized and colonising, children andadults, gays and straights, men and women and so on." For example, Mennell andGoudsblom (1998: 27) characterise 'established' and 'outsiders' as being for Elias'what Herbert Blumer called sensitising concepts, pointing to the complexities ofinequality actually observed within the flux of social relationships'. Robert vanKrieken (1989: 27) similarly writes that 'the more general significance of thestudy was that Elias regarded the power relations he encountered in Winston Parva[the pseudonym employed by Elias and Scotson for the community studied in TheEstablished and the Outsiders] as particular examples of a model or "empiricalparadigm" of established-outsider figurations which can be found in numerousother settings and on larger scales'. Mennell (1989: 116; emphasis in the original)concludes that, although The Established and the Outsiders 'was not widely readat the time, the effect of this book can be seen clearly in much of the work onpresent-day social problems undertaken by sociologists under EHas's influence'.^On this basis there can be little doubt about either the importance attached to thiswork in figurational eircles or regarding its largely uncritical acceptance.^

The Established and the Outsiders: placing the study in context

Situating The Established and the Outsiders in the preceding literattire on com-munity studies is not a straightforward task. The difficulties relate, first, to thesheer diversity of the studies that come under this rubric and their 'non-cumulativenature' (Bell and Newby 1974: 3); secondly, to the fact that Elias and Scotson offerfew clues to the literature in community studies that they drew upon'' and, thirdly,when writing The Established and the Outsiders, Elias seems to have been 'otherdirected'. That is to say he was not so much interested in community per se.Rather he conceived of the study as a means to a broader end, namely, demon-strating the heuristic merits of the theory of established-outsider relations. Be thatas it may The Established and the Outsiders can still be seen to eonstitute some-thing of a break with the approach to community studies that prevailed at the timeit was written. The authors' approach diverged from the persuasive tendency toromanticise the notion of community, a tendency dating back at least as far as


Tönnies and, indeed, one that is still common today. It was also at explicit variancewith the functionalist paradigm that had hitherto been dominant. Their analysisshifted the balance away from a one-sided preoccupation with processes of inte-gration to one that took more account of social conflict. In this respect theircontribution was acknowledged and welcomed by Bell and Newby (1974: 5)because as they observed: 'community conflict is a sadly neglected facet of mostcommunity studies'. In their Preface to The Established and the Outsiders, Eliasand Scotson (1965: ix) wrote that, as their study proceeded, they gradually becameaware that some of the problems they were addressing 'had a paradigmatic char-acter: they threw light on problems which one often encountered on a much largerscale in society at large'. This is an illuminating statement for at least two reasons.Firstly, it establishes the general importance of this study as a watershed in thecrystallisation of Elias's ideas on established-outsider relations. Secondly, itprovides flrst hand testimony to the fact that these insights did not come like a boltout of the blue. They had been occupying his mind for some considerable time.The first of Elias's points provides justification for revisiting this study. Thesecond will come to form part of our critique.

Mennell and Goudsblom are in no doubt about the division of labour involvedin the production of The Established and the Outsiders. They write: 'While Scotsoncollected the field data, it was Elias who did the conceptual and theoretical work'(1998: 25). Scotson was a part-time MA student and schoolteacher. His thesis wason delinquency in an area that included a school at which he had taught and wasconducted under Elias's supervision.' It principally involved a comparison betweentwo ostensibly similar working class neighbourhoods, one where delinquency rateswere high and another where they were low. They wrote that 'in the third year of theresearch the delinquency differentials between the two larger neighbourhoods ...practically disappeared' (1965: ix). Their disappearance was accounted for by thefact that the 'problem families' that had been the chief source of the delinquencyhad moved out of the area. The authors later added that 'it would have required aprolongation of the research beyond its allotted time to investigate the long-termeffects of this "experiment" on the relationship between the two neighbourhoodsand especially on the traditional image which the established residents had formedof the outsiders' (1965: 85). Be that as it may, in Mennell's (1989: 21) words 'Eliasreworked it [the MA thesis] with Scotson for publication, using it as a vehicle forthe theoretical elaboration of ideas which had been in his mind at least since the1935 essay on the Huguenots, and perhaps since his childhood as a Jew inGermany'. It seems clear that in this endeavour Elias decided to 'make do' withmaterial gathered in the furtherance of the original project. Such an exercise is, ofcourse, entirely legitimate as long as its limitations are recognised. It is highlylikely that data gathered for Scotson's initial project on delinquency would havehad some relevance for the later Winston Parva one. It is equally likely that thelatter would have given rise to specific data requirements of its own. Therefore, thequestion arises how did the long fermentation of these ideas impact upon Elias's


interpretation of the evidence gathered in the service of another project? However,before exploring this issue, it is necessary to provide an overview of the WinstonParva study.

Winston Parva: its development and social profile

Winston Parva was the vision of Charles Wilson, a paternalistic capitalist. Duringthe 1880s he formed a company with a view to constructing a community withhouses, shops and a chtirch. The intention was that the new residents would furnishthe labour for his factories. Elias and Scotson (1965:13) recounted that, in the1950s and 1960s, some of the residents still recalled how he 'drove through thestreets of the township he had created in his horse-dravm carriage raising his top hatto the new "villagers'". This helps to explain why one of the central groups in thishtxman figuration came to see themselves as 'villagers' and referred to their sectionof what became a larger community as the 'village'. The impression given byElias and Scotson is of 'the villagers' as a traditional community, conservative inoutlook, churchgoing, deferential to those above them in the status hierarchy andwith the expectation that respect would be forthcoming from those below them inthe pecking order. During the period encompassed by the authors' study, anothercharismatic figure, a Councillor Drew, seems to have been the dominant figure inWinston Parva. As might be expected in a more democratic age, the basis of hispower was distinctive from that of the seemingly more aloof Charles Wilson.Drew's power was not simply based on his economic position, but also on hispolitical and cultural leadership.

In the 1920s and 1930s, the deferential structure of the community was rein-forced by the construction of detached and semi-detached houses on an adjacentpiece of land. These properties came to be occupied by professional and businesspeople. The authors referred to this section of Winston Parva as Zone 1. This waswhere Councillor Drew and his 'inner circle' resided. Over the years, some of themore prosperous inhabitants of the village. Zone 2, as it came to be designated bythe researchers, moved into this area. Therefore, some families came to havebranches in both these sections of the community. Also in the 1930s and in the faceof opposition from the 'villagers', the Council developed another piece of adjacentland. It seems that the 'villagers' regarded the resultant properties as 'below theirstandard' (1965: 14). These new houses came to be occupied by families who camefrom Durham, Lancashire, Wales and Ireland (1965: 19) and also by the families ofsoldiers from a local regiment (1965: 15). With the bombing of London during theSecond World War, they were joined by a substantial number of employees of anEast End instrument factory that was relocated to Winston Parva (1965: 71). Theresearchers designated this section of Winston Parva Zone 3.

This, then, provides a bare sketch of how the social profile of Winston Parva inthe mid-twentieth century came to emerge. However, this picture is far from com-plete because, within each of the zones, there was further social differentiation.


While Zone 1 was a predominantly middle-class area, it also contained a smallenclave of working-class houses. Zone 2 consisted of two sections. Firstly, therewas the area in which the working-class 'village elite', the established, livedtogether with a pocket of slightly better houses with middle-class occupants. Therewas also a pocket of lower working-class residents located in what was seen as the'bad end' of this section of Zone 2 (1965: 36). Secondly, there was the area wherethe majority of the zone's 'non-elite' working-class lived. Zone 3 housed thenewcomers, the outsiders. They were composed largely of working-class peopleemployed in skilled and semi-skilled occupations, together with a small groupwho were characterised as 'problem families' and whose occupational status waspredominantly unskilled. This latter group accounted for most of the delinquencyin the community.

The principal axis of tension investigated by Elias and Scotson was the rela-tionship between Zones 2 and 3. They placed particular emphasis on the relativecohesiveness of the established group in Zone 2, the control it exercised over localassociations and its use of 'praise gossip' to enhance its own image and 'blamegossip' to denigrate and stigmatise the inhabitants of Zone 3, the outsiders (1965:91). For this purpose, the established group used the presence of a small group ofmiddle-class residents in their zone, 'a minority of the best', to enhance their ownreputation, while characterising all the residents of the Estate in terms of the'problem families' in their midst, 'a minority of the worst'. The authors arguedthat, so successful were the established in this endeavour that the newcomers cameto acquiesce in their own 'group disgrace' and acknowledge the 'group charisma'of those who stigmatised them. This, then, is the central thesis of The Establishedand the Outsiders.

Evidential problemsEvidence seemingly gathered but not presented

In 1958, Winston Parva had 4,185 residents. They were distributed as follows:Zone 1 had 456 inhabitants. Zone 2 had 2,553 and Zone 3 had 1,176. Scotson'carried out interviews with members of every thirteenth household on the electoralregister in each of the three zones.'' Even though these data were collected withanother project in mind it is difficult to imagine that they would not have providedmany insights into the broader power structure of Winston Parva. Accordingly, itremains puzzling as to why the views of the middle-class majority in Zone 1 werebarely reported and why the views of the working-class minority - some 59 people -in this zone were ignored.' Likewise, what were the perspectives of the middle andlower working-class minorities in the elite section of the 'village'? Even the viewsof the 'non-elite' working-class majority of Zone 2 were only heard sporadically.

More specifically, how did the middle-class majority of Zone 1 view theworking-class contingent in their own zone? The authors reported that the latter'spresence was unacknowledged by all the other groups in Zones 1 and 2. In the


event, this group disappeared from Elias and Scotson's sight. Were none of thisworking-class minority included in the interview schedule? It could be argued thatthis group was a possible competitor for the title of 'outsiders'. Another com-petitor group for this label could have been the working-class minority at the 'badend' of one of the elite streets of Zone 2, but once again silence reigns. Agreed,these two groups do not appear to have been overtly stigmatised, but is not beingseemingly totally ignored an insidious form of stigmatisation? In the event, theresearchers appeared to have accepted without comment the general unwillingnessof Zones 1 and 2 to acknowledge the presence of these groups. Again, how did themiddle-class majority of Zone 1 view the middle-class minority in their zone whowere active in community affairs through the medium of the voluntary asso-ciations? How did they view those residents who had moved there from Zone 2?How did they view the middle-class minority in Zone 2? How did this middle-class minority view themselves and the aspirations of thé 'village elite'? Were theyactive in the community or did they try to distance themselves from the othergroups in their neighbourhood and identify with the outward looking middle-classgroups in Zone 1? What of the different levels of involvement of the inhabitants ofZone 3 in the voluntary associations? The authors revealed that 'five of the peopleinterviewed in Zone 2 had relatives in Zone 3' (1965: 72). When multiplied by afactor of 13 - every thirteenth household was interviewed - this produces the notinsubstantial figure of 65 households with crosscutting ties between the two zonesthat were central to Elias and Scotson's established-outsider thesis. How werethese ties established? Were they the result of marriage or by families movinghouse? What implications did these ties have for the social standing of the familiesin Zone 2? Did the family members in Zone 2 try to distance themselves from theirrelatives in Zone 3? Did their relatives in Zone 3 derive any kudos from havingfamily ties with Zone 2? In the event Elias and Scotson provide little, if any, dataon these and many other issues. Their apparently rich source of interview materialwas left largely untapped.

Speculative leaps

The authors posed many questions that are relevant to an understanding of thepower structure of Winston Parva. In the present context, highlighting two of themmust suffice. For example, they speculated that 'if one had asked the "villagers"they would probably have said they did not want an Estate at their doorstep, and ifone had asked the Estate people they would probably have said they would rathernot settle near an older neighbourhood such as the "village"' (1965: 156, emphasisadded). The obvious point to make is why were questions that were so pertinent toElias and Scotson's thesis raised but not pursued? Another indication that theresearchers' central preoccupation with proving the sociological value of theestablished-outsiders distinction detracted from the object-adequacy of their studyis the trajectory of a number of what we think were unwarranted assumptions on

1 o Irish Journal of Sociology

their part. For example, they wrote: 'the role of a lower status group in which theywere placed and the indiscriminate discrimination against all people who settled onthe estate must have early discouraged any attempt to establish closer contactswith the older groups' (1965: 156, emphasis added). The operative phrase is 'musthave'. The question arises why must it have? Was this assumption made because it

[ was supportive of the authors' thesis? It is, of course, one thing to hypothesise, butquite another to make unsupported assertions. Suffice to say, in the presentcontext, such claims as those cited above, remain problematic in the absence ofsupportive evidence.

Avenues left unexplored

Space permits only one example of a neglected research avenue in the presentcontext. It is, however, an avenue that is crucial to the authors' thesis. One of itscentral planks was the alleged cohesiveness of Zone 2 as opposed to the relativeabsence of this characteristic in Zone 3. Yet we are told that 'the "Londoners" ...formed, at least at the outset, a fairly compact group' (1965: 18, italics added).That they were relatively well integrated when they arrived in Winston Parvawould not be surprising, given that they worked for the same East End firm. Butwhat are we to read into the phrase 'ai least at the outsefl Was it that theresearchers had been unable to determine whether or not the cohesiveness of thisgroup had been sustained or diminished? They appear to have been betterinformed about the past - some 20 years earlier - than they were about the periodin which their research was conducted. One fruitful venue for exploring this issuewould have been the nature of relationships in the pub. After all, '"locals" [pubs]were among the central institutions of Winston Parva's community life.' (1965: 16).There were two pubs in Winston Parva, 'The Eagle' and 'The Hare and Hounds'. Itseems that, 'of the 25 people from the Estate [interviewed] one mentioned [fre-quenting] "The Eagle", and 19 "The Hare and Hounds'" (1965: 76). Repeating theearlier exercise and multiplying this latter figure by their sample factor of 13produces 247 customers. Elias and Scotson were centrally concerned with thecontrasting levels of social cohesion in two sections of the community. The Hareand Hounds was a major context in which people from what was held to be theless cohesive section socialised. It, therefore, remains puzzling as to why theauthors should have ignored one of the principal venues in which the relativecohesion of this group might have found its strongest expression. It is difficult toavoid the conclusion that this and other issues were not pursued because the

' authors were primarily concerned to emphasise the differences between these twosections of the Winston Parva community.

Thus, while acknowledging that evidence gathered for the delinquency thesis islikely to have had some relevance to the established-outsiders project, the gaps inknowledge that were bound to arise when using it for a wider purpose could onlyhave been bridged effectively by additional theoretically informed research. Such


gaps cannot be papered over by signpost questions that are left unexplored, or bymere assertions aimed at offering a semblance of support for the thesis. We willnow turn to the central issue of the balance of power in Winston Parva.

Exploring the complex dynamics of power in Winston Parva

From an Eliasian perspective, power is a polymorphous pi-operty of social rela-tions (Elias, 1978: 92-4). For example, while one dimension of power may favourone party in a relationship, another dimension may advantage another party.Relationships in Winston Parva were a case in point. When compared with theresidents of Zone 3, the 'village elite' had more control over the local associationsand, because of their stronger social cohesion, they had a greater capacity to usepraise and blame gossip as a means of maintaining their particular view of thestatus hierarchy. However, if we reflect upon the relative susceptibility of thevarious parties to internalising the dominant definitions, the emerging picturebecomes more problematic. We dispute Elias and Scotson's statement that 'theresidents of Zone 3 themselves seemed to accept the status inferiority locallyaccorded to their own neighbourhood by comparison with Zone 2 althoughgrudgingly and with some bitterness'. They added 'one could not help wonderingwhy they acquiesced' (1965: 2). Undoubtedly, some of the presented evidencedoes indicate that some of the residents of Zone 3 were of a similar mind to thoseof Zone 2 with regard to the 'problem families' and in terms of embracing anegative view of the Estate. However, as we will show, there is a great deal ofevidence scattered through the text that is inconsistent with the view that theresidents of Zone 3 accepted and acquiesced in their inferior status. It is alsorelevant to collate and give due importance to the scattered evidence that testifiesto the 'village elite's' deference to the middle-class groups in the community. It isapparent that the former did not simply acquiesce in their own inferior status vis-à-vis the middle classes: they flilsomely embraced it. Let us take this further byconsidering the evidence relating to the power of the residents of Zone 3.

The power of the residents of Zone 3

Political affiliations.For electoral purposes, Winston Parva was divided into two wards, one formed byZone 1 and part of Zone 2, the second by the other part of Zone 2 and Zone 3.Councillor Drew represented the former ward during the period of the research.He stood as an Independent and had the backing of the Conservative Association.Labour councillors represented the latter ward. While Drew held that, by votingLabour, the Estate people showed their lack of 'intelligent awareness and a senseof responsibility' (1965: 64), it is also possible that some of the Estate people hadbrought their Labour affiliations with them. Heavy industrial areas in the North ofEngland and Wales tended to be Labour strongholds in those years and the East


End of London also has a history of radical politics. The authors do not seem tohave considered these possibilities. Regardless of whether the political affiliationsof the 'newcomers' had more to do with their social roots or the conditions theyencountered in Winston Parva, Elias and Scotson recognised that 'the Estate peopleon their part, and perhaps a number of rejected "villagers" as well, retaliated byrejecting the ruling political outlook and activities of Zones 1 and 2 as anotherexample of the rule of the "cliques", the "old fogies", the "snobs"' (1965: 64). Notonly does this statement indicate the level of resentment felt by Estate residents; italso supports the view that such resentment found expression in overt oppositionin formal political processes.

The Hare and Hounds and the Working Men's Club.Elias and Scotson's neglect of the levels of cohesion that might have been givenexpression in The Hare and Hounds has already been noted. However, whatremains to be said is that Zone 3's take-over of this pub - the authors described itas a 'conquest' - was surely indicative of a group that possessed certain powerresources and one that was not prepared to bow to the prevailing conventions ofZone 2 (1965: 17). What of the Working Men's Club? Although it was located inthe 'village', 'men and women from the Estate formed the bulk of its members ...[This club] offered opportunities for families from the village and the Estate tocome into closer contact after work and, perhaps, to form some kind of friendshipwith each other. But no such relationships were formed' (1965: 76). Perhaps not,but could this club have been a context in which intra-Zone 3 relationships wereconsolidated? Again, how did the numerical dominance of people from Zone 3 inthe club come about? Why did the 'village elite' not use their power to fi-eeze themout of the club, as they had done in the other voluntary associations? It is difficultto avoid the conclusion that these and other issues were not raised, let alonepursued, because the authors were so intent on emphasising the differencesbetween Zones 2 and 3 and, in particular, the different levels of integration thatwere held to characterise them.

Delinquency.The authors observed that children from the more disorderly homes 'had littlerespect for the laws and rules of the people who were better off.' (1965: 122). 'Theknowledge that by being noisy, destructive and offensive they could annoy those bywhom they were rejected and treated as outcasts, acted as an incentive' (1965:129). Whatever the complex social roots of this behaviour, it certainly involved alevel of conscious opposition to the prevailing order. The delinquent children weredefiant in their rejection of prevailing values, and this defiance constituted asource of satisfaction and excitement to them.

While Elias and Scotson did on occasions recognise that 'many [Estate] residentsclearly resented the air of superiority which people in Zone 2 assumed towardsthem', they continued to maintain that what the residents of the Estate 'said and the


manner in which they said it, indicated their resignation and helplessness' (1965:80). Thus, while the evidence of retaliation by juveniles, political opposition, thetotal take-over of The Hare and Hounds, the numerical dominance of the working-men's club by people from Zone 3 and various other expressions of resentmentabound in the text, the authors never brought these data together or acknowledgedtheir combined relevance for their thesis. As Fletcher (1997: 71) has noted, when'power differentials are relatively even, the outsiders begin to retaliate and counter-stigmatise'. There is clear evidence that some of the residents of Zone 3 weredoing precisely that.

Zone 1 — looking down

Elias and Scotson tell us that Zone 1 was predominantly middle-class. However,distinctions can be drawn between the middle-class majority, who were apparentlyindifferent to the other two zones, and the minority, led by Drew, who were activein community affairs. This latter group contained people who had previously livedin Zone 2. The middle-class majority were characterised as living behind 'invisiblewalls'. Its members' social alignments were said to be with similar individuals andgroups outside the Winston Parva community (1965: 25). Indeed, the likelihood isthat they did not perceive themselves as belonging to this community at all.

According to the authors 'the residents of Zone 1, as the interviews indicated,were very conscious of the superiority of their neighbourhood in relation to Zones2 and 3' (1965: 28). The authors offered some fragmentary evidence of this, suchas the statement "'this is a better part, all our family live this side"', (1965: 28-9).This comment is of interest because it suggests that some of the middle-classmajority regarded their fellow residents with family ties in Zone 2 as being oflower status. The views of residents of Zone 1 who had relatives in Zone 2 are ofparticular interest in this connection. They expressed pride in their origins, but thismust surely have been an ambivalent pride. While making a point of not denyingtheir origins, they simultaneously proclaimed their satisfaction with how far theyhad risen (1965: 7) and if this self-satisfaction was to be meaningful, they musthave viewed their social origins as in some way inferior (1965: 28). Would not asystematic and balanced analysis of both sides of this superiority-inferiority equa-tion have been central to a more adequate assessment of the established-outsiderhypothesis? The authors recognised that the greater power exercised by theresidents of Zone 1 did not only find expression in economic differentials andrelative control over the means of orientation. It was also exhibited, they argued, inthe differential control exercised by the 'inner circle' over most of the voluntaryassociations based in Zone 2 (1965: 26-7). However, Elias and Scotson did notprobe the implications these differentials had for the self-images of the residents ofZone 2, in particular those of the 'village elite'.


Zone 2, with particular reference to the 'village elite '

Elias and Scotson tell us that the village was divided in two by a road with theminority living to the north. This northern section included the 'old families' anda middle-class-minority [and] was held to be 'the better part of the village' (1965:36). As such, its residents placed considerable store on 'the respect they felt wasdue to them' (1965: 148). Conversely, perhaps the strongest indications of the'village elite's' acceptance of their own relative inferiority were, firstly, the waythey used the middle-class enclave in their part of the village as a benchmark fortheir own respectability and, secondly, the pride they took from those of theirnumber who had relocated to Zone 1 (1965: 28). It seems that the majority of'villagers' who lived south of the road were under great pressure to conform to thestandards of the 'village elite' (1965: 38). Yet notwithstanding the power wieldedby the 'village elite' in Zone 2, the authors acknowledged the limitations of theirpower over Zone 3. They wrote: 'the "villagers" might have been more successfulif they had made common cause with other Estate families who equally sufferedfrom their minority. Together they might have been able to exercise strongercontrol over the disordered minority of the Estate' (1965: 131). By implication,this statement confirms the limited success the 'village elite' achieved in theirattempts to subordinate and control the 'wayward' groups. In addition, it helps todemonstrate how the depth of the 'village elite's' hostility towards the 'problemfamilies' led them to stigmatise the Estate as a whole and thereby detracted fromtheir capacity to appreciate that their objectives might have been more effectivelyachieved by other means. In other words, their prejudices arguably seem to havelimited their power.

In our view, Elias and Scotson provided ample evidence to sustain the view thatit was the 'village elite' who internalised the dominant definitions to the greatestdepth. Members of this group believed themselves to be superior to the residents ofZone 3 and this was the aspect upon which the authors chose to concentrate.However, of at least equal importance to an understanding of the power structureof Winston Parva was the fact the 'village elite' also accepted their own inferiorityrelative to Zone 1 and to the middle-class group in their own zone. It would, wethink, not be appropriate to characterise their accepted inferiority to Zone 1 as anintemalisation of a form of 'group disgrace'. It might, however, be fitting to des-cribe it as an example of deeply internalised group deference, a group orientationthat can be at least as profound in its social consequences. Indeed, the inter-generational inculcation of deference to the middle-classes seems to have beenone of the principal influences that predisposed the 'village elite' to be hostile to thenewcomers who then compounded the felt antagonism by not showing the respectdue to the community's long-established conventions. Our argument is not thatwhile the 'village elite' was engulfed by dominant definitions, some of the residentsof Zone 3 and the 'problem families' in particular were somehow untouched bythem. Rather we are suggesting that the totality of the latter groups' conditions of


existence, their life-experiences and life-chances, encouraged them to be moreinclined to question or reject these definitions and embrace values and standardsthat, to varying degrees, diverged from those of the dominant group(s).

Recognition of the greater complexity of power relationships in the community,therefore, casts doubt on the appropriateness of characterising the 'village elite' asan 'established' group or even as part of an 'established' group. Perhaps it wouldhave been more appropriate to characterise this group as acolytes of the 'innercircle' in Zone 1, although it should be noted that even some of the 'inner circle'were judged to be of a questionable status by some of the middle-class majority intheir own zone. As the authors themselves put it: 'One needed some knowledgeabout the making of this relationship in order to understand how it came about thatthe inhabitants of Zone 2 could successfully claim for themselves a higher statusthan those of Zone 3 while conceding in turn a higher status to most residents ofZone r (1965: 17). We concur. Such understanding was central to an adequategrasp of the power dynamics of Winston Parva. That the necessary research wasnot undertaken seems to support our contention that Elias and Scotson mistakenlyopted to rely on data gathered for another project.

In summary, because of the narrowness of their focus, Elias and Scotson'sanalysis simplifies and distorts the power dynamics that characterised WinstonParva for two principal reasons. Firstly, their concentration on the power that Zone2 wielded over Zone 3 led them to neglect or underplay the power that Zone 3 hadto resist and to moderate the goals of Zone 2. Secondly, Elias and Scotson'spreoccupation with the Zone2-Zone3 nexus, led them to neglect the extent towhich Zone 2 was itself subservient to Zone 1 and how this subservience helped tofoster and drive Zone 2's approach to Zone 3 and the latter's response. Thus, whatwe appear to have here is an established community characterised by a paternalisticstructure whose way of life was disrupted by a substantial influx of newcomers. Itwas a paternalism bolstered by the continuing centrality of the church and, to alesser extent, the Conservative Association and the construction of an adjacentmiddle-class residential area. Elias and Scotson (1965: 68-9) demonstrated anawareness of this paternalistic pattern when they wrote:

The manner in which second generation men and women in Winston Parvaexercised power and assumed responsibilities as community leaders followedcertain traditional patterns ... There was much to suggest that they wereurban middle-class and working-class developments of roles which land-owners, gentry and aristocracy in their capacity of leaders of rural communitieshad evolved before in a pre-industrial setting.

Elsewhere, Elias and Scotson wrote of Drew that, 'deliberately or not, he played inthis urban and industrial setting a part not unlike that played in a more rural settingby the squire' (1965: 27). Yet these insights did not go on to inform the analysis.Nor do they receive the weight due them in any of the secondary accounts. This is


unfortunate because, in our view, a broader appreciation of this emerging patternwould have gone a long way towards explaining why the 'village elite' attached somuch importance to the prevailing norms of deference and respect and the need fornewcomers to know their place. This paternalistic hierarchy makes problematicElias and Scotson's application of the labels 'established' and 'outsiders' to the'village' and the Estate respectively. In other words, the authors failed to heed theirown warning that 'once people have become interdependent, research is bound tobe sterile if one studies them in isolation and tries to explain their grouping as ifthey were separate things' (1965: 167). In this case, their desire to demonstrate theilluminating power of the concepts 'established' and 'outsiders' led them to focusoverly on one dimension of the relational network to the relative neglect of otherdimensions that were arguably of equal and, perhaps of greater, significance to anunderstanding of the power dynamics of Winston Parva.

Elias added a new introduction to the Dutch edition of The Established and theOutsiders (1976). However, it does not seem to contain any softening in hisinterpretation of the Winston Parva study. For example he wrote:

The only difference between them [Zones 2 and 3] was ...one group wasformed by old residents established in the neighbourhood for two or threegenerations and the other was a group of newcomers ... The relations betweenthe two groups ... were different only with regard to the duration of theirresidence at this place [Winston Parva]. Here one could see that "oldness" ofassociation, with all it implied, was, on its own, able to create the degree of

• group cohesion, the collective identification, the commonality of norms'.We recognise that social cohesion and the ability to organise can enhancethe power of a group. What we dispute is that this was the only socialdimension that distinguished Zone 2 from Zone 3. The 'village elite' alsohad well-established ties with the 'inner-circle' in Zone 1 and, crucially, theformer were able to rely on the latter's support.

Perhaps what is most indicative of Elias's theoretical preoccupations is that thisnew introduction does not contain even a single reference to Zone 1 (1994:xvii-xviii; emphasis added).

Of community studies in general Bell and Newby observed that 'whilst it mightjustly be said that they have contributed a good deal to sociology, they have never-theless contributed very little to each other' (1974: 3). This statement could beseen as a suitably fitting summary of the impact of the Winston Parva study. Whileflgurational sociologists have applied the theory of established/outsider relationsand found it to be illuminating, outside these circles its impact on practitioners ofcommunity studies has been fairly marginal. A few authors have drawn upon it.Crow and Alan (1994) make a number of references to it and Day (2006: 178)goes so far as to describe the authors as being 'prescient in treating mobility asa major influence on the shaping of community and ... (in providing) ... an


exemplary analysis of the erection of symbolic barriers between interactinggroups'. But perhaps given the 'idiosyncratic and diverse' nature of the studiesencompassed by the term community studies (Bell and Newby 1974: xliii), thelikelihood of any one study having a significant impact on such a disparate fieldseems quite remote.

Problems of involvement and detachment

Ideological preoccupations about 'preferred forms of life' can have a profoundlylimiting effect upon one's capacity to understand human figurations. However,there are other preoccupations that can have a similar impact, for example, beingoverly concerned with demonstrating the explanatory power of a particularapproach. It is a danger that can perhaps afflict intellectuals who have placedconsiderable distance between themselves and ideological concerns, but in theprocess have developed a commitment to a particular theoretical framework tosuch a degree that they lower their critical guard. Rather than attempting to assessthe adequacy of their hypotheses, they seek to sustain them. Our analysis of TheEstablished and the Outsiders leads us to suspect that, in that context, Eliaspursued his intellectual objectives to a point where his judgement was clouded.How else can one explain the authors' disproportionate attraction to evidence thatsupported the notion of Zone 2's group charisma and Zone 3's group disgrace?How else can one explain their failure to systematise and give due weight to theevidence pertaining to Zone 2's pattern of deference to Zone 1 and their relativeneglect of the evidence relating to Zone 3's resistance to Zone 2's attempts tostigmatise them?* It may seem paradoxical that a man who devoted so muchenergy to exploring the relationships between involvement and detachment andarguing the need for researchers to distance themselves from heteronomousevaluations, should himself have slipped into a more involved mode of thought(Elias 1987: 34-5). Yet such an outcome is understandable within his generalapproach. In developing the involvement-detachment thesis, he was attempting tobreak with the dichotomy that continues to characterise much of the debate on theinfluence of values on the social sciences. The fact that, in this instance, Eliasseems to have become overly involved not only testifies to the difficulty heencountered in striving to maintain his footing on this treacherous terrain, but alsoalerts us to the difficulties confronting everyone who seeks to distance themselvesfrom heteronomous concerns.

In our view the writings of Norbert Elias on involvement and detachment havebrought immense clarity to an area riddled in ideology and awash with unhelpfuldichotomies (1987).' These writings contain many insights that have yet to bedigested effectively. Perhaps one neglected issue is the need to recognise morefully that a sound appreciation of the theoretical arguments surrounding theseconcepts does not in itself provide some sort of guarantee that the principles willbe effectively and consistently adhered to in practice. People's ideological

Nuno Pimenta

Highlight

Nuno Pimenta

Highlight

Nuno Pimenta

Highlight


jjredispositions, their day-to-day concerns and, indeed, on occasions, their intel-lectual priorities, can undermine their efforts to achieve a higher level of detachment.The struggle to avoid sliding back into more heteronomous modes of thinkingrequires sociologists to maintain a constant level of vigilance. Yet notwithstandingthe ever-present hazards, there is, in our view, a rather pervasive assumption infigurational circles that the move from principles to practice is unproblematic and,therefore, requires no elaboration or specific guidance. As Rojek observes 'Eliassupplies no guidelines, no mechanism, no drill for attaining detachment' (1986:591). We think that the significance of this comment should be recognised andaddressed.'" Our hope is that, in addition to shedding some light on the formationof the concepts of the established and outsiders, this paper has had something to sayabout the difficulties associated with achieving and maintaining an appropriatelevel of detachment. That Elias himself arguably exhibited too high a level ofinvolvement in the way he went about developing his argument in The Establishedand the Outsiders constitutes a salutary reminder to those who eschew thedifficulties involved in bringing a reasonable level of detachment to bear on one'sresearch. The difficulties that Elias encountered in adhering to his own theoreticalprinciples may encourage a broader appreciation of the problems confrontingothers who are genuinely seeking to bring a higher level of detachment to theirwork. In the Introduction to the second edition of The Established and theOutsiders, Elias wrote that he and Scotson 'tried not to allow our theoreticalinterests to overwhelm our interests in the social life of the people of WinstonParva' (1994 xii). This statement surely testifies to his appreciation of the fact thatthe movement from principles to practice is not a cut and dried affair."

Saving the baby

Much of Elias's theorisation in The Established and the Outsiders is brilliant andirnaginative. It is also on many occasions partial and assertive. However, ourintention in this paper has not been to throw the baby out with the bath water. Forexample, we readily acknowledge the usefulness of Elias's discussion of theconcepts 'group charisma' and 'group disgrace', and of the related tendencies forhuman groups to depict themselves and the groups they hold in high esteem interms of the characteristics of 'a minority of the best' and to present the groupsthey deem to be their inferiors in terms of the characteristics of 'a minority of theworst'. We also accept the argument that when power differentials between twogroups are particularly wide, the group that is labelled inferior may deeplyinternalise the derogatory definition of themselves.

We are also confident that the theory can be used effectively by those whoare aware of its limitations and of the need to locate the particular example ofestablished-outsider relations that is under investigation within its broader figur-ation. For example, in his analysis of the figurational dynamics of black-whiterelationships in the United States, Dunning has provided a demonstration of how

Nuno Pimenta

Highlight


the theory can be applied circumspectly (Loyal and Quilley, 2004: 75-94). Wewould only add that its centrality to an analysis is likely to be greater when thetwo groups involved are relatively insulated from wider human figurations.

In our view, Elias's commitment to demonstrating the heuristic value of thetheory of established-outsider relations led him to marginalise the more sophis-ticated approach to power relations that he had already developed in his longer-term studies. He seems to have done so in favour of a more simplistic and dicho-tomising framework. Mennell (1989: 124-5) hints at as much when he writes that'although Elias constantly strives to find more processual concepts for use in soci-ology, "established" and "outsiders" are perhaps not the most inherently dynamicof the terms he has introduced'. Elias seems to us to have been motivated by theentirely laudable desire to develop analytical tools which, as Mennell (1989:115)puts it, would 'enable him to grapple better with the complexities of inequality'.However, in the context of the Winston Parva study, this theory became as muchand perhaps more straitjacket than a sensitising agent. It led its authors to becomeunduly absorbed by one nexus in the community and in thiscase the attempt tosimplify led to over-simplification.

Notes

Acknowledgements: We would like to thank Eric Dunning, Ivan Waddington and StephenMennell for their helpful and supportive comments on an earlier draft of this paper. Asalways the final responsibility rests with us.

1 Elias added an introduction to the Dutch edition of The Established and the Outsiders(1976), an introduction that was also included in the second English edition (1994). Whileit contains an interesting discussion of the more general applicability of the theory ofestablished-outsiders relations and related concepts, in our view it contains no argumentsthat detract from the substance of this critique. Indeed, some of the arguments that form thecritical focus of this paper are restated with equal, if not more, conviction.2 Mennell (1989: 125-37) provides an over-view of some of the studies by figurationalsociologists that have utilised the theory of established-outsider relations. These publi-cations include de Swaan (1988), Dunning (1972), and Van Stolk and Wouters (1980). Alsosee Dunning and Waddington, (2003), Ernst (2003), Liston (2005a; 2005b), and Sutton andVertigans (2002).3 For example, the following writers have provided straightforward synopses of the TheEstablished and Outsiders thesis, Mennell (1989: 116-25), Mennell and Goudsblom(1998:25-27 and 49-52), Fletcher (1997: 70-76), Robert van Krieken (1998: 147-53) andDunning (2004: 80-1). While such accounts perform a useful service, their uncritical naturehas also helped to sustain the status of The Established and the Outsiders as an unchal-lenged seminal work.4 In the foreword to Bell and Newby, Elias states that he was familiar with the work of thecontributors to this reader among others in the field (1974: xv). However, while Elias andScotson may have taken account of the work of these writers, none of the Bell and Newbytexts are cited in The Established and the Outsiders and the few authors operating within the


community studies area that are cited receive only fleeting treatment.5 Leicester University library has never held a copy of Scotson's MA thesis. For the fullstory of how the thesis seems to have gone missing, see Cas Wouters's Note on the Text inthe standard edition of The Established and the Outsiders that forms volume 4 of theCollected Works of Norbert Elias (forthcoming, 2008).6 The authors were not very forthcoming in their discussion of their research methods.Much has been left to the imagination of the reader. However, we have been able todetermine that, in addition to interviews with significant figures in the community, Scotsonconducted twelve interviews in Zone 1, 64 in Zone 2 and 25 in Zone 3.7 This figure has been calculated on the basis of the percentage of manual workers inZone 1 (1965: 29).8 Elias came later to use Harper Lee's semi-autobiographical novel. To Kill a MockingBird (1960), as a means of illuminating the part played by violence in established-outsiderrelations. His treatment of this book seems to have much in common with his approach toScotson's MA thesis. They were both conceived of as closed books and the subsequent ana-lyses were geared to demonstrating the heuristic powers of the theory of established-outsiderrelations (see Fletcher 1997: 76-78). Limitations on space prevent further elaboration. Thepaper by Elias, 'Further Aspects of Established-Outsider Relations: The Maycomb Model',will appear in volume 4 oiThe Collected Works of Norbert Elias to be published in 2008 by.ÜCD Press.

9 University College Dublin Press have recently published a new edition of Involvementand Detachment in February 2007 as part of The Collected Works of Norbert Elias.10 Dunning has addressed Rojek's comment directly by outlining some 'rules of procedure'(Dunning and Rojek 1992: 252-4). While we would not dispute the usefulness of these'rules', we suspect that Rojek was primarily referring to the deeply entrenched predispo-sitions that academics and students bring to their studies and how they can become moreaware of them and achieve a degree of detachment from them.11 Focusing on Elias's essay on 'The Expulsion of the Huguenots from France', Mennelland Goudsblom (1998: 9) state that 'in this essay and the more comprehensive theory of theestablished-outsiders relationships it anticipates, Elias cannot completely disguise his power-ful sympathy for outsiders of every kind.' To the extent that this is the case it would seem tobe a ñirther indication of the difficulties of moving from the principles of the involve-ihent/detachment thesis to its application. Although, it should be said, we did not detect anysignificance signs of this in his approach the residents of Zone 3 in Winston Parva.

References

Bell, C. and Newby, H. (1974) The Sociology of Community: A Selection of Readings.London: Frank Cass.

Bloyce, D. (2004) The Globalization of Baseball? A Figurational Analysis, unpublishedPhD thesis. University of Leicester.

Crow, G. and G. Allan (1994) Community Life An Introduction to Local Social Relations.Hemel Hemstead: Harvester Wheatsheaf

Day, G. (2006) Community and Everyday Life. Abingdon: Routledge.Dunning, E. (1972) 'Dynamics of racial stratification: some preliminary observations'.

Äace, 13(4):415-34.Dunning, E. (2004) 'Aspects of the flgurational dynamics of racial stratification: a

conceptual discussion and developmental analysis of black-white relations in the


Untied States', 75-94 in S. Loyal and S. Quilley (eds). The Sociology of Norbert Elias.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Dunning, E. and C. Rojek (1992) Sport and Leisure in the Civilizing Process. Basingstoke:Macmillan.

Dunning, E. and 1. Waddington (2003) 'Sport as a Drug and Drugs in Sport', InternationalReview for the Sociology of Sport, 38 (3): 351-68.

Elias, N. and Scotson, J. L. (1965) The Established and the Outsiders: A SociologicalEnquiry into Community Problems. London: Frank Cass. (New edition, enlarged, withan introduction originally published in the Dutch translation in 1976, [London: SagePublications, 1994]; definitive edition, with addition of 'Further Aspects ofEstablished-Outsider Relations: The Maycomb Model', originally written in 1990 forthe German translation of the book, Dublin: UCD Press, forthcoming 2008 [CollectedWorks, vol. 4]).

Elias, N. (1978) What is Sociology? New York: Columbia University Press.Elias, N. (2006 [1935]) 'The Expulsion of the Huguenots from France', pp. 97-104 in Early

Writings (Dublin: UCD Press [Collected Works, vol. 1]).Elias, N. (2007) Involvement and Detachment. Dublin: UCD Press [Collected Works, vol.

8, ed. S. Quilley].Ernst, S. (2003) 'From blame gossip to praise gossip? Gender, leadership and

organizational change', European Journal of Women's Studies, 10 (3): 277-99.Fletcher, J. (1997) Violence and Civilization: An Introduction to the Work of Norbert Elias.

Cambridge: Polity Press.Krieken, R. van (1998) Norbert Elias. London: Routledge.Lee, H. (1960) To Kill a Mocking Bird. Philadelphia, J. B. Lippincott.Liston, K. (2005a) 'Established-outsider relations between males and females in sports in

Ireland', Irish Journal of Sociology, 14 (1): 66-85.Liston, K. (2005b) 'Ireland: the case of women in sport and established-outsiders',

European Journal for Sport and Society, 2 (1): 25-35.Mennell, S. (1989) Norbert Elias and the Human Self-Image. Oxford: Basil Blackwell

[Rev. edn under title Norbert Elias: An Introduction, Dublin: UCD Press, 1998].Mennell, S. and J. Goudsblom, (1998) Norbert Elias On Civilization, Power and

Knowledge. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Rojek C. (1986) 'Problems of Involvement and Detachment.' The British Journal of

Sociology 37 (4): 584-96.Stolk, A. van and C. Wouters, ( 1980) 'Power changes and self-respect: a comparison of two

cases of established-outsiders relations'. Theory, Culture and Society, 4 (2-3) 1987:477-88.

Sutton, P. W. and S. Vertigans, (2002) 'The established and challenging outsiders:Resurgent Islam in secular Turkey', Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions 3(1): 58-78.

Swaan, A. de ( 1988) In Care of the State: The Social Dynamics of Public Health, Educationand Income Maintenance in Western Europe and the United States. Oxford: PolityPress.

involvement and detachment, from principles to practice bloyce and murphy 2007

Documents

robert van

winston parva

winston parva

human figurations

winston parva

voluntary

local associations

industrial