pareto’s theory of elites: circulation or circularity? · 2017. 10. 28. · gie ge`ne`rale in...

Mundo Siglo XXI, revista del CIECAS-IPNISSN 1870-2872, Núm. 38, Vol. XI, 2016, pp. 49-58

KeyworDs:•teoríadelasélites•sociologíageneral•mercadosmonopólicos•petitioprincipii•VilfredoPareto

Palabras clave:•Elitetheory•generalsociology•monopolisticmarkets•petitioprincipii•VilfredoPareto

Fecha De recePcIón: 08/08/2015; Fecha De aProbacIón: 03/12/2015

Pareto’s Theory of Elites: Circulation or Circularity?

G o r D o n W e lt y *

abstract:LasociologíadeParetoesinseparabledesuperspectivaeconómica,enespecialsucélebreteoríadelasélites.Suteoríadelosmercadosmonopólicosrequierefactoresextra-económicos,porlotanto,construyóunateoríasociológicadelasélites.Aquísedemuestraquesuteoríasociológicageneraldelasélitesesvacua,yaquelaclasedelaselitesesco-extensivarespectodelapoblacióntotal.Estateoríaessignificativasóloparalaséliteseconómicasenmercadosnocompetitivos.

resumen: WearguethatPareto’ssociologyisinseparablefromhiseconomics,withspecialattentiontohiscelebratedtheoryofelites.Histheoryofmonopolisticmarketsrequiresextra-economicfactorstobedeterminate,hencenecessitatesasociologicaltheoryofelites.Hisgeneralsociologicaltheoryofelitesisshowntobevacuous,sincetheclassofelitesisfoundtobecoextensivewiththetotalpopulation.Thistheoryismeaningfulonlyforeconomicelitesinnon-competitivemarkets

Teoría de las Élites de Pareto: ¿Circulación o Circularidad?

*EméritodelaWrightStateUniversity.Dr.porlaUniversidaddePittsburgh.EnlaactualidadesprofesordeCienciasSocialesenlaMercyCollege.Susescritosincluyen“Marx,EngelsyAnti-Dühring”,PoliticalStudies,1983,“La‘brechageneracional’reconsiderado”,enYedlaC.Simhadri(ed),GlobalYouth,Peace,andDevelopment:TheRoleofScienceandTechnologyinContemporarySociety,AjantaDelhi,1991,y“CríticadelaTeoríadelEstadopretoriano”,enGiuseppeCaforio(ed),TheSociologyoftheMilitary,Elgar,Cheltenham,1998.

Gordon Welty

50Mundo Siglo XXI, núm. 38, 2016

Introduction

ThisessayaddressestherelationshipbetweensociologyandeconomicswithinPareto’ssocialtheory,inparticularhowthatrelationbearsonhistheoryofelites.Oursisnotaninterdisciplinarystudy–ourconcernisneitherwithwhatiscalledsocio-economicsnorwitheconomicsociology.Inanimportantsense,bothofthoseinterdisciplinarystudiespresupposetheestablishedrelationshipbetweensociologyproper and economicsproper.Webeginby consideringseveralpossiblerelationshipsbetweenthedisciplines.

The Relation Between Sociology and Economics

Therelationshipbetweenasocialtheorist’seconomicsandhissociologyhasbeenfrequentlyremarked.Sometimestherelationshipisunderstoodassuccession,asinthecaseofCharlesHortonCooley,VilfredoParetoorTalcottParsons.Initiallythetheoristengagesineconomicresearch,publis-heseconomicstudies,etc.andlatershiftshisattentiontosociologicaltopicsashecomestorecognizethelimitationsof economics.Cooley, for instance, conducted researchontheeconomicsoftransportationfortheUSBureauofCensus,andpublishedhisTheoryofTransportationundertheauspicesoftheAmericanEconomicAssociation;1onlylaterdidhepublishhisSocialOrganization(1909)andotherproperlysociologicalstudies.LikewiseParetolecturedoneconomicsatLausanne,publishedhisManueld’e`conomie

politiquein1909,2andthenpublishedhisTraite`deSociolo-giege`ne`ralein1917.3ParsonsbeganhisacademiccareerasanassistantprofessorintheEconomicsDepartmentatHarvard,andhisearlyarticlesappearedinsucheconomicjournals asThe Journal ofPolitical Economy and theQuarterly JournalofEconomics.Almost adecade later,heclosedhisStructureofSocialActionbyacknowledgingthat an economistic analysiswas inherently inadequate.“Anyatomisticsystemthatdealsonlywiththepropertiesidentifiableintheunitact[suchasthatoftheeconomists,will be] indeterminate as applied to complex systems”.4ThereuponParsonsbeganthefullysociologicalresearcheswhichwouldeventuateinTheSocialSystem,5andhebegantopublishinsuchsociologicaljournalsastheAmericanSo-ciologicalReview.ItwasinTheSocialSystemthatParsonsrecognizedthatfortheanalysisofthosemorecomplexsocialsystems;“itisconvenienttomakeuseofahigher-orderunitthanthe[unit]act,namelythestatus-role”.6Thuswefindthe theorist’s economisticphasebeing succeededby thesociologisticphaseofhiscareer.

Buttherelationshipbetweenthetheorist’seconomicsandsociologyfrequentlyprovestobemuchmorecom-plexthansimplesuccession.MaxWeber,tociteanotherinstance,alsobeganhisacademiccareerasaneconomist;helaterfocussedhisenergiesontheemergingdisciplineofsociology.ThroughoutWeber’swork,however,thereis a complex interconnectedness ofWeber’s economicsandhissociology.InhisWirtschaftundGesellschaft,hedistinguishes four typesof socialaction: instrumentallyrational,valuerational,affectual,andtraditionalaction.7Atfirstglance,allthesetypesseemtobeindependent.8Ofthesetypes,instrumentalrationalitywouldseemtobetheeconomictype,whiletheotherswouldseemtobevariousnon-economictypesofsocialaction.ButWeberdoesnotpreservetheindependenceofthetypesinhistheorizing;thisleadstoaninterdependencebetweenthetypeswherebytherelationshipbetweenthesociologicalandtheeconomicbecomesimpossiblycomplex.

Forinstance,Webermaintainsthatallaffectualactioncanbescientificallyconsideredasmerelydeviationsfroma“puretypeofrationalaction”.9Finally,theuniversalten-dencyto“rationalization”findstraditionalactionreplacedthroughoutthesocialsystembyrationalaction.10Buttherationaltypes–eveniftheyareultimatelytoprevail–arenotthemselveshomogeneouslyeconomictypesforWeber.From the standpoint of instrumentally rational action,value rational action is, according toWeber, “alwaysirrational”.11Furthermore,instrumentallyrationalactionitselfisnothomogeneouslyeconomic–becausetheins-trumentalmeaningoftheactionmaybe“purelytechnical”forWeber–andhedistinguishestechnicalquestionsfromeconomicquestions.12

1CharlesCooley,TheTheoryofTransportation,vol.9,PublicationsoftheAmericanEconomicAssociation,1894.2VilfredoPareto,Oeuvrescomple’tes,vol.VII,LibrairieDroz,Geneva,1964,ff.3Op. cit., vol.XII;RaymondAron,MainCurrents in SociologicalThought,Vol. II,DoubledayAnchor,GardenCity,NY,1970,p.124;H.StuartHughes,ConsciousnessandSociety,RandomHouseVintage,NY,1961,p.261;ElenaOsipova,“TheSociologicalSystemofVilfredoPareto”,inIgorKon(ed.),AHistoryofClassicalSociology,Chap.12,ProgressPublishers,Moscow,1989,p.312.4Talcott Parsons,TheStructure of SocialAction,McGrawHill,NY,1937,pp.748-749.5TalcottParsons,TheSocialSystem,FreePress,NY,1951.6Op.cit,p.25.SeealsoRalphTurner,“RoleTaking”, inA.Rose(ed.),HumanBehaviorandSocialProcess,HoughtonMifflin,Boston,1962,p.24.7MaxWeber,EconomyandSociety,NY:BedminsterPress,pp.24-25.8Op.cit.,p.26.9Op.cit.,p.6;seealsoTalcottParsons,op.cit.,1937,p.648.10Op.cit.,p.30.11Op.cit.,p.26.12Op.cit.,pp.65-66.


Pareto’s theory of elites: CirCulation or CirCularity?

Weberexplicitlydoesnotintendthatallsocialactioniseconomicactionandviceversa.Indeed,hecautionsusthateconomicactionneedsnotbesocial,13andthatsocialaction needs not be economic action – since the lattermust,inits“mainimpulse,”beorientedtowardseconomicends.14Still,Webercontinues,““everytypeofactionmaybeeconomicallyoriented”–whichincludes“allprimarilynon-economicactionandallnon-peacefulactionwhichisstillinfluencedbyeconomicconsiderations”.15

Thuswerealizethatonerisksseriouslymisunderstan-dingthesocialtheoristifoneseekstoseparateWeber’ssociologicalanalysisfromhiseconomics–thatofthelateNineteenthCenturyneo-classicalmarginalutilityschool.

The Relationship Between Sociology and Eco-nomics for Pareto

ThesamepointmustbemadeaboutVilfredoPareto’seconomics and sociology.His sociological theorizingmust be viewed, not only as succeeding his economicstudies,whichitclearlydid,butasremainingintimatelyintertwinedwithhispoliticaleconomics–indeedasbeinginextricably interrelated.16We shall argue that point inthisessay.Thusthetitle:weareasconcernedtoconsiderwhetherPareto’stheorizingaboutelitesisimportantlyandevenfundamentallycircular,aswearetoconsiderwhetheritentailsa“circulationofelites”.Bycircular,wemeanthatParetoassumesinthepremisesofhisargument(e.g.abouttheelite)whatheseekstoestablishinhisconclusion–hecommitsthelogicalfallacyofpetitioprincipiionagrandscale.Andweareconcernedtoshowthatitwastheexi-gencesofPareto’spoliticaleconomywhichledtothecircularityof his theorizing about elites.SincePareto’stheoryofelitesisthecenterpieceofhissociology,17wewillfindthatthiscannotbeseparatedfromhiseconomics.

AccordingtoPareto,humansareprimarilyacquisitivebeings.Theyexpresstheir“interests”astheyenhancetheirmeanstoappropriateservicesand,mostimportantly,ma-terialgoods.18Further,theyexpresstheir“tastes”astheychoosethisparticularmaterialgoodoverthatparticulargood.19OfcourseParetorecognizedthathumansdidnotalwayspursuematerialgoodsthrough“logical”action,i.e.employingmeansappropriatetotheends.20Indeed,duringPareto’slifetimehistheorizingincreasinglyacknowledgedthathumansengagedinwhathelabeled“non-logical”ac-tion,wheremeanswerenot“linked”tothedesiredend.21Hecontrastedthistothe“logical”actioninvolvedinthepursuitofmaterialgoods.AsJohnScotthaspointedout,thesetwoarethe“buildingblocksofhissocialtheories;“logical”actionsarestrategicorinstrumental,while“non-logical”actionsareexpressiveorcommitted”.22ForPareto,thisnon-logicalaction–nottobeconfusedwithillogical

action –was not related to logical action inWeberianfashionasdeviationsrelatedtoanorm.23ThetwotypeswereclearlyindependentforPareto.24

Pareto’sgreatestworks,theManuelandtheTreatise,recognizethisbifurcationandinfactrepresentsomewhatofadivisionoflaborreflectingthatbifurcation.25TheManuelindicatesits“principalobject”isthestudyoflogicalac-tion.26TheTreatise,bycontrast,suggeststhatitwillfocusonnon-logicalaction,27anddevoteslittlespacetologicalaction.28ThisdivisionoflabortracesoutthedevelopmentofPareto’stheorizing,aswehavealreadynoted.

Thisbifurcationcouldnot,however,beleftasitwas,becausethetheoreticalimplicationwouldbethatallhu-mans–whetherinthesphereoftheindividualorthatofthecollectivity–wereprofoundlyschizophrenic.RegardlessofPareto’scynicism–andhewasrenownedforhiscausticviewofhumanaffairs–hestillsupposedthatthehumanmind,whetherindividual29orincollectivesettings,30ten-dedtowardsintrapersonalintegrity.31

Paretowasmethodologically a radical positivist.He held that the premises of a theorywere tentative,subject to empirical (what he called “experimentaland observational”) testing.32 But he held that logic

13Op.cit.,p.22.14Op.cit.,p.63.15Op.cit.,p.64.16CharlesPowers,“SociopoliticalDeterminantsofEconomicCycles”,inSocialScienceQuarterly,Vol.65,1984.17H.StuartHughes,op.cit,p.268.18VilfredoPareto,op.cit.,vol.XII,§2009.19HarryBredemeier,“ExchangeTheory”,inT.BottomoreandR.Nisbet(eds.),HistoryofSociologicalAnalysis,BasicBooks,NY,1978,p.428.20VilfredoPareto,op.cit.,vol.VII,p.50.21Op.cit.,p.41.22JohnScott,“ParetoandtheElite”,inJ.FemiaandAMarshall(eds.),VilfredoPareto:BeyondDisciplinaryBoundaries, Farnham:AshgatePublishing,2012,p.13.23VilfredoPareto,op.cit.,vol.XII,§146.24TalcottParsons,op.cit.,1937,p.201ff.25RaymondAron,op.cit.,p.124.26VilfredoPareto,op.cit.,vol.VII,p.51.27Op.cit.,vol.XII,§§249-252.28Op.cit.,vol.XII,§2010.29Op.cit.,vol.VII,p.75.30Op.cit.,p.85.31Hiscommentthat“apersoncanasitweredividehimselfintwo”isareferencetoaself-consciousmethodologicaltactic,notapathologicalstate.VilfredoPareto,op.cit.,vol.XII,§142.32Op.cit.,vol.XII,§4.

Gordon Welty


itself was empirical.33Thus “relationships should beinferred directly from facts”.34And finally, theoreti-calconclusionsaretentative,alsosubjecttoempiricaltesting. While the tentative and empirical nature ofpremisesandconclusionsoftheoryareunexceptionalfrom the standpoint of conventional positivism andthe“hypothetico-deductiveapproach,”thesuppositionthatlogictooistentative–thatlogicis“subordinatetoexperience”–placesParetooutsidethemethodologicalorthodoxyoflogicalpositivism.35

This is not to say that Pareto should be judged bythemethodological canonwhich largely emerged afterhistime,noristhistosaythattheorthodoxyoflogicalpositivism is tobeuncritically recommended.36Butweacknowledge that Pareto’s radical positivism leads tomethodological problems. In particular, attempts at thedisconfirmationofatheorymaybeconfoundedbytheco-nundrumthatonefaceswhenonemustselectbetweentherejectionofthe“facts”versustherejectionofthe“logic.”

Moreover,Paretowasamethodologicalindividualist.37Hence,whatwasrequiredinthefirstplacewastheappea-ranceofintrapersonalintegrityacrosstherealmsoflogicalandnon-logicalaction.Thereafter,Paretocouldturnhisattentiontothesphereofthecollectivityandtoissuesofinterpersonalintegration.

Integrityintheintrapersonalsphereiseasilydemons-trated,accordingtoPareto,forseveralreasons.First,thesenseofindividualintegrity“isamongthemostpowerfulsentimentshumanbeingshave.Itisfounded,”continues

Pareto,“in the instinctofself-preservation”.38 It shouldbementionedthatthiscasual,almostdilettantish,useoftheterminstincthadcomeunderseverecritiqueduringtheseconddecadeoftheTwentiethCentury.39Thereisase-condreason.Thedefenseofone’scurrentpossessionsandtheacquisitionoffurtherpossessionstendtomerge,holdsPareto, as expressions of one’s “interests”. Moreover,theexpressionofone’sinterestsandthedevelopmentofpersonalitylikewisetendtomerge.Hence“interests”andintegrity(i.e.whatParetowouldcallClassVResidues)tendtomergeaswell.40

Andthereisathirdreason,involvingthedistinctionthatParetodrewbetweenresiduesandderivations.Withintherealmofnon-logicalaction,therearerelativelyconstantandbasicmotivesofaction,whichParetolabeled“resi-dues,”andtherearerelativelyvariablemotives,whichhelabeled“derivations.”Thelatterservedasrationalizationsof the non-logical and even instinctual “residues” ofnon-logical action. Even if a given “residue”were in-compatiblewiththepursuitofmaterialgoods,therewerenonetheless,accordingtoPareto,“derivations”thatmadeitappearcompatible.41Therebynon-logicalactionintheintrapersonalspherewasgiventhesemblanceofrationality,henceconsistencywithlogicalaction.Allofthisgavetheappearanceofpersonalintegrity.LittlewonderParetoisfrequentlyclassifiedtogetherwithotherirrationalistand`post-modernist’psychologists:Nietzsche,Freud,etc.42

The Problem of Interpersonal Integration

Pareto’sargumentproceededalongadifferent routewithreferencetotheproblemofinterpersonalintegrationorsocialconsistency.AsParsonsputit,“thetotalcomplex[insociety]doesnotconstituteasinglecontrollingagencyasinthecasewiththeindividual”.43Reflectingthepre-judiceoflateNineteenthCenturyneo-classicaleconomicdoctrine known as “Say’sLaw”, Pareto held that jointlogicalactionofpeerstendedtowardsanequilibrium.Forexample,thecompetitivemarketforbreadandwinetendstoclearatsomedeterminatelevelofquantityandrateofexchange.44ButParetocouldprovideno likeassurancethat non-logical action between individuals or groupswouldtendtoastableresolution.Andsincenon-logicalactionwasnotaresidualoflogicalaction,hecouldnotassumethaterroneousbehaviorwasrandomlydistributedandwould tend, at the limit, to coincidewith rational(“logical”)action.

There are three possibilities here. First, in the casewherenon-logicalactionwasguidedbyinstinct,Paretomade grudging recourse to “theDarwinian solution,”concludingthat“peoplehaveinstinctsmoreorlessadap-tedtotheirmodesoflife”.45.Regardingnaturalprocesses,

33Op.cit.,vol.VII,p.29,note.34VilfredoPareto,op.cit.,vol.XII,§4.35MorrisCohen,ReasonandNature,FreePress,NY,1953,p.343.36AndrásGedö,CrisisConsciousness inContemporaryPhilosophy,Chap.2,MEPPress,Minneapolis,1982.37Vilfredo Pareto,op. cit., vol.XII, § 65; See also StevenLukes,Individualism,HarperandRow,NY,1973,p.112.38VilfredoPareto,op.cit.,vol.XII,§1240.39SeeLutherBernard,“MisuseofInstinctintheSocialSciences”,inPsychologicalReview,Vol.28,1921,pp.96-119.AndZingKuo,“GivingupInstinctsinPsychology”,inTheJournalofPhilosophy,Vol.18,1921,pp.645-664.40VilfredoPareto,op.cit.,vol.XII,§1207.41Op.cit.,vol.XII,§§1737-8.Seealsovol.VII,p.468.42H.StuartHughes,op.cit.,p.262;LewisMumford,TheConditionofMan,Harcourt,Brace,NY,1944;on“irrationalism”,seeGyörgyLukács,Elasaltoalarazón,Barcelona:Grijalbo,1968.43TalcottParsons,op.cit.,1937,p.236.44VilfredoPareto,op.cit.,vol.VII,p.168-17;vol.XII,§2069.45Op.cit.,vol.XII,§1770;§§21412142.



ParetowholeheartedlyendorsedtheDarwiniananalysis,evensupposingthisvalidatedhumanwarfare46–althoughwarfareisaculturalpracticeratherthanheritable.Butheonlyequivocallyendorsednaturalselectionasitpertainedtosocialprocesses.47Inthatcase,heheldthatonetypicallyisinerrorbecauseoneregardstheadaptationasperfect.48Noticethatitisn’tthenon-logicalactionthatassuresthestableresolutionofjointaction;itistheguidanceprovi-dedbyinstincts–i.e.thedomainofnature–andthenonlyapproximately.

Second,inthenon-competitive(monopolistic)market,afewtradersactaccordingtowhatParetocalled“typeIIconsiderations”,whilethevastmajorityofthetradersactaccordingto“typeIconsiderations”.TypeIisthesetofconsiderationsthatacceptstheconditionsofthemarket(ratesofexchangeandothernorms)asgiven.TraderswhoactaccordingtotypeIconsiderationsarepricetakers.TypeIIisthesetofconsiderationsthatwouldmodifymarketconditionsforone’sownpurposes.49Traderswhoactontheseconsiderationsarepricemakers.50ParetointroducedthedistinctionbetweentypesIandIIconsiderationsinhisCoursin1896.Heindicatedinhissubsequentworksthatthedistinctionhadmuchmoregenerality.51

It follows directly fromPareto’s definition of thebifurcated kinds of action thatAll traders acting in anon‑competitivemarketaccordingtotypeIconsiderationsareengaginginnon‑logicalaction.52Thiskindofmarketcanreachastableresolution,butitdependsuponthemo-nopolists(orthemonopsonists,forthatmatter)retainingtheir extra-market domination over themajority of thetraders,viz. thoseactingaccording to type Iconsidera-tions.53Again, it isnot thenon-logicalactionthat leadstoresolution;contrarytothefantasiesoftheneo-liberals,it is thehegemony that themonopolists’ logical actionexercisesovertheothertraders’non-logicalaction.ThusitistheexigenceofPareto’stheoryofmarketsthatcallsforatheoryofelites,wherebymonopolisticmarketscanbedeterministicallytreated.

Andthispossibilitycanbegeneralized.54Thirdly,then,thenon-logicalactionofoneindividualorgrouptendstobedominatedbythatofanother.Thushumaninteractioninthesphereoflogicalbehaviortendstobeegalitarianandevenpacific.Tradersincompetitivemarketstendtobepeers,accordingtoPareto.Theoutcomeoflogicalactiontendstobeevolutionary.55Interactioninthesphereofnon-logicalaction,bycontrast,tendstobehierarchialandunstable.Anypersonswhoactoutsideofcompetitivemarkets–thatis,thevastmajorityofhumansformostoftheirlives–tendtobeeitherelitesorelsesubordinates.Theoutcomeofnon-logicalactiontendstowardviolentandepisodicresolution,leadingtoaperpetual“circulationofelites”.56Totheextentthereisresolution,therewillalsotendtoberevolution.

There is a dialectical complementarity that existsbetweentheserealmsofaction,ofcourse.Theevolutio-narydevelopmentprecipitatedby logicalactionforevertransformsthesocialsystem,whereuponParetoconcludesthat“historydoesnotrepeatitself”.57Buttherevolutio-narychangebroughtaboutbynon-logicalcontestationsinevitablyresultsintheperpetuationofelitesofonesortoranother.58AsParetostated“it isalwaysanoligarchywhichgoverns”.59

Pareto’s Definition of “Elite”

ThereisanintriguingequivocationinPareto’stheoryofelites,however,anequivocationthatmayperhapsprovefatal.Forambiguityandequivocation,Paretotellsus–whiletheessenceofeverydaydiscourse–aredeadlyinsocialtheorizing.60

Paretobeginsbyprovidingadefinitionoftheconceptofelite.Inhisearlywritingsonelites,forexampleinhisCoursof1896-1897,Paretoobserved thedifficultiesofdefining the term“aristocracy”(i.e.whathewouldcallthe“elite”),and linkingthisgroupto therulingclass.61A fewyears later, inLesSyste`mes socialistes, he ack-nowledgedthattheholdersofinfluenceandpoliticalandsocialpowertendtobetheholdersofgreatwealthaswell.And,Paretocontinued,“theseclassesmakeupanelite,an

46Op.cit.,vol.VII,p.424.47Op.cit.,vol.VII,p.132ff;TalcottParsons,op.cit,1937,p.219ff.48VilfredoPareto,op.cit.,vol.XII,§1770;vol.VII,p.97.49Op.cit.,vol.I,§46and§§140ff;vol.VII,pp.163-164andvol.VII,pp.431434.50 In the theoryofsocial roles, theseParetian typesofconsiderationswouldbeunderstoodintermsofrole‑taking(typeI)androle‑making(typeII);RalphTurner,op.cit.,p.22.51VilfredoPareto,op.cit.,vol.VII,p.486.52Op. cit., vol. I, § 149; Paretomakes the following point about“restrictivemeasures” such asmonopolistic practices: “thismatterproperlybelongstothetheoryofnon-logicalactions”.VilfredoPareto,op.cit.,vol.VII,p.505;GeraintParry,PoliticalElites,ECPRPress,2005,pp.40-41.53TalcottParsons,op.cit.,1937,p.235.54VilfredoPareto,op.cit.,vol.VII,pp.484486.55Op.cit.,vol.XII,§§2392-3.56Op.cit.,vol.XII,§§2056-7;vol.VII,pp.428429.57Op.cit.,vol.XII,§2553.58Op.cit.,vol.,XII,§§1153;op.cit.,vol.XII,pp.2178-9.59Op.cit.,vol.XII,§2183;op.cit.,vol.VII,pp.129,380,423-425.60Op.cit.,vol.XII,§§69,108,115.61Op.cit.,vol.I,§996,1001;op.cit.,vol.VII,p.168on“capacities”.

Gordon Welty


aristocracy”.62But hewasworried that a definition of“elite”orof“aristocracy”wouldbemerelyetymological,adictionarydefinitionratherthanatheoreticaldefinition63–andhequestionedwhethersuchanapproachwastrulyscientific,orratherindicativeoftheproto-scientificstageofintellectualdevelopmentinthesocialsciences.64Indeed,inhisearlywritingsonelites,hemerelyassumedthateliteshave“power”and“honor,”thatelitesalwaysgovern,etc.ThatmayhavebeenacceptableinsofarasPareto’stopicintheseearlywritingswasadescriptionofthecirculationofelites,notthetheorizationofelitesperse.Butthiswassurelylessacceptablewhenthetopicofeliteswastobetheorizedinageneralsociology.

Indeed, Pareto characterizes the conceptualizationof“elite”giveninhisTreatiseasan“exacttheoreticaldefinition.”Heproposesthateachindividualshouldbegivenasetofindicesthatrangebetweenzeroandten,thatrepresenthisorherabilitiesin“everybranchofhumanactivity”.65Formally,theindividual“I”willhavealistofpredicates

P1(I),P2(I),P3(I),...Pn(I),

witheachpredicatebeinganindexofabilitysuchthat

0<_Pj<_10.

Pareto continues that aproper subset of the set ofall humans can thenbe constructed that includes every

individualwhohasbeenratedas`ten’insomebranchofactivity,andthemembersofthatsubsetwillbenamedthe“elite”.66Itischaracteristicofapropersubsetthatsomeindividualswillnotbeincludedinthatsubset.

Therearetwokeyquestionsthatmustbeaddressedat this point. First, are the indices included in the listofpredicates takentobeadditivelyormultiplicativelyrelated?Iftheyareassumedtobeadditive,thenlowra-tingsonmostindicesandahighratingononeorafewindiceswillensureahighranking.Iftheyareassumedtobemultiplicative,thenonlyhighratingsonmanyindiceswillensureahighrank.67EvidentlyParetohasoptedfortheadditiveassumption,butgivesnotheoreticalargumentforhisposition.

Asecondkeyquestionremains.Howmany“branchesof human activity” are there, according to Pareto? Inhisterms,toeachofthese`branches’–suchasthelegalprofession,prostitution,chess,etc.,andthesearePareto’sexamples–therecorrespondsa“socialgroup”–suchaslawyers,prostitutes,chessplayers,etc.68Formally,howmanypredicatespertaintoeachindividual;howlargeisn?

Paretohasalreadyprovidedananswertothisquestion.Heacknowledgesthat“itisimpossiblefullytotreatthediversityofthemultitudeofsocialgroups”thatmoreoverinteract in “numberless fashions”.69 In somewhatmoreformalterms,where:

n=thenumberofgroups,n→∞

Paretoproposed to“reduceasmuchaspossible thenumbersofgroups.”Likewisehehadproposedtoplacetogether“thosephenomenathatseemtobesimilarinsomefashion”.70Buthenowhereindicateshowthis`reduction’istobeaccomplishedinatheoreticallyappropriateway,71otherthantoacknowledge,inoneofhischaracteristicallylengthyfootnotes,that“itisnecessarytohaveanideaofthequantitativeeffectof influences [uponagivenphe-nomenon]andthengoontoconsiderparticularlythoseelementswhoseinfluenceisconsiderable”.72Henowhereindicateshowthese“influences”aretobeassessedortohavetheirrelativesignificancedetermined.73

Ontheonehand,thenumberofsocialgroupsmightbereducedbysomeprocessofrandomselection,althoughParetodoesnotseemtoadvocatesuchasamplingpro-cedure.Ontheotherhand,asystemiccriterionmightbeemployed–inwhichcasethatcriterionmustbetheorized.

SuchacriterionmightbeTalcottParson’snotionofasocial system’s “functionalprerequisites,” that prescribethe“strategicstructuralsignificance”ofcertainrolesandgroups– andpresumably the insignificanceof others.74Anothercriterionmightbephenomenologicallyestablished,asinKuhnandMcPartland’sdistinctionbetweenconsensual

62Op.cit.,vol.VI,p.8.63GyörgyLegenyel,“Notesonthe‘QualityofElites’”,inElitesinCentral‑EasternEurope,FriedrichEbertFoundation,Budapest,2006,pp.5-12.64VilfredoPareto,op.cit.,vol.VII,p.14;op.cit.,vol.XII,§246.65Op.cit.,vol.XII,§2027.66Op.cit.,vol.XII,§2031.67KaaveSvalastoga, “SocialDifferentiation”, inR.E.L. Faris (ed.),HandbookofModernSociology,Chap.15,RandMcNally,Chicago,1964.68VilfredoPareto,op.cit.,vol.VII,p.129.69Op.cit.,vol.XII,§2025;RalphTurner,op.cit.,p.22.70Op.cit.,vol.XII,§2025.71Op.cit.,vol.XII,§§105,pp.1478.SeealsothetheoreminTurner,op.cit.,p.26.72Op.cit.,vol.XII,§2025,note.73 Earlier, he had commented that the elite is defined by “a set ofqualities[i.e.thesetPj,j=1,2...n]whichfavoroneclass’prosperityanddominationinthesociety”.VilfredoPareto,op.cit.,vol.VII,p.129.Suchacriterionwouldhaveaccomplishedtherequiredsubsumption–butParetodidnotpursuethislead.74TalcottParsons,op.cit.,1951,Chap.II.



andsub‑consensualattitudesaboutone’sself.Amongtheconsensual(i.e.group)references,arankingcanbeobser-vedthatidentifiestherelativelymoresignificantgroups.75Andthereareofcourseothersystemiccriteriathatmightbetheorized,andthatwouldservetoreducethenumberofsocialgroups.ButParetohasnosuchcriterion.

Circularity and Vacuity

Pareto’s“exact theoreticaldefinition”is indeedva-cuous,asweshallnowshow.Wewillfirstargueproba-bilisticallythatthereisnosetofelitesthatmakesupapropersubsetofthetotalpopulation;itislikelythateveryindividual is amemberof the elite subset, as defined.Thenwewillargueonothergroundsthatnoindividualcanbeexcludedfromtheelitesubset,asdefined.ThusPareto’s theory equivocates between “population” and“elite”.TheconclusionwillbethatPareto’sformulationisvacuous,because thesetofelites is thesameasthetotalpopulation.

First,considerconstructingtheelitesubset.Wewillproceedprobabilistically;thataccordswithPareto’sownmethod.76AsMayhewandSchollaerthavecorrectlypoin-tedoutaboutPareto’stheoryofelites,his“statementswereprobabilisticgeneralizations”.77Foreachindividual,thetaskistoproceedthroughthelistofpredicates(P1,P2,P3,...)untilanindexofthatindividual’sabilitywithavalueof“ten”isencountered,whereuponthatindividualistobeincludedintheelitesubset.Letusassumethatsomeifnotallhumanabilitiesareindependentlyandstochasticallydistributed;suchanassumptionwouldseemtoaccordwithPareto’s belief in “social heterogeneity”.78Under suchassumptions,thelikelihoodapproachesunitythateveryin-dividualhasatleastoneindexofabilitywithvalue“ten”’,asthenumberofpredicatesbecomes“numberless,”i.e.asn→∞.Henceitisverylikelythatnosetofelitesexistsasapropersubsetofthepopulation,inPareto’sterms.

NowanelitistliketheancientGreekelegistTheogniscouldreplythatnohumancapacitiesareindependentandstochasticallydistributed,thattheirdistributionisinsteadcorrelatedsothatanindividualwhorankshighlyonindexjalsotendstorankhighlyonindexk.Undersuchconditions,itwouldbeverylikelythatasetofeliteswouldexistasapropersubsetofthepopulation.Ontheonehand,however,itisnotpossibletocorrelatea“numberless”setofindices.On the other hand, andmore telling, Pareto explicitlydeniedsuchacorrelation:“Thesameindividualsdonotoccupythesamepositions”intermsofdifferentpredica-tes.79Hence,itishighlyprobableonPareto’sowntermsthateveryindividualisamemberofthe“elite”insomebranchofhumanactivityorother.ThusthetruthofMa-yhewandSchollaert’squalificationthattheirconception

ofan“economicelite”cannotbegeneralizedtoPareto’stheoryofelites.80Theydeducethatan“economicelite”–thatisaneliteintermsofincomeorwealth–willtendtobeaminorityinagivenpopulation;onPareto’sownargument,bycontrast,aneliteingeneralwillconstitutethemajorityifnotthetotalityofapopulation.

Letusnowturntoasecondconsideration.Suppose(contrarytoPareto)thattheindicesofcapacityarecorre-lated.Thentheprocessofmovingthroughthelistofpre-dicatesforeachindividualwillincludesomepersonsintheelitesubsetwhileotherswillremainexcluded.InasocietysuchastheUnitedStateswithitsproliferationofvoluntaryassociations,theseveryindividualswhotendtobeexclu-dedarecandidates formembership in“counter-groups”such as theLosersClub, theProcrastinatorsClub, theYuffies[YoungUrbanFailures],theDorks,etc.Indeed,thesesocialgroupsmustalsobe“vastlynumerous”.Suchgroupsandthe(counter-)capacitiestheyrepresentmustbeincludedinourdeliberations,sinceParetohasexplicitlysetasideanyconsiderationsofthemorality,utility,orothermeritsoftheabilitiesunderexamination.81

Giventheassumedcorrelationoftheindicesofabi-lities,preciselythoseindividualswhohadbeenhithertoexcludedfromtheelitesubsetwilltendtohaveatleastoneindexof“countercapacity”withvalue“ten”.Butthesein-dividualswilltherebybenoless“elite,”inPareto’sterms.82Theywillbeaccomplishedinthefutilityoftheirexistence.

75ManfordKuhnandT.S.McPartland,“AnEmpiricalInvestigationofSelf-Attitudes”,AmericanSociologicalReview,Vol.19,1954.76VilfredoPareto,op.cit.,vol.XII,§§69,97,2074.77ItisevidentthatPareto’sisafrequency(aposterioriorempiricist)conceptionofprobability,whileMayhewandSchollaert’sisalogical(orapriori)conception.MayhewandP.Schollaert,“SocialMorphologyofPareto’sEconomicElite”, inSocialForces,Vol. 51, 1980, p. 25.TheirequivocationappearstoviolateHempel’sprincipleofsyntacticaldeterminacy.CarlHempel, “Fundamentals ofConcept Formation inEmpiricalScience”,inO.Neurath(ed.)InternationalEncyclopediaofUnifiedScience,UniversityofChicagoPress,Vol.II,No.7,Chicago,1952.SeeCarlHempel,op.cit.,pp.12-14.Inparticular,whattheycallthe“Paretoelite”(P)wouldmorecorrectlybecalledthe“Mayhew-Schollaertelite,“based,astheycorrectlyobserve,on“ecological””considerations.BruceMayhewandP.Schollaert,op.cit.,p.37.78VilfredoPareto,op.cit.,vol.XII,§2025.79Op.cit.,vol.V[i],p.8.80BruceMayhewandP.Schollaert,op.cit.,p.41.81VilfredoPareto,op.cit.,volXII,§2026;seealsoTurneronthedifferencebetweena“leader”anda“dissenter”.RalphTurner,op.cit.,p.27.82RecallthecaseofVaclavHavel,the“dissidentplaywright”whoemergedfromjailin1989tobecomethePresidentofCzechoslovakiain1990.

Gordon Welty


Henceweconclude thatno individualwillbeexcludedfromtheelitesubset;thatsubsetcannotbeapropersubsetofthetotalpopulation;Pareto’sformulationisvacuous.Intermsofhistheorizing,thismeansthatthecharacteristicsoftheelitecannotbededucedwithinPareto’stheoreticalframework.83Thosecharacteristics–e.g.thatelitesalwaysrule,thatelitescirculate,etc.–mustotherwisebeinsertedintothepremisesofPareto’stheoreticalargument.Andthatisthefallacyofpetitioprincipii.Sinceeverypopulationtendsinitsentiretytobeanelite,thesepropositionsaboutelitesbecometriviallytrue.

From “Elite” to “Governors”

As Pareto continues, he further divides the eliteintotwogroups:agovernmentaleliteandanon‑gover-nmentalelite.84Thisdistinctionmightnot in itselfbevacuous,eveniftheelitesetisthesameasthepopula-tion,insofarastheproposeddistinctionwouldactuallydividetheentirepopulationintotwostrata.ButParetomerely indicates that thegovernmentalelite“directlyorindirectlyplaysanotableroleingovernment,”whiletheotherstratumdoesn’t.Thatisatautology:thosewhogovernplayapartingovernment,andthosewhodon’t,don’t.85Thereisnoattempttotheorizetherelationshipbetweenindicesofability(Pj)andmembershipinthegovernmentalelite.86

Infact,Paretohadearlierpointedoutthat“thosewhogovern,whetherbeingloworhighonthescale,[...differfrom...]thosewhoaregoverned”.87Thetermscale(echelle)

apparentlyplaces“intothehigherplacesthosewhopossessthesequalities [of governor] in thehighest degree, andintolowerplacesthosewhopossess[the]qualitiesonlyinaslightdegree”,88whichistosaythereisa“non-elite”amongPareto’sown“governmentalelite”.Hecontinues“countless circumstances can placemenwhohave thesamequalitiesofintelligenceandcharacterdifferentlyinthesocialhierarchy”.89

Thenheshiftshisdiscussionfromthatofthe“scien-tific analysis” of indices, etc. to the folk-wisdom of“certain labels [etiquettes]whichreplace indicesmoreor less adequately”.90He sets aside his own stricturesagainst ambiguity.91 In these folk terms, he points outthattheachievedstatusofsomeelitemembersmustbedistinguished from the ascribed status of others.92Anelite contains various proportions of achieved- versusascribed-statusmembers,andanelitewithahigherpro-portionofascribed-statusmembersislessstable.93Hencetherelativeproportionshaverevolutionaryimplications,accordingtoPareto.

Aswe reflect back through this chainof reasoning,however,wecannotfailtoobservethatiftheindicesare“numberless,”thenthe“labels”shouldbeexpectedtobeno lessnumerous.By the sameargumentweadvancedabove, it is highly probable that every individualwhobears an “hereditary label”will be amember of someachieved-statuseliteaswell.Andviceversa,forthatmat-ter.HencePareto’sdiscussionofthe`achievedstatus’ofsomeeliteversusthe ascribedstatus’ofothersonlyservestoacknowledgethecomplicationsthatrenderthetaskoftheorizing the “governmental elite” (or “governmentalnon-elite,”asthecasemaybe)moredifficult.94

Most likely, Pareto has introduced his distinc-tion between elites of achieved-status versus thoseof ascribed-status in order ultimately to explain thecirculation of elites.95 But vacuity does notmake foran explanation.Thereafter he discards the distinctionbetween governing and non-governmental elites infavorofa simplebifurcationof society intoa“higherstratum,whichusually contains the governors,” and a“lowerstratum,whichusuallycontains thegoverned.”Andthisfinalbifurcationisnottheorizedatall,Paretomerely claiming that this “is a factwhich is obviousto themost casualobservation”.96 OfcoursewemustaskWhy do science at all? if this is so obvious.AsRuncimanhasputit“doesitamounttoverymuch?”97

Conclusion

Atthispoint,weareconfrontedwithtwoalternativesregardingPareto’s theory of elites. First,we can ack-nowledgethatthistheoryisnotvacuousinsofarasitpertains

83AsDahrendorf has pointedout, the characteristics of the non-elitecannotbeascertainedeither.RalphDahrendorf,ClassandClassConflictin Industrial Society, Stanford: StanfordUniversity Press, Stanford,1959,p.199.84VilfredoPareto,op.cit.,vol.XII,§2032.85W.G.Runciman,SocialScienceandPoliticalTheory,Cambridge,UniversityPress,Cambridge,1969,p.69.86VilfredoPareto,op.cit.,vol.XII,§2033.87Op.cit.,vol.VII,p.73;emphasisadded.88Ibid.89Op.cit.,vol.VII,p.74.90Op.cit.,vol.XII,§2035.91Op.cit.,vol.XII,§69.etc.92Op.cit.,vol.XII,§§20362037.93Op.cit.,vol.XII,§2040.94Op.cit.,vol.XII,§§2035-6.95Op.cit.,vol.XII,§2042.96Op.cit.,vol.XII,§2047.97W.G.Runciman,op.cit.,p.69.



to typesof economicmarkets; in otherwords,Pareto’stheoryofelitesissimplyatheoryofeconomicelites.Itcharacterizes the relationshipbetweenmonopolists andothertradersundertypeIImarketconsiderations.Butthisisaseverelyrestrictedtheory,bothintimeandspace.Suchatheorypertainstoverylittleofhumanhistory,sincemosthumanslivedinpre-capitalist,andevenpre-commercial,societies.Also,suchatheorywouldfocusattentiononan“economicbasis”ofsocietalprocesses,whichisacon-cessionmany sociologistswouldnot approve.98 In anycase,thetheoryofmarketsnecessitatesatheoryofelites;Pareto’seconomicscannotbeseparatedfromhissociology.

Second,wecanacknowledgethatthistheoryisva-cuousinsofarasitpertainstothegeneralsocialsystem;ithas theappearanceofsubstanceonly insofaras it iscircular.Paretocharacterizestheplaceofelitesinhumanhistoryonlybyassumingthenatureandroleofelitesin

his theoreticalpremises.Of course sucha theorymayyethaveconsiderableideologicalorpolemicalweight.Consider an illustration.No less an authority than thepolitical scientist,AlfredMeyer, has remindedus that“moststudiesoftheCommunistworld[have]describedCommuniststatesinthecrudestParetiantermsastheruleofself-appointedelitesstrivingtoperpetuatethemselvesandstructuringtheentiresystemtothispurpose”.99Theevents of 1989 have perhaps disconfirmed such crudetheorizingofwhichMeyercomplains.ButitwasParetohimselfwhoflailedoutagainstpseudo-scientificexpla-nationsinhisTreatise.

Regardlessofwhichalternativewechoose,itshouldbeevidentthat–asinthecaseofWeber,sointhecaseofPareto– that it isnotpossible toseparate thissocialtheorist’ssociologyfromhiseconomics,withoutseriouslymisrepresentinghimandhistheoryofelites.

98CharlesPowers,“SociopoliticalDeterminantsofEconomicCycles”,inSocialScienceQuarterly,Vol.65,1984,p.989.99AlfredMeyer,“TheComparativeStudyofCommunistPoliticalSystems”,inSlavicReview,Vol.26,1967,p.27.

Bibliography

♦ Aron,Raymond,MainCurrentsinSociologicalThought,GardenCity,NY:DoubledayAnchor,Vol.II,1970.♦ Bernard,Luther,“MisuseofInstinctintheSocialSciences”,inPsychologicalReview,Vol.28,1921.♦ Bredemeier,Harry,“ExchangeTheory”inT.BottomoreandR.Nisbet(eds.)HistoryofSociologicalAnalysis,BasicBooks,NY,1978.

♦ Cohen,Morris,ReasonandNature,FreePress,NY,1953.♦ Cooley,Charles,TheTheoryofTransportation,PublicationsoftheAmericanEconomicAssociation,Vol.9,1894.♦ Cooley,Charles,SocialOrganization,Scribners,NY,1909.♦ Dahrendorf,Ralf,ClassandClassConflictinIndustrialSociety,StanfordUniversityPress,Stanford,1959.♦ Gedö,András,CrisisConsciousnessinContemporaryPhilosophy,MEPPress,Minneapolis,1982.♦ Hempel,Carl,“FundamentalsofConceptFormationinEmpiricalScience”,inO.Neurath(ed.),InternationalEncyclo-pediaofUnifiedScience,Vol.II,No.7,UniversityofChicagoPress,Chicago,1952.

♦ Hughes,H.Stuart,ConsciousnessandSociety,RandomHouseVintage,NY,1961.♦ Kuhn,ManfordandT.S.McPartland,“AnEmpiricalInvestigationofSelf-Attitudes”,AmericanSociologicalReview,Vol.19,1954.

♦ Kuo,Zing,“GivingupInstinctsinPsychology”,inTheJournalofPhilosophy,Vol.18,1921.♦ Lengyel,György,“Notesonthe‘QualityofElites’”,inElitesinCentral‑EasternEurope,FriedrichEbertFoundation,Budapest,2006.

♦ Lukács,György,Elasaltoalarazon,Barcelona,Grijalbo,1968.♦ Lukes,Steven,Individualism,HarperandRow,NY,1973.♦ Mayhew,BruceandP.Schollaert,“SocialMorphologyofPareto’sEconomicElite”,SocialForces,Vol.51,1980.♦ Meyer,Alfred,“TheComparativeStudyofCommunistPoliticalSystems”,inSlavicReview,Vol.26,1967.♦ Mumford,Lewis,TheConditionofMan,Harcourt,Brace,NY,1994.♦ Osipova,Elena,“TheSociologicalSystemofVilfredoPareto”,inIgorKon(ed.),AHistoryofClassicalSociology,Chap.12,ProgressPublishers,Moscow.

♦ Pareto,Vilfredo,Oeuvrescomple’tes,Vols.1–12,LibrairieDroz,Geneva,1964ff.

Gordon Welty


♦ Parry,Geraint,PoliticalElites,ECPRPress,2005.♦ Parsons,Talcott,TheStructureofSocialAction,McGraw-Hill,NY,1937.♦ --------------------,TheSocialSystem,FreePress,NY,1951.♦ Powers,Charles,“SociopoliticalDeterminantsofEconomicCycles”,inSocialScienceQuarterly,Vol.65,1984.♦ Runciman,W.G.,SocialScienceandPoliticalTheory,CambridgeUniversityPress,Cambridge,1969.♦ Scott,John,“ParetoandtheElite”,inJ.FemiaandA.Marshall(eds.),VilfredoPareto:BeyondDisciplinaryBoundaries,AshgatePublishing,Farnham,2012.

♦ Svalastoga,Kaave,“SocialDifferentiation”,inR.E.L.Faris(ed.),HandbookofModernSociology,Chap.15,Rand-Mc-Nally,Chicago,1964.

♦ Turner,Ralph,“Role-Taking”,inA.Rose(ed.),HumanBehaviorandSocialProcess,Houghton-Mifflin,Boston,1962.♦ Weber,Max,EconomyandSociety,BedminsterPress,NY,1968.

pareto’s theory of elites: circulation or circularity? · 2017. 10. 28. · gie ge`ne`rale in...

Documents