in sociology and political science, the highest layer (or layers) of the social structure of society, carrying out the functions of management, development of science, culture and other areas of public life. The elite is distinguished on various grounds - political, economic, intellectual, etc. Modern sociology has put forward the concept of multiple elites (political, economic, administrative, military, religious, scientific, cultural), balancing each other and preventing the establishment of totalitarianism.

M.P. Sherstnev, in his study “Who Rules Us: The Psychology of Managers,” gives the following definition of the elite: “These are people who have a higher level of elitism relative to other representatives of a given group of people.” Sherstnev refers to elitism as a person’s ability to responsibly predict the results of management decisions. In modern Russian society, there is often a substitution of concepts when, due to some absurd misunderstanding, the “elite of society” is called all sorts of crooks, thieves (the so-called “oligarchs”) and mediocrities who have reached the media and created a kind of “closed parties” "(only for our own people). To avoid confusion in definitions, it would be appropriate to use the phrases “natural (true) elite of society” and “pseudo-elite”. The natural elite is a layer of society that carries out the functions of management, development of science and culture for the benefit of its people, raising their material, social, cultural and moral level. The pseudo-elite is only busy with self-praise (promoting themselves), lining their own pockets, and promoting a perverted lifestyle and degradation. If we talk about power, then the pseudo-elite in power does not govern, but only pretends to work for the benefit of the people. The natural elite moves the people towards comprehensive development, the pseudo-elite lowers the people to the level of cattle. In the above-mentioned work, M.P. Sherstnev points out that the main driving force of the pseudo-elite is immorality, and populism is the main type of its public activity.

The word "elite" means "the best." In the Russian Federation, the “elite” began to be called the richest, most famous and influential people, but anyone who knows the ways to achieve power, wealth and fame in modern Russia understands that the word “best” cannot be used for most of them. Moreover, in a sense, the ruling layer of Russia is a “counter-elite”. The difference lies not only in his moral qualities. The mechanism of interaction between the elite and the rest of society is very important. If certain people represent certain groups of the population and protect their interests: they are the “elite” of this group. The national elite are those who represent and protect the interests of the entire nation. It is the moment of the emergence of the “national elite” that is the moment of the birth of the nation. The counter-elite opposes itself to the nation (and those groups from which it separated). She strives to achieve her personal, selfish interests at the expense of the nation. This situation usually arises when a country is captured and is maintained by brutal violence. Today in Russia it arose as a result of the established rules of the game in the Russian power system and the universal recognition of these rules.

See also: liberal revolution, creative elite.

Excellent definition

Incomplete definition ↓

The concept of “elite” first appears in Aristotle, then appears in the Middle Ages in Machiavelli, and at the beginning of the 20th century in Pareto. An important step in the development of the theory of elites is associated with the publication in 1953 of R. Mills’ book “The Power Elite.” Among the names of scientists who played a huge role in the development of the theory are M. Dogan, J. Higley, M. Burton and others. There are historically few such works in Russia. Among modern Russian authors, the leading specialists are M.V. Ilyin, O.V. Gaman-Golutvina, as well as O. V. Kryshtanovskaya with her works on the “anatomy of the Russian elite”.

Formally, belonging to the elite (“he is the elite”, “the elite is not the elite”) is a certain position in power, the army, finance, science or culture, although in many ways this is the subjective opinion of people. Moreover, since representatives of different schools, cultures, views and directions usually have their own ambitions, they rarely, except in undisputed cases, easily assign this title to someone. The political elite is widely observed, but the boundary between those who “really” make the most important decisions and the visible status elements is unclear. For example, in most political parties and movements, decisions are made by a limited group of people, and according to formal characteristics, researchers classify all members of parliaments, ministers and other “power holders” as members of the “power” elite.

1. Types of elite

The nature and composition of the elites are specific to the country: if the country did not have a serious army or it disappeared over time, then this country cannot have an army elite. For example, in the Austro-Hungarian Empire there was an army elite, but now it no longer exists. There are countries in which there is a very serious religious, church elite, for example in Poland or Italy, with a large traditional influence of religion on public life. Gradually this factor weakens compared to the past, but does not disappear. In addition to the army and church, there are political, financial and intellectual elites.

The division of the types of ruling elite (that is, those who make key decisions) into political, financial and military was proposed by the American scientist Wright Mills in his studies of the 1950s. Among the most recent interesting works, noteworthy is the book edited by J. Higley and M. Burton, “The Elite as the Foundation of Liberal Democracy.” Political scientists are now reluctant to write that democracy and control may be under some influence of the ruling elites - this is politically incorrect. Naturally, democracy and elite control are two opposing concepts. There are indicators that measure the nature of the political regime in countries from autocracy to democracy, which largely reflects the nature and position of the elite. Modern society, on the one hand, can be outwardly democratic, on the other hand, hide a political elite somewhere inside, which will make key decisions regardless of voters (leaving it to the people to make minor decisions at the local level) and categorically assert that there is democracy all around (hybrid regimes). But the elites apparently find means to “insure” the political process in order to avoid shocks and revolutions. And very rarely does a scientist manage to find the “hand of the elite.” In established, developed democracies, the elite does not emerge as a force outside the democratic process. In medieval Venice, a lot of elections, lots, and so on were held. They started there with the election of 1,600 people, then 500 by lot, then a hundred were chosen, and so on. Alternating between elections and drawing lots, they settled on ten, who, of course, turned out to be representatives of approximately the same family clans. But let us note that the Venetian system captured quite a wide range of citizens in elections, so Serenissima experienced, perhaps, much less socio-political upheaval than other Italian cities.

Dogan M. Elite Configurations at the Apex of Power. Leiden - Boston: Bril, 2003

Elites, crises, and the origins of regimes / M. Dogan, J. Higley (Eds.). - Rowman & Littlefield publishers inc., Lanham etc., 1998

2. Elite consensus

The ruling elite has special capabilities and strives for a certain status. She has two goals: maintaining her elite position and “development projects.” If the elites are in agreement with each other (for example, they went through some period of struggle among themselves, then settled down and act together), then society is usually in development. In England, kings and barons spent a hundred years rewriting the Magna Carta (see British Library), but they laid the foundations of rights. Then they fought in civil wars for a long time, and executed Charles I. Finally, a classic example of a compromise between the elites can be called the events of 1684 in England, when the Whigs and Tories agreed to overthrow the Stuarts and brought the Orange to power. Since then, democracy in England, and then in the UK, has continued until the recent referendum on Scottish independence. So the factor of elite consent is of enormous importance for political life and the stability of the financial sector.

Higley J., Burton M. Elite Foundations of Liberal Democracy. 2006

Leonid Grigoriev “Elites: the Choice for Modernization” in “Russia: the challenges of transformation”, ed. By P.Dutkiewicz and D.Trenin, NY University Press and SSRC, NY and London, 2011

3. Intellectual elite

For intellectual and other elites, the distinction between functional and normative elites is important. A representative of the functional elite may be the director of an academic institute or a member of parliament. There is also a normative elite. It includes figures of art, literature, and politics. They give a new norm, new ideas, like, for example, Academician Sakharov.

The phenomenon of ignoring true members of the intellectual elite during their lifetime is known. So often the final determination of a person to the rank of the intellectual elite occurs posthumously. If we look at the biographies of outstanding commanders, writers or artists, it turns out that many were not recognized during their lifetime and only after death they began to be considered among the elite. For example, it is worth remembering Admiral Nelson’s difficult relationship with the Admiralty and the start of the impressionist artists.

Recognition of a person by the intellectual elite is a complex process that cannot be reduced to a high position or citation index. It is necessary to have a huge impact on people's lives, their culture or science, to give a clear positive result (a discovery, a work of art), so that a critical mass of fellow specialists and citizens recognizes someone as a leader - an outstanding figure in a particular field, that is, a member of the elite .

Gaman-Golutvina O. V. Political elites of Russia: milestones of historical evolution. - M.: ROSPEN, 2006

Grigoriev L. M. Interests and problems during the global crisis: responsibility of the elites, understanding of the middle class and patience of the poor // Economics of transition processes. T. 2. M., MUM, 2009

4. Social movements and elites

In the public sphere, from politics to the media, the issue of identifying elites is complicated by the differing views of social strata. So parties, trade unions, movements, and the media may generally have elites, groups of individuals who belong to the ruling elite, parliamentary and non-parliamentary counter-elites, who share the general systemic principles of the political system or challenge it in certain aspects. In addition to national elites, there are, naturally, regional elites.

At one time, Max Weber identified traditional, charismatic and legitimate leaders, which reflected the replacement of feudalism with capitalism. Accordingly, historically there have been changes or transformations of elites. Revolutions and major social transformations naturally imply a change of elites. Lenin said that “the upper classes cannot, and the lower classes do not want,” to live in the old way. In our language, it was essentially about elites (“tops”) who cannot continue to govern the country using the same methods.

Conflicts between elites and counter-elites in a democracy are resolved by elections, compromises, and integration of counter-elites. The emergence of elite conflict from the legal field is a civil conflict of varying degrees of severity and severity of forms of manifestation.

Grigoriev L. M. Elites and the middle class. // "Spero" #13, 2010

Kryshtanovskaya O. Anatomy of the Russian elite. M., 2005

5. Elite studies

Interesting work is being done in this area on countries and on the nature of elites. You have to be very careful because the classifications of the elite are very different. But in the end, the most influential people of the era find themselves in the elite; outstanding scientists, sooner or later, even on the posthumous list, end up in the elite of science. The concept of the elite is a very interesting one, and can be explored by anyone who is not a professional political scientist. However, you cannot first appoint someone as an elite and then make a yardstick on him. The mentality of the elite, their behavior, and their interests are extremely important.

There is no list of the ruling elite for any country, since there is no strict formal criterion. The elite is a layer of very “shy” people. Especially in countries with democratic governance, it tries on principle not to demonstrate itself. It is screened by various intermediate layers, functional organizations, so it is difficult for a researcher to find out what it really is, how it makes decisions, who it consists of, and how it interacts within the clan. Elites are usually very stingy with statistical data about themselves and especially about the nature of decision-making, logic and motivation. The duality of interests of the ruling elite - maintaining their position and “development projects” - involves very complex processes that often remain in the shadows.

Mills R. The ruling elite. M., 1989

Elites and society in comparative dimensions. Ed. O.V.Gaman-Golutvina, M., “Rosspan”, 2011

Literature

Grigoriev L.M., Salmina A.A. The structure of the Russian middle class: a preliminary analysis for future research. M.: “Spero”, No. 12, 2010;

Grigoriev L.M. Elites and middle class. M.: “Spero”, No. 13, 2010;

Grigoriev L.M., Salmina A.A.“Structure” of social inequality in the modern world: problems of measurement. M.: “Sociological Journal”, No. 3, 2013, p. 5-16.

management of society, and also regulates the development of new models (stereotypes) of behavior in conditions of changing paradigms of social life, which allows this society to adapt to changes in the environment or in the ethnic landscape. At the same time, structurally, the elite can be open to outside influence (“the power of democracy”) or it can be completely closed from outside interference (“authoritarian society”).

Encyclopedic YouTube

1 / 3

✪ Why the elite don’t get vaccinated. Bill Gates and US elites refuse to vaccinate children

✪ How the elite of England are brought up in Oxford. Bullingdon Club

✪ #Political elite of the Unified State Examination | #Functions of the political elite | #Guarantees against the degradation of the elite...

Subtitles

Bill Gates's former personal physician in Seattle in the 1990s said that the founder of Microsoft developers, a pro-vaccination advocate, refused to vaccinate his children, I don't know how it is now, but I can responsibly tell you that he flatly refused to vaccinate his children, said a doctor at a closed medical symposium in Seattle, I added they they were wonderful children, very smart and cheerful, and he said that everything would be fine, they didn’t need any vaccinations, eyewitnesses agreed, these words caused a wave of indignation among doctors at the symposium, accusing him of violating medical confidentiality, however, when he spoke about this only with other doctors he did not violate the medical code of conduct killer three children wife Mylene Dye Jennifer Rory and Phoebe they were born between 1996 and 2000 the second year and according to his former personal doctor they are all unvaccinated and completely healthy news that Bill Gates does not kill his children despite the fact that he is the most active participant in the compulsory vaccination campaign, it should not surprise anyone, studies show that the elite do not vaccinate their children, but at the same time they insist that the common people vaccinate their children or do not vaccinate, according to a recent study in California, children who those who are not vaccinated are white and come from the wealthiest families in Los Angeles The proportion of unvaccinated children doubled from 2007 to 2013 from one point fifty-four to 3.06 percent, that's more than half a million children who refused vaccinations and of those, 17 thousand were from wealthy families, according to cnn The number of families completely refusing to vaccinate their children was the highest in most white, high-income areas such as Orange County, Santa Barbara and the Bay area. A study published in the American Journal looked at more than 20,000 California schools and found that refusal to vaccinate was twice as high More often than not, among children attending private elite schools the very rich and have transferred gear about van. Her parents know a lot about vaccines and they don’t want to take risks when it comes to the health of their own children. They are worried about adverse reactions, including autism. Bill Gates is of course not a fool to inject their children with poisonous drugs. compote, which itself develops and knows perfectly well that vaccines are created to depopulate the population 1, let us at least remember his polio vaccination program, Bill Gates' polio vaccination program eradicates children, they polio is confirmed by the Center for Disease Control that pv or oral vaccination against polio to millions of children around the world causes them to develop watering allied vaccine origin from which they die instead of introducing a ban on vaccination, as one would expect, Sidisi decided in his wisdom that the best way to solve this problem is to maintain high rates of vaccination in all countries. The second nose and frankly his recognition was made at a conference in California in In 2010, when Gates lifted the curtain on a largely unknown aspect of his philanthropy, population decline, Gates mentioned it at a private conference in Long Beach, California called the ted 2010 conference in his speech renewing to zero, along with the scientifically absurd proposal to artificially reduce co2 emissions worldwide by zero by 2050 at about 4 and a half minutes into his speech the gay man states first we've got a world population of 6.8 billion people today this number will rise to about 9 billion now if we really do a great job on new vaccines health services in the area reproductive health we will reduce it perhaps by 10 or 15 percent today there are 6.8 billion people in the world and this figure will grow to about 9 billion subject to major success in creating new vaccines healthcare in the field of reproductive health the growth may decrease by 10-15 percent by in plain English, one of the most powerful people in the world clearly said that he expects vaccines to be used to reduce population growth when bill gates talks about vaccines he knows what he's talking about in january 2010 at the elite world economic forum in davos gates announced that within next decade, his foundation will allocate 10 billion dollars about seven and a half billion euros for the development and delivery of new vaccines for children 3 in 2016, Gates finally admitted that vaccines are being created to depopulate the population, so it is not surprising that people in the subject do not vaccinate their kids $10 billion a year for the next 10 years will make this the year of the vaccine what does that mean in essence what in this decade we believe incredible progress can be made both in creating new vaccines and in ensuring that they reach all children in them those in need, we can reduce the number of child deaths per year from about 9 million to half

About the term

There is ambiguity in society regarding the interpretation of the term “elite”. There are two main approaches:

• Political approach evaluates belonging to the elite based on the fact of possessing real power or influence on political processes, regardless of assessments of the intellectual and/or moral qualities of certain individuals. This approach goes back to the seminal work of Moschi [ ] .
• Value-based or meritocratic approach is based on the original meaning of the concept of “elite” (that is, “the best”). It is understood that individuals included in the elite have higher intelligence, talent, abilities, and competence compared to the average indicators of a particular society. Pareto adhered to this position [ ] .

Currently, the political approach to the interpretation of the term “elite” is predominant, since supporters of the value approach have not developed reliable and verifiable criteria for belonging to the elite. The term “elite” is used by modern economists and political scientists to designate groups with real power, regardless of the nature of the latter or ethical assessments of the behavior of power circles. Groups with real power or influence over political decisions also often refer to themselves as "elites" [ ] .

Limitations and classification

Role and functions

The important tasks of any society are to achieve high quality of its existing elite, as well as to ensure the constant reproduction of a high-quality elite. The quality of the elite is assessed by the ratio of the preferences available to the elite with the complexity and degree to which the elite performs its functions, for which, in fact, these preferences are provided to it. In practice, elites often show a tendency to degradation, that is, to an unjustified increase in their own preferences, while simultaneously evading any duties or responsibility to society

ELITE ELITE (in sociology and political science), the highest layer (or layers) of the social structure of society, carrying out the functions of management, development of science and culture. The elite is distinguished on various grounds - political, economic, intellectual, etc. Modern sociology has put forward the concept of multiple elites (political, economic, administrative, military, religious, scientific, cultural), balancing each other and preventing the establishment of totalitarianism (K. Manheim).

Modern encyclopedia. 2000 .

Synonyms:

See what “ELITE” is in other dictionaries:

elite- y, w. élite élire choose, select. 1. outdated pl. Elites. The French troops have the bravest soldiers. Toll 1864. Almost all the troops consisted of such collectors of such indemnities, from the stories of the residents who remained in Moscow. Historical Dictionary of Gallicisms of the Russian Language

Aristocracy, nobility; salt of the earth, cream, scum, chosen ones, the best of the best, the cream of society, the best people, the establishment, the top, the best, super-elite Dictionary of Russian synonyms. elite, see the best Dictionary of synonyms of the Russian language. Practical... Synonym dictionary

Elite- Elite ♦ Élite Etymologically, the body of the chosen, but chosen by chance or as a result of one’s own efforts, and not by God or the people. A kind of secular and meritocratic (i.e., having received power at the expense of their own... ... Sponville's Philosophical Dictionary

- [fr. elite] 1) biol. selected seeds, plants or animals most suitable for reproduction; 2) the most prominent representatives of which l. parts of society, groups; the upper layer of the population or its individual groups. Dictionary of foreign words... Dictionary of foreign words of the Russian language

- (from the French elite best, chosen) 1) the leadership of the official heads of government, the top management of financial and commercial structures, relying on the support of the media and law enforcement agencies;… … Economic dictionary

- (from the French elite, the best choice),..1) (in sociology and political science) the highest layer (or layers) of the social structure of society, performing important and cultural functions. They are distinguished according to the characteristics of the identification of the political elite (V. Pareto, R. Michels) ... Big Encyclopedic Dictionary

Elite, 1) in crop production, high-quality seeds p. X. crops obtained from the harvest of the super-elite and which are the starting materials for the propagation of zoned varieties. 2) In livestock breeding, the most valuable in terms of appearance, constitution, hereditary... ... Great Soviet Encyclopedia

ELITE, elites, many. no, female (French élite). 1. Selected Society (ed. book). 2. collected The best, selected specimens of some plants or animals, distinguished by such qualities that ensure rich reproduction (agricultural).... ... Ushakov's Explanatory Dictionary

ELITE, s, f. collected Ozhegov's explanatory dictionary. S.I. Ozhegov, N.Yu. Shvedova. 1949 1992 … Ozhegov's Explanatory Dictionary

- (French elite - best, chosen) concept in sociology, denoting the highest privileged strata in society, performing the functions of management, development of science and culture. The theory of the elite was developed by Plato, Carlyle, Nietzsche, but as a system... ... Philosophical Encyclopedia

Books

• Elite, Cass K.. At first there were thirty-five of them. Now there are only six of them left. This is Elite. And the battle for the heart of Prince Maxon flares up with even greater force. But the closer America Singer gets to conquering...

In the 20th century, the concept of elite became firmly established in sociological and political science dictionaries. It entered, despite numerous objections from a number of sociologists, a number of areas of socio-political and sociological thought. The opinion that the term “elite”, introduced into the sociology of V. Pareto, is unsuccessful, that elitists, considering the elite to be the subject of the political process, belittle the role of the masses, that it contradicts the ideals of democracy, has been repeatedly expressed in the literature, and by authors adhering to a variety of political orientations - from communists to liberals.

One of the founders of modern concepts of the elite, G. Mosca, tried to do without this term in most of his works. A number of supporters of the theory of political pluralism also object to it, believing that the term “elite,” suitable for characterizing primitive political systems, is not applicable when analyzing modern democratic structures.

True, even when considering modern political systems, they consider it possible to use this term in the analysis of totalitarianism, when the elite-mass dichotomy may turn out to be heuristic. This is, in particular, the opinion of English political scientists S. More and B. Hendry, who, not without reason, claim that elite theories are applicable to communist political systems, where power is concentrated in the hands of the leadership of communist parties, forming an authoritarian elite that controls all aspects of social life.

Finally, radical democrats speak out against this term, believing that the presence of an elite in a society means its usurpation of power from the people (or at least part of this power); they believe that the very delegation of power by the people deprives them of part of their sovereignty (in fact, this idea was expressed by Rousseau, who believed that by delegating sovereignty, the people are deprived of it). But here the question inevitably arises about the technical possibility of governing society without an elite. It is known that R. Michels, and after him the majority of modern elitologists, give a negative answer to this question.

There are also purely terminological objections regarding the fact that it is incorrect and even immoral to use the term “elite”, the etymology of which leaves no doubt that it means the best, most worthy people, in relation to those in power, among whom we more often see people cynical, unscrupulous, cruel; No wonder F. Hayek wrote in “The Road to Serfdom” that “the worst are in power.” The question arises: is it possible to apply the term “elite” in relation to those in power, among whom too often are the most resourceful, ambitious people, ready for the sake of their lust for power to any, the most unprincipled compromises.

But although all these objections have grounds, the rejection of a term that reflects a certain socio-political reality, a certain social attitude, is in itself unconstructive. Since there is a certain phenomenon - the special role of the ruling minority in the socio-political process, it means that an appropriate term is needed to capture it. It’s another matter that Pareto introduced not the most successful term, but look for a replacement for it with another one - “ruling elite”, “ruling class”, “ruling minority”, “dominant strata”, “controlling minority”, etc. it doesn't do much - it would be a dispute over words.

In this regard, we recall the position of B. Russell, who, referring to F. Bacon, said that it is enough to clarify the terms in order to eliminate most of the disputes that are waged due to different understandings of words. So, it is pointless to argue about words; much more fruitful discussions are not terminological, but substantive, first of all, about the place and role of the elite in the social structure of society, about whether it determines the social process, whether it is a non-class social group expressing the interests of society in in general, as a number of authors insist, or is it the top of the ruling exploiting class, exercising state leadership in the name of maintaining a social system that puts this class in a privileged position, allowing it to exploit the masses.

Etymology of the term elite and its application

The term "elite" comes from the Latin eligere - to choose; in modern literature has received wide circulation from the French elite - the best, chosen, chosen. Since the 17th century, it has been used (by merchants in particular) to designate goods of the highest quality. In the 18th century, its use expanded; it began to be used to name “chosen people,” primarily the highest nobility, as well as selected (“elite”) military units. Since the 19th century, this concept has also been used in genetics, selection, and seed production to designate the best seeds, plants, and animals for their further breeding.

In England, as evidenced by the Oxford Dictionary of 1823, the term came to be applied to the highest social groups in a system of social hierarchy. However, we note that the concept of elite was not widely used in the social sciences until the beginning of the 20th century (i.e., before the appearance of the works of V. Pareto), and in the USA - even until the 30s of our century. However, there can hardly be any doubt that etymology can have a purely auxiliary value in determining the content of a concept, which acts as a moment, a key point, and partly the result of a certain social concept.

What is the elite? It was already noted above that when answering this question in the constructions of the elitists, we will not only not find unanimity, but, on the contrary, we will come across judgments that sometimes refute each other. It seems that elitists agree on only one thing - in postulating the necessity of an elite for society. In all other aspects there is more disagreement between them than agreement.

If we summarize the main meanings in which this term is used by sociologists and political scientists, we get a very motley picture. Let's start with the definition of Pareto, who, in fact, introduced this concept: these are persons who have received the highest index in their field of activity, who have reached the highest level of competence ("Treatise on General Sociology").

In another of his works, Pareto writes that “people who occupy a high position according to the degree of their influence and political and social power, ... the “so-called upper classes” constitute the elite, the “aristocracy” (in the etymological meaning of the word: aristos - best) ... the majority those who enter into it seem to possess, to an extraordinary degree, certain qualities—whether good or bad—that make for power.”

Among other definitions, we note the following: the most politically active people, oriented toward power, an organized minority that controls the unorganized majority (Mosca); people who have a high position in society and, thanks to this, influence the social process (Dupré); “the highest ruling class”, persons enjoying the greatest prestige, status, wealth in society, persons with the greatest power (G. Lasswell); people who have intellectual or moral superiority over the masses, regardless of their status (L. Bodin), the highest sense of responsibility (X. Ortega y Gasset); persons holding positions of power (A. Etzioni), formal power in organizations and institutions that determine social life (T. Dai); a minority that performs the most important functions in society, having the greatest weight and influence (S. Köller); “God-inspired” individuals who responded to the “higher call”, heard the “call” and felt capable of leadership (L. Freund), charismatic individuals (M. Weber), the creative minority of society opposing the uncreative majority (A. Toynbee); relatively small groups that consist of individuals occupying a leading position in the political, economic, cultural life of society (political, economic, cultural elites, respectively) - (W. Gatsman and other theorists of elite pluralism); the most qualified specialists, primarily from the scientific and technical intelligentsia, managers and senior employees in the bureaucratic management system (representatives of technological determinism), people with qualities that are perceived in a given society as the highest values ​​(supporters of the value interpretation of the elite); persons exercising power in the state, making the most important decisions and controlling their implementation through the bureaucratic apparatus (L. Sanisteban), the leadership layer in any social groups - professional, ethnic, local (for example, the elite of a provincial city); the best, most qualified representatives of a certain social group (the elite of pilots, chess players, or even thieves and prostitutes - L. Boden). In any case, the elite-mass dichotomy is the leading methodological principle for the analysis of social structure for elitists.

Here is another of the newest generalized definitions of the elite, given by sociologists A. Swann, J. Manor, E. Quinn, E. Rice: “Elites, by definition, are people who control a larger share of the material, symbolic and political resources of society than any other stratum of society. They occupy the highest positions in the hierarchy of status and power, obtained by them ascriptively (by prescribed status) or receptively (due to their own merits). In some societies, elites are sharply separated from other citizens. The elite are those people who occupy the highest positions of power, control the most property and have the highest prestige.” These authors estimate the number of these people to be approximately one percent of the population.

Let's compare these definitions. The confusion of terms is immediately striking: some by elite mean only the political elite, while others have a broader interpretation of the elite. J. Sartori rightly writes not only about the many meanings of the term, but also about the redundancy of terms: political class, ruling (dominant) class, elite (elites), ruling elite, ruling elite, leading minority, etc. Such excess only leads to confusion.

A. Tsukerman is right when he notes in this regard: “Different names are used to denote the same concept, and different concepts are denoted by the same name.” Therefore, the task seems to be not to introduce another term, but to clearly define the concept that has become the most widespread, the concept of the elite, to introduce it with a strict, unambiguous content. Note that the concept of elite is closely related to the problem of social stratification: the elite is the highest layer in any system of social stratification. Naturally, when defining the concept of a political elite, we are talking about the political stratification of society.

Definitions existing in political science differ from each other and from the point of view of the breadth of the concept of elite. Supporters of a narrower definition classify only the highest echelon of government power as an elite, while supporters of a broader definition classify the entire hierarchy of managers, highlighting the highest echelon of power, which makes decisions that are vital for the entire country, and the middle echelon, which makes decisions that are significant for individual regions and individual spheres of social activity. and finally, an extensive bureaucratic apparatus.

To hierarchize the structural elements of the elite, S. Köller introduces the concept of “strategic elites”. The term “super-elite” or elite in the system of elites also appeared. In relation to the lower structural levels of the elite, the term “subelites”, regional elites, etc. is proposed. Finally, within the political elite itself, one should distinguish between the ruling elite and the opposition elite (if it is a “systemic” opposition fighting for power within a given political system) and the counter-elite, which aims to change the entire political system.

Of the numerous criteria for identifying an elite, functionalists emphasize one, and truly the most important one, J. Sartori calls it altimetric: the elite group is such because it is located along the vertical section of the structure of society “at the top.” So, according to the altimetric criterion, Sartori notes sarcastically, it is assumed that whoever is at the top is the one who rules, an assumption based on the wise argument that power elevates to the top, and the one who has power has it because he is at the top.

The altimetry criterion reduces the matter to justifying the actual state of affairs. In this regard, the functional approach turns out to be very vulnerable to criticism from the position of those sociologists who give primacy to another criterion for identifying the elite - the criterion of merit, merit, according to which the ruling elite should consist of the most worthy, outstanding, highly moral people.

However, the value interpretation of the elite suffers, in our opinion, from even greater shortcomings than the structural-functional one. To the question of who rules society, an elitist with a value orientation can give the answer: the wise, the far-sighted, the most worthy. However, any empirical study of the ruling groups in any currently existing (and previously existing) political systems will easily refute such a statement, because it will show that too often they are cruel, cynical, corrupt, self-interested, power-hungry individuals who do not disdain to achieve their goals by any means. .

But if the requirements of wisdom and virtue for the elite are a standard that is completely refuted by reality, then - forgive us for the pun - what is the value of the value-based approach? Typically, an elitist with a conservative orientation proclaims as his ideal the combination of this standard with reality (this was Plato’s ideal), and, as a consequence of this, the combination of formal and informal authorities.

However, this ideal from the very beginning is burdened with a number of prejudices and stereotypical attitudes, because it almost always looks for the virtuous and wise in representatives of the ruling classes (as Plato, in fact, did). In addition, the stability of the social system - the real ideal of conservatives - requires the continuity of the elite, and for the most outspoken reactionaries this is the transfer of elite positions from fathers to children with minimal opportunities for “outsiders” to access them.

The desire of elitists to present the elite in socio-psychological terms as people superior to others in intelligence, endowed with certain abilities or moral qualities, easily turns into open apologetics of the elite. If such judgments can be forgiven by the thinkers of antiquity, then since the time of Machiavelli they cannot help but sound naive. This especially applies to modern researchers of the elite, who can clearly see how high among the representatives of the elite the percentage of people who are deceitful, hypocritical, immoral, resourceful, tricksters, and unprincipled power seekers.

One can ask supporters of the value approach to the elite a question: why among the ruling elite the percentage of people from the propertied classes is many times higher than the percentage of people from the poor? Is it really necessary to look for the most worthy, wise, and capable among the minority of the population - the richest people, the owners of the main means of production? S. Keller is right when she writes that such views are “close to mysticism.” To believe that it is the representatives of the ruling elite who are the most worthy, highly moral members of society, one must either fall into mysticism, or admit that class limitations sometimes develop into complete class blindness.

Proponents of the “moralistic” approach to defining the elite—Bielen-Milleron and others—are forced to distinguish between “good” and “bad” elites. Naturally, “moralizers” experience certain inconvenience from the fact that the ruling elite of even advanced democratic countries is strikingly different from the idealized portrait of the “noble elite” they paint. It is not for nothing that at one time P. Sorokin and W. Landen, themselves not completely free from such a “moralizing” approach, when studying the elites of industrial society, made an unambiguous conclusion about the “immorality of the top.”

It seems that the value or meritocratic criterion for identifying an elite turns out to be purely normative, not correlated with sociological data (thus, “it ends up in the field of political philosophy, not political sociology). And it is no coincidence that G. Lasswell, who took the term “elite” from Pareto, had to change his emphasis. If Pareto's term had both an altimetric character (elite - “upper classes”, “people occupying a high position according to the degree of their influence, political and social power”) and at the same time a value character (elite - “the most qualified” people “possessing qualities that provide them with power"), then Lasswell clears the term of value criteria, defining the elite as the people with the most power.

But, having seemingly gotten rid of one difficulty, Lasswell not only did not get rid of it, but, on the contrary, aggravated another difficulty. If we limit ourselves to a purely altimetric approach, abstracting from the qualities of the ruling groups, then what right do we have to call them an elite, i.e. the best, the chosen ones? As Sartori writes, “why is it necessary to say “elite” without meaning at all what this term means, i.e. expresses due to its semantic significance? Further, if “elite” no longer indicates qualitative traits (ability, competence, talent), then what term will we use when these characteristics are meant?

Thus, the semantic distortion, having described the circle, returns to give rise, in turn, to a conceptual distortion. If we want to further refine Pareto's concept with Lasswell's help, and conversely, if we want to improve Lasswell's with Pareto's help, then a distinction must be made, both terminologically and conceptually, between power structure and elite structure. Not all control groups are by definition... “elite minorities”; they may simply represent “power minorities.” Sartori himself, revealing the shortcomings of both the functional and value approaches to the elite and discussing the problem of their synthesis, is generally inclined towards the second.

Let us note that the value approach can result not in apologetics, but, on the contrary, in criticism of the elite, in identifying its inconsistency with the standard and, thus, in a program for improving the quality of the elite. Therefore, many political scientists believe that this is the path to development and even the path to saving democracy. As American political scientist V. Key notes, the decisive element on which the well-being of democracy depends is the competence of the political elite. “If democracy shows uncertainty, is heading towards decline or disaster, then this is where it comes from.”

A similar idea was expressed by D. Bell: “Assessing a society’s ability to cope with its problems depends on the quality of its leadership and the character of the people.” Let us note that if we accept value criteria, we will be forced to distinguish and even contrast the “de facto elite” and the “elite in itself” to each other, and then the task of creating an optimal political system turns into the task of making the “elite in itself” an “elite” de facto". However, supporters of the functional approach face no less difficulties, because they are forced to admit that the same person, having capital and power resources, is considered a member of the elite, and having lost these resources, ceases to be such, that is, it is not he who is elite, but his chair, his money.

As we have seen, the axiological approach to the problem (the elite is a set of individuals who have advantages according to a certain value scale) turns out to be vulnerable; The elitists of this trend themselves are forced to admit that these are often values ​​with a negative sign. Therefore, today most elitologists are inclined to consider the elite as a group of people in power, regardless of the moral and other qualities of these individuals themselves.

This, in particular, is the approach of the “Machiavellian” school of elitists, who, following Moska, identify the elite with the ruling class. But, instead of explaining how and why the economically dominant class becomes politically dominant, they view political relations as primary, determining all other social relations. As a result, cause and effect are reversed.

Let us also note that a number of elitists (F. Nietzsche, Ortega y Gasset, N.A. Berdyaev, T. Adorno), in contrast to the interpretation of the elite as a group in power (in their view, this is usually a pseudo-elite or a vulgar elite - not independent, needing the masses and therefore subject to mass influences, corrupted by the masses), considers the elite to be a value in itself, regardless of its positions of power.

Moreover, in their opinion, the spiritual, genuine elite seeks to isolate itself from the masses, to isolate itself and thereby preserve its independence, to retreat into a kind of “ivory tower” in order to preserve its values ​​from massification. An illustration of such views can be the famous novel by G. Hesse “The Glass Bead Game”. Interesting is the position of C. Mills, who, distinguishing between the ruling and spiritual elite, sought ways to achieve accountability of the first in relation to the second.

It is not without interest to continue considering the decades-long debate among elitologists regarding the content of the concept of elite. Controversy on this issue took place at a number of international sociological and philosophical congresses, congresses of political sciences, where the arbitrariness of the irrationalistic interpretation of the elite (including the charismatic), attempts to interpret the elite as a group of individuals possessing certain (superior) psychological characteristics, “a complex of intellectual superiorities” were noted , character, abilities” (La Valette).

At the IV World Sociological Congress it was noted that the dichotomous division between the elite and the masses too superficially reflects the structure of socio-political systems. J. Laveau's report at this congress contained a very remarkable admission: “One is surprised that sociological research starts from such an inaccurate, unobjective and ambiguous concept as the concept of the elite. Adding the adjective “political” doesn’t make things any easier.

By evoking a hypothetical community of people distinct from the masses, the term “elite” implicitly refers us to numerous social philosophies that seek to justify and propagate a highly inaccurate and “moralizing” concept of social difference.” Nevertheless (and this is typical), after such devastating criticism, the speaker urged not to abandon the concept of “ruling elite,” which, as he noted, is useful as a research hypothesis.

“What is the value of this pseudo-scientific concept? asked another speaker, J. Meisel. — Should the theories of the elite be classified as pre-scientific? Or should they be viewed solely in the spirit of Sorel’s myth?” However, he defended the term. Recognizing the conservative orientation of most elitists, he noted that “the concept of the elite is truly sent down by God himself” to all those who are eager to join the battle against hyper-democracy and socialism, “these twin utopias.”

J. Catlin noted in his speech that “the term is evaluative, not scientific.” Actually, the overwhelming majority of the discussion participants pointed out the vagueness of the term “elite,” but again not in order to abandon it, but in order to make the necessary clarifications. J. Sartori made this clarification as follows: “In a broad sense, the elite is the top management, that is, everyone who occupies a high position and is called to leadership. Elite is a synonym for political elite. No concept is better suited to define the ruling class than this.”

Y. Pennati expressed agreement with two definitions at once: Monzel (elite - “a small group that in a large social group is considered capable of management and leadership, which has the external attributes of power and is established as a result of a certain choice or public assessment”) and Stemmer (elite - “a qualified minority, the ruling class in a hierarchically organized society”).

J. Laveau, mentioned above, concluded: “Strictly speaking, the word “elite” can not be understood absolutely, but only relatively; this concept means a collection of selected individuals of a certain social group (for example, the elite of the nobility). Although the criteria for this selection continue to be uncertain, it appears to be a person of high quality.”

As we see, criticism of the term “elite” simply results in its clarification, which is again done either in value or in functional terms. Most elitologists strongly defend the legitimacy of using the concept of elite. Thus, the French sociologist L. Bodin believes that “the word elite has retained all its prestige... The elite is a group completely different from others. It can hardly even be called a class. Elite is quality, will, morality. It poses a problem that must be solved under any socio-economic regime, and the future of humanity depends on this solution.”

From our brief overview of the debate about the concept of elite, we can conclude that both the value and functional interpretations of this concept are not free from serious shortcomings. Recognizing this, S. Köller sees a way out in reconciling both of these concepts, making the highly controversial assumption that the combination of two untrue concepts can give one true one, at least one that is closer to the truth, more complete. Keller proposes to “analyze the power functions of the elite, regardless of whether these functions are performed successfully or unsuccessfully,” abstracting from the qualities of their bearers, that is, essentially reproducing the functional interpretation of the elite in a somewhat modernized form.

On the contrary, Sartori, identifying opportunities to synthesize these approaches, leans toward a value-based, meritocratic interpretation. He believes that the altimetric (structural-functional) characteristic of the elite suffers from a lack of “semantic properties, distorting the very meaning of the original concept of the elite, and if we do not distinguish between the terms “power minority” and “elite minority” (the first is altimetric, the second is meritocratic), then both phenomena will inevitably be confused.”

Who is right? It is clear that an eclectic combination of the two concepts is not a viable palliative. If one had to choose one of the two concepts given above, the political scientist, in our opinion, would have to prefer the altimetry model. Let's try to justify this. Let us keep in mind, first of all, the ambiguity of the term “elite”, and, secondly, that there are different types of elites; Moreover, the criteria for identifying these elites may be different. When identifying, for example, the cultural elite, the value criterion “works”.

It's a different matter when we isolate the political elite. Here we are forced to turn to the altimetric criterion, because if we are guided by the value criterion, elitology may... lose its subject! For, to be honest, the real people in power are far from being models of morality, and are far from always “the best.” So if, in accordance with the etymology of the term, the elite is considered to be the best, chosen, highly moral, then it is unlikely that political figures will be included in their composition, at least the overwhelming majority of them. Then in what sense can the term be used in political science? Apparently, it’s more likely altimetric, functional.

Finally, we believe that it is necessary to clearly distinguish between political philosophy and political sociology in the structure of political science (along with other political science disciplines, for example, political psychology, political history, etc.) So, within the framework of political philosophy, since it is normative in nature, one should prefer a value-based, meritocratic criterion, but within the framework of political sociology we are forced, alas, to focus mainly on the altimetric criterion.

The approach of a political sociologist differs from that of a cultural scientist. Culturologists usually apply the term “elite” to outstanding cultural figures, to the creators of new cultural norms; sometimes it acts as a synonym for “aristocracy of the spirit.” For a political sociologist, the elite is that part of society (its minority) that has access to the instruments of power, which is aware of the commonality of its interests as a privileged social group and protects them.

Therefore, the judgment that we in Russia lived for many decades of the 20th century without an elite, because the best people were destroyed or languished in concentration camps, were in emigration or “internal emigration” - judgments that can often be found in the literature of recent years - these are moral judgments , axiological, but not political science. Once there was a power process, it was carried out by certain institutions, certain people, whatever we call them; It is in this functional sense (and not moralizing) that the political scientist uses this term, regardless of the moral, intellectual and other qualities of the elite.

Special mention should be made of discussions on the problems of the elite in our country. In Soviet scientific literature, the term “elite” was first introduced in the second half of the 50s. It is introduced, so to speak, through the “back door,” namely, through the permitted genre of “criticism of bourgeois sociology” (a term as absurd as “bourgeois physics” or “bourgeois biology”). In other words, we could only talk about elites in capitalist countries, and in a negative context.

It is known that in Soviet times, elitological issues in relation to the analysis of social relations in our country were taboo. The official ideology asserted that in the USSR there is no exploitation of man by man, therefore, there is not and cannot be a dominant exploiting class, there is no and cannot be an elite. This was a lie: under Soviet power, there was a higher social stratum (and the elite can be considered the highest stratum in the system of social stratification), which performed managerial functions and had institutional privileges, that is, all the attributes of an elite, albeit a very specific elite.

As M. Djilas showed, the peculiarity of this elite, this “new class” was, first of all, that its exploitation of the masses was carried out not through private ownership of the main means of production, but through the collective ownership of this class (and this property also included state). And the elite-mass dichotomy “worked” quite well when analyzing the socio-political structure of the so-called “socialist” countries. It is no coincidence that censorship did not allow the use of the term “elite” in relation to countries considered socialist. An elitological analysis of the ruling strata of socialist countries was carried out by foreign Sovietologists and political emigrants - A. Avtorkhanov, M. Djilas, M. Voslensky.

Any ruling class ideologically justifies and justifies its dominance. The Soviet elite, this “new class,” went further; as Voslensky noted, it hid its very existence; this class did not exist in Soviet ideology. It was believed that in the USSR there were only two friendly classes - workers and collective farmers, as well as a layer of intelligentsia. And this elite hid their privileges especially carefully - special distribution centers, special housing, special dachas, special hospitals - all this was elevated to the rank of state secrets.

Discussions about the elite, about the change of elites, about their quality, about the very term “elite” in relation to the political leadership of Russia, about whether the post-Soviet elite is an established social stratum, or whether it is at the beginning of its formation, have developed widely in our country in 90s. Thus, the famous Russian sociologist Zh.T. Toshchenko strongly objects to the current rulers of Russia being called an elite. And there is no shortage of arguments to support this position.

How can we call the elite in its true meaning people whose rule led to a dramatic deterioration in the life of the population, to a reduction in its numbers? Then maybe these are examples of morality? Alas, this is one of the most corrupt groups in Russian society, whose members think more about their own enrichment than about the well-being of the people. This is the main reason for the alienation that exists between the people and the elite.

These people quite soberly view their “entry into power” as temporary and, accordingly, act as temporary workers, concerned primarily with quick personal enrichment. Having been in power and falling out of it, they usually turn out to be very rich people, large shareholders of banks and corporations, and owners of substantial real estate. A significant part of them are former party and Komsomol nomenclature officials, as a rule, of the second and third echelons, who managed to take advantage of the situation and easily changed their beliefs, often these are former shadow workers who have now legalized themselves, sometimes these are people with a criminal past. Moreover, these people really like it when they are called “elite”. It tickles their pride.

So is the term “elite” correct in relation to them? Perhaps it would be more correct to call them a ruling group or a clan? But then the same approach should be applied to the political elite of other countries, which are also not distinguished by high morality. Wouldn't this dispute then be a dispute about words, a terminological dispute? If, in accordance with the etymology of the term, the elite is considered to be the best, the highly moral, then it is unlikely that political figures will be included in their composition, at least the overwhelming majority of them. A. Einstein, A.D. will come here Sakharov, A. Schweitzer, Mother Teresa, but current political leaders will not make it. Then in what sense can this term be used in political science?

The answer to the question that interests us, in our opinion, is related to the need to distinguish between political philosophy and political sociology (along with other political science disciplines, such as political psychology, political history, etc.) in the structure of political science. The specificity of political philosophy lies not only in the fact that it represents the highest level of generalization of the political life of society, but also in the fact that it focuses on the normativity of political processes, while political sociology describes and explains real political processes, which are sometimes very distant from normative ones. So, within the framework of political philosophy, precisely because it is normative in nature, one should prefer a value-based, meritocratic criterion, but within the framework of political sociology, we are forced, alas, to focus mainly on the altimetric criterion.

Gennady Ashin, founder of scientific elitology in Russia, professor of the Department of Philosophy at MGIMO, Doctor of Philosophy, Honored Scientist of the Russian Federation