Names

There are now elites. The meaning of the word elite. New explanatory and derivational dictionary of the Russian language, T. F. Efremova

The concept of "elite" first appears in Aristotle, then appears in the Middle Ages with Machiavelli, and at the beginning of the 20th century - with Pareto. An important step in the development of the theory of elites is associated with the publication in 1953 of the book by R. Mills "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 experts are M.V. Ilyin, O.V. Gaman-Golutvin, 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 this is largely a subjective opinion of people. Moreover, since representatives of different schools, cultures, views and directions usually have their own ambitions, they rarely, except in indisputable cases, easily assign this title to someone. Everyone is watching the political elite, but the line between those who “really” make the most important decisions and 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 features, all members of parliaments, ministers and other “power holders” are referred to by researchers as “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. So, for example, in the Austro-Hungarian Empire there was an army elite, but now it is gone. There are countries in which there is a very serious religious, ecclesiastical elite, for example, in Poland or Italy with a great traditional influence of religion and social 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 the ruling elite (that is, the one that makes key decisions) into political, financial and military was proposed by the American scientist Wright Mills in his studies of the 1950s. Of the later interesting works, the book edited by J. Higley and M. Burton "The Elite as the Foundation of Liberal Democracy" should be noted. 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 opposite 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, somewhere inside it can hide the political elite, which will make key decisions independently of voters (leaving the people at the mercy of minor decisions at the local level) and categorically assert that that the terms of democracy (hybrid regimes). But the elites seem to be finding ways to "insure" the political process in order to avoid upheavals and revolutions. And very rarely does a scientist manage to find the “hand of the elite”. In established advanced democracies, the elite does not come to the surface as a force outside the democratic process. In medieval Venice, there were a lot of elections, lots and so on. They started with the election of 1,600 people, then by lot - 500, then a hundred were chosen, and so on. Alternating elections and lots, they stopped at ten, which, of course, turned out to be representatives of approximately the same family clans. But let's note that the Venetian system captured by the elections quite a wide strata of citizens, so that the "Serenissima" experienced, perhaps, much less socio-political upheavals 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 abilities and aspires to a certain status. It has two tasks: maintaining its 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 they settled down and act together), then society is usually in development. In England, the kings and barons rewrote the Magna Carta for a hundred years (see British Library), but laid the foundations of rights. Then they fought for a long time in civil wars, executed Charles I. Finally, the events of 1684 in England, when the Whigs and Tories agreed to overthrow the Stuarts, brought Orange to power, can be called a classic example of a compromise between the elites. 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 tremendous importance for political life and for 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 the intellectual and other elites, the distinction between functional and normative elites is important. The 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, politics. They give a new norm, new ideas, like, for example, Academician Sakharov.

There is a well-known phenomenon of ignoring the true members of the intellectual elite during their lifetime. So often the final determination of a person in the rank of the intellectual elite occurs posthumously. If we look at the biographies of prominent commanders, writers or artists, it turns out that many were not recognized during their lifetime and only after their death they began to be ranked among the elite. For example, it is worth recalling the difficult relationship of Admiral Nelson with the Admiralty, the start of the Impressionist painters.

The recognition of a person by the intellectual elite is a complex process that cannot be reduced to a high position or a 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 recognize 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: the responsibility of the elites, the understanding of the middle class and the patience of the poor // Economics of transitional processes. T. 2. M., MUM, 2009

4. Social movements and elites

In the public sphere, from politics to the media, the question of singling out elites is complicated by the difference in the views of social strata. So parties, trade unions, movements, media can 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 structure or challenge it in certain aspects. In addition to national elites, naturally, regional elites stand out.

At one time, Max Weber singled out traditional, charismatic and legitimate leaders, which reflected the replacement of feudalism by capitalism. Accordingly, historically there are changes or transformations of elites. Revolutions and major social transformations naturally involve a change of elites. Lenin said that "the top cannot, but the bottom does not want" to live in the old way. In our language, it was, in essence, about the elites (“the top”), who cannot continue to govern the country by the old methods.

Conflicts between elites and counter-elites in a democracy are resolved by elections, compromises, and integration of counter-elites. The exit of the conflict of elites from the legal field - this 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

In this area, interesting work is being done on countries, on the nature of the elites. One has 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, at least in the posthumous list, but find themselves in the elite of science. The concept of elite is very interesting, and one who is not a professional political scientist can deal with it. However, one cannot first appoint someone as an elite, and then make a arshin on him. The mentality of the elite, their behavior, 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 is fundamentally trying not to show itself. She is shielded by various intermediate layers, functional organizations, so it is difficult for a researcher to find out what she really is, how she makes decisions, who she consists of, how she interacts within the clan. Elites are usually very stingy with statistics about themselves and especially about the nature of decision-making, logic and motivation. The duality of interests of the ruling elite - the preservation of their position and "development projects" - involves very complex processes that often remain in the shadows.

Mills R. Ruling elite. M., 1989

Elites and society in a comparative dimension. Ed. O.V. Gaman-Golutvinoy, M., "Rosspen", 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.

a layer of society that occupies key positions in the main areas of its life: economic, political, administrative, military, intellectual, etc.

Great Definition

Incomplete definition ↓

ELITE

A group of the most outstanding in character, knowledge, education, creative abilities, etc. people of a given society. In this meaning of the word, the elite is the opposite of the people. The main prejudice regarding the elite is that it is allegedly unnecessary and even harms society, and therefore it should be eliminated and not allowed to arise in the future. For example, in many schools in the United States, teachers are prohibited from giving poor grades in exams so that more capable students are not in a privileged position. People who share this delusion usually like to talk about how the elite exploits the people, etc. This is a dangerous prejudice, because the welfare, progress, and sometimes the very existence of a society depend on whether it is possible to create a full-fledged elite in this society. A society without an elite is doomed to stagnation and quick death.

The main reason for this prejudice, in addition to envy, is another misconception: the elite include people who come from wealthy or influential parents, belonging to the aristocracy, plutocracy or "nomenclature". Castes of this kind, having nothing to do with the true elite, tend to withdraw into themselves. Their existence and claims to superiority are perceived by others as an injustice; hence the dislike for any, even genuine elite, is born.

Finally, another prejudice is associated with the elite, according to which the work of the elite should not be paid higher than the work of ordinary people. In fact, a society interested in the elite should stimulate such people, in particular by providing them with a higher income. Such a policy pays off handsomely.

The ruling elite can partially merge with the spiritual elite, entering into a dialogue with it, but it can come into conflict with it, uniting with the soil, organizing its extermination. In this case, the ruling E. deprives herself of reason, faith, beauty, and the spiritual elite - strength. The difference between the logics of both E.

constantly stimulates a conflict between them, which, however, is periodically replaced by the desire of the ruling E. to resort to sources of creative energy of spiritual E.

to solve their problems. E., constantly balancing on successive differently directed waves of inversion, passes from one mortal danger of falling away from the people, a break from non-communications to the danger of participation, i.e., merging with the people. The first threatens to turn E. in the eyes of the people into the bearer of world evil, into the Antichrist, the second, with a low level of state consciousness and a state of illusory faith, the ability of the spontaneous creativity of the people to solve all problems (the main delusion of the intelligentsia) threatens with an increasing growth of disintegration. Both dangers are fraught with a mass discomfort, a social catastrophe.

The elites are constantly striving to raise the mass consciousness to the level of their values, to form a new person, resorting to various means for this, from enlightenment to mass terror. However, the split creates exceptional difficulties for this.

Great Definition

Incomplete definition ↓

In the 20th century, the concept of the elite became firmly established in sociological and political dictionaries. 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 unfortunate, that elitarists, considering the elite as 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, moreover, by authors who adhere to the most diverse political orientations - from communists to liberals.

True, they, too, considering modern political systems, consider it possible to use this term in the analysis of totalitarianism, when the elite-mass dichotomy may turn out to be heuristic. So, in particular, the English political scientists S. More and B. Hendry believe, not without reason asserting that the theories of the elite are applicable to communist political systems, where power is concentrated in the hands of the leadership of the communist parties, which form 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 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 of the technical possibility of managing a 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 wrong and even immoral to use the term "elite", the etymology of which leaves no doubt that the best, most worthy people are meant, in relation to those in power, among whom we more often see people cynical, unscrupulous, cruel; not without reason F. Hayek wrote in "The Road to Slavery" 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 any, most unprincipled compromises for the sake of their love of power.

In this regard, the position of B. Russell is recalled, who, referring to F. Bacon, said that it is enough to clarify the terms in order to eliminate most of the disputes that are conducted because of the different understanding of words. So, it is pointless to argue about words, much more fruitful discussions are not terminological, but meaningful, 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 as a whole, 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, selective, chosen. Since the 17th century, it has been used (by merchants in particular) to denote goods of the highest quality. In the XVIII century, its use expanded, it begins 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, breeding, seed production to designate the best seeds, plants, animals for their further breeding.

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

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

In another work, Pareto writes that “people who occupy a high position in accordance with the degree of their influence and political and social power, ... the “so-called upper classes” and constitute the elite, the “aristocracy” (in the etymological meaning of the word: aristos - the best) ... the majority those who enter it seem to have, to an uncommon degree, certain qualities, whether good or bad, that confer power.”

Among other definitions, we note the following: the most politically active people, oriented towards power, an organized minority that manages the unorganized majority (Mosca); people who have a high position in society and due to this influence the social process (Dupre); “the highest ruling class”, persons enjoying the greatest prestige, statuses, 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. Baudin), the highest sense of responsibility (X. Ortega y Gasset); persons with 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, has the greatest weight and influence (S. Keller); "God-inspired" individuals who responded to the "higher call", heard the "call" and felt themselves capable of leadership (L. Freund), charismatic individuals (M. Weber), a creative minority of society that opposes the uncreative majority (A. Toynbee); relatively small groups that consist of persons occupying a leading position in the political, economic, cultural life of society (respectively, political, economic, cultural elites) - (W. Gatsman and other theorists of elite pluralism); the most qualified specialists, primarily from the scientific and technical intelligentsia, managers and senior officials in the system of bureaucratic management (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 leading 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 the elitist.

Here is another of the latest generalized definitions of the elite, which is given by sociologists A. Swann, J. Manor, E. Quinn, E. Rice: “Elites, by definition, are people who control a greater 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 (thanks 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 most of the property and have the highest prestige. These authors believe the number of these people is approximately one percent of the population.

Let's compare these definitions. The confusion of terms immediately catches the eye: some under the elite have in mind only the political elite, while others have a broader interpretation of the elite. J. Sartori rightly writes not only about the multitude of meanings of the term, but also about the overabundance of terms: political class, ruling (ruling) class, elite (elites), ruling elite, ruling elite, ruling minority, etc. Such redundancy only leads to confusion.

A. Zuckerman is right, noting in this regard: "Different names are used to refer to the same concept, and different concepts are denoted by the same name." Therefore, the task is not to introduce another term, but to clearly define the concept that has become the most common, the concept of the elite, to introduce it with a strict, unambiguous content. Note that the concept of the 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 the political elite, we are talking about the political stratification of society.

The definitions existing in political science differ from each other in terms of the breadth of the concept of elite. Proponents of a narrower definition refer only the highest echelon of state power to the elite, supporters of a broader one refer to the entire hierarchy of managers, highlighting the highest level of power that makes decisions that are vital for the whole country, the middle link that makes decisions that are significant for certain regions, certain areas of social activity and, finally, an extensive bureaucracy.

To hierarchize the structural elements of the elite, S. Keller 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 "sub-elites", regional elites, etc. is proposed. Finally, in the political elite itself, one should distinguish between the ruling elite and the opposition (if it is a “systemic” opposition fighting for power within the framework of a given political system) and the counter-elite, which aims to change the entire political system.

Of the many criteria for distinguishing the elite, the functionalists emphasize one, and indeed the most important, J. Sartori calls it altimetric: the elite group is such because it is located - along the vertical section of the structure of society "above". So, according to the altimetric criterion, Sartori sarcastically remarks, it is assumed that whoever is at the top, he rules - an assumption based on the wise argument that power raises up, and the one who has power therefore 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 positions of those sociologists who give primacy to another criterion for distinguishing 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 answer: wise, far-sighted, worthy. However, any empirical study of the ruling groups in any current (and past) 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 goal by any means. .

But if the demands of wisdom and virtue for the elite are a standard that is completely refuted by reality, then—let us pardon the pun—what is the value of the value approach? Usually, an elitist of a conservative orientation proclaims as his ideal the combination of this standard with reality (such was Plato's ideal), and, as a result 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, wise in the representatives of the ruling classes (as Plato actually 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 transition of elite positions from fathers to children with minimal opportunities for "outsiders" to access them.

The desire of elitarists to present the elite in socio-psychological terms as people who are superior to others in intelligence, endowed with certain abilities or moral qualities, easily turns into an open apology for the elite. If such judgments can be forgiven the thinkers of antiquity, since the time of Machiavelli they cannot but sound naive. This is especially true of modern elite scholars, who can see quite clearly how high the percentage of men who are deceitful, hypocritical, immoral, dodgy, dodgy, unscrupulous seekers of power is among the elite.

One can ask the supporters of the value approach to the elite the question: why among the ruling elite the percentage of people from the propertied classes is many times greater than the percentage of people from the have-nots? Is it really among the minority of the population - the richest people, owners of the main means of production - and one should look for the most worthy, wise, capable? S. Keller is right when she writes that such views are "close to mysticism." To consider 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 narrowness sometimes develops into complete class blindness.

Supporters of the "moralizing" approach to the definition of the elite - Bilen-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 draw. It is not for nothing that at one time P. Sorokin and W. Landen, themselves not completely free from such a “moralizing” approach, studying the elites of an industrial society, made an unambiguous conclusion about the “immorality of the tops”.

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

But, having got rid, it would seem, of one difficulty, Lasswell not only did not get rid of, but, on the contrary, aggravated another difficulty. If we limit ourselves to a purely altimetry approach, abstracting ourselves from the qualities of the ruling groups, then what right do we have to call them the elite, i.e. the best, the chosen ones? As Sartori writes, “why is it necessary to say “elite”, completely without meaning to what this term means, i.e. expresses by virtue of its semantic significance? Further, if "elite" does not already indicate 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 the conceptual distortion. If we want to further refine the Pareto concept with Lasswell and, conversely, if we want to refine Lasswell with Pareto, then a distinction must be made, both terminologically and conceptually, between a power structure and an elite structure. Not all controlling groups are, by definition... "elite minorities"; they may simply be "power minorities". Sartori himself, revealing the shortcomings of both the functional and value approaches to the elite and discussing the problem of their synthesis, in general tends to the latter.

It should be noted here that the value approach may result not in apologetics, but, on the contrary, in criticism of the elite, in identifying its inconsistency with the norm and, thus, in a program to improve the quality of the elite. Therefore, many political scientists believe that this is the way of development and even the way of saving democracy. As the American political scientist W. Key notes, the decisive element on which the well-being of democracy depends is the competence of the political elite. "If democracy shows uncertainty, tends to decline or catastrophe, then this is precisely where it comes from."

A similar thought was expressed by D. Bell: "Assessment of a society's ability to cope with its problems depends on the quality of its leadership and the nature of the people." It should be noted that if we accept value criteria, we will be forced to distinguish and even oppose each other the “de facto elite” and the “elite in itself”, 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 with advantages on a certain value scale) is vulnerable; the elitists of this direction themselves are forced to admit that these are often values with a negative sign. Therefore, now most elitologists are inclined to consider the elite as a group of persons in power, regardless of the moral and other qualities of these persons themselves.

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

We also note that a number of elitistists (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 vulgar elite - dependent, needing the masses and therefore subject to mass influences, corrupted by the masses), considers the elite 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 maintain its independence, to go into a kind of "ivory tower" in order to preserve its values from massification. An illustration of such views is the well-known novel by G. Hesse "The Glass Bead Game". The position of C. Mills is interesting, who, distinguishing between the ruling and the spiritual elite, was looking for ways to achieve accountability of the former in relation to the latter.

It is not without interest to continue consideration of the decades-long disputes between elitologists regarding the content of the concept of elite. The controversy on this issue was conducted at a number of international sociological and philosophical congresses, congresses of political sciences, where the arbitrariness of the irrationalist interpretation of the elite (including charismatic), attempts to interpret the elite as a group of individuals with certain (superior) psychological characteristics, “a complex of superiority in mind” was noted. , character, abilities ”(La Valette).

At the Fourth 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 confession: “We have to be surprised that sociological research starts from such an inaccurate, slightly objective and ambiguous concept as the concept of the elite. The addition of the adjective "political" does not make things easier.

By evoking a hypothetical community of people distinct from the masses, the term "elite" implicitly refers us to numerous social philosophies seeking 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 considered exclusively in the spirit of the Sorelian myth? However, he defended the term. Recognizing the conservative orientation of the majority of the elitist, he remarked that "the concept of the elite is truly sent down by God himself" to all those who yearn to fight against hyper-democracy and socialism, "these twin utopias."

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

Y. Pennati agreed with two definitions at once: Monzel (elite - “a small group that is considered capable of management and leadership in a large social group, which has external attributes of power and is approved 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 be understood not absolutely, but only relatively; this concept means a set of selected individuals of a certain social group (for example, the elite of the nobility). Although the criteria for this selection continue to be vague, it seems that these are the high qualities of a person.

As you can see, the criticism of the term "elite" results only in its clarification, which is again done either in terms of value or in terms of functionality. Most elitologists strongly defend the legitimacy of using the concept of elite. Thus, the French sociologist L. Boden believes that “the word elite has retained all its prestige ... The elite is a group that is completely different from others. It can hardly even be called a class. Elite is quality, will, morality. It puts forward a problem that must be solved in the conditions of any socio-economic regimes, and the future of mankind depends on this solution.

From our brief review of the disputes 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. Koeller sees the way out in reconciling both of these concepts, making the highly controversial assumption that the combination of two untrue concepts can give one true, in any case, closer to the truth, more complete. Köller proposes to “analyze the power functions of the elite, regardless of whether these functions are successfully or unsuccessfully performed”, abstracting from the qualities of their carriers, 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, tends to value, meritocratic interpretation. He believes that the altimetric (structural-functional) characteristic of the elite suffers from a lack of "semantic property, distorting the very meaning of the original concept of the elite, and if you do not distinguish between the terms "powerful 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 the eclectic combination of the two concepts is not a viable palliative. If we had to choose one of the two concepts above, the political scientist, in our opinion, would have to prefer the altimetry model. Let's try to substantiate this. We will 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 selecting these elites may be different. When singling out, for example, the cultural elite, the value criterion "works".

Another thing is when we isolate the political elite. Here we are forced to turn to the altimetry criterion, because if we are guided by the value criterion, elitology may ... lose its subject! For, to be honest, the real powers that be are far from examples of morality, far from always being “the best”. So if, in accordance with the etymology of the term, the best, chosen, highly moral are considered elite, then political figures are unlikely to fall into their composition at all, in any case, the vast majority of them. Then in what sense can the term be used in political science? Apparently, it is rather in the altimetry, 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 of a normative nature, a value-based, meritocratic criterion should have been preferred, while within the framework of political sociology we are forced, alas, to focus mainly on the altimetry criterion.

The approach of a political sociologist differs from that of a culturologist. Culturologists usually apply the term "elite" to outstanding cultural figures, to the creators of new cultural norms, sometimes it acts as a synonym for "spiritual aristocracy". 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, judgments 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, by 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 the 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 1950s. 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 the elites in the capitalist countries, and in a negative context.

It is known that in Soviet times, elitistological issues in relation to the analysis of social relations in our country were tabooed. The official ideology asserted that in the USSR there is no exploitation of man by man, therefore, there is not and cannot be a ruling exploiting class, there is not and cannot be an elite. This was a lie: under Soviet rule, there was a higher social stratum (and the elite can be regarded as the highest stratum in the system of social stratification), which performed managerial functions, possessed 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 it exploited the masses of the people not through private ownership of the main means of production, but through the collective ownership of this class (moreover, in this ownership was itself state). And the elite-mass dichotomy quite "worked" in the analysis of 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 that were considered socialist. The elitological analysis of the ruling strata of the socialist countries was carried out by foreign Sovietologists and political emigrants - A. Avtorkhanov, M. Dzhilas, M. Voslensky.

Any ruling class ideologically justifies and substantiates its domination. The Soviet elite, this "new class", went further; as Voslensky noted, it hid its very existence; this class did not exist in the 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 was especially careful to hide their privileges - special distributors, special housing, special residences, 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, has been widely unfolded in our country in 90s. Thus, the well-known Russian sociologist Zh.T. Toshchenko strongly objects to the fact that the current rulers of Russia are called the elite. And there is no shortage of arguments to support this position.

How can one call an elite in its true meaning people whose rule has 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 consider 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 solid 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 use the situation, easily changed their beliefs, often they are former shadow workers who have now legalized themselves, sometimes they are people with a criminal past. And these people really like it when they are called "elite". It tickles their ego.

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

The answer to the question that interests us, in our opinion, is connected with the need to distinguish between political philosophy and political sociology in the structure of political science (along with other political science disciplines, such as political psychology, political history, etc.). 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 emphasizes the normativity of political processes, while political sociology describes and explains real political processes, which are sometimes very far away. from normative. So, within the framework of political philosophy, precisely because it is of a normative nature, one should prefer a value, meritocratic criterion, and within the framework of political sociology, we are forced, alas, to focus mainly on the altimetry criterion.

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

Elite: the history of the term

The elite is a group completely different from the others. It can hardly even be called a class. Elite is a quality, will, morality. The history of the term "elite", its meaning, application and the meaning that various generations put into it.

Gennady Konstantinovich Ashin, founder of scientific elitology in Russia, professor at the Department of Philosophy at MGIMO, Doctor of Philosophy, Honored Worker of Science of the Russian Federation.

One of the founders of modern concepts of the elite, G. Mosca, in most of his works tried to do without this term. A number of supporters of the theory of political pluralism also object to it, believing that the term "elite", suitable for describing primitive political systems, is inapplicable in the analysis of modern democratic structures. True, they, considering modern political systems, consider it possible to use this term in the analysis of totalitarianism, when the dichotomy of the elite of the masses may turn out to be heuristic. So, in particular, the English political scientists S. More and B. Hendry believe, not without reason asserting that the theories of the elite are applicable to communist political systems, where power is concentrated in the hands of the leadership of the communist parties, which form an authoritarian elite that controls all aspects of social life.

But although all these objections are justified, the rejection of a term that reflects a certain socio-political reality, a certain social attitude, is not constructive in itself. 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 fix it. It is another matter that Pareto introduced not the most successful term, but to look for a replacement for it with another "ruling elite", "ruling class", "ruling minority", "ruling strata", "controlling minority", etc. does little, because it will be a dispute about words. In this regard, the position of B. Russell is recalled, who, referring to F. Bacon, said that it is enough to clarify the terms in order to eliminate most of the disputes that are conducted because of the different understanding of words. So, it is pointless to argue about words, much more fruitful discussions are not terminological, but meaningful, 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 as a whole, 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 and its application

The term "elite" is derived from the Latin eligere to choose; in modern literature has received wide circulation from the French elite the best, selective, chosen. Since the 17th century, it has been used (by merchants in particular) to denote goods of the highest quality. In the XVIII century, its use expanded, it begins 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, breeding, seed production to designate the best seeds, plants, animals for their further breeding. In England, as the Oxford Dictionary of 1823 testifies, the term came to be applied to the highest social groups in the system of social hierarchy. Nevertheless, we note that the concept of the elite was not widely used in the social sciences until the beginning of the 20th century (that is, before the appearance of the works of V. Pareto), and in the USA even until the 30s of our century. However, one can hardly doubt that etymology can have a purely auxiliary meaning in determining the content of a concept that acts as a moment, a key point, and in part the result of a certain social concept. What is an elite? It has already been noted above that when answering this question in the constructions of the elitistists, we will not only not find unanimity, but, on the contrary, we will come across judgments that sometimes refute each other. It seems that elitarists agree on only one thing in postulating the need for an elite for society. In all other aspects there is more disagreement between them than there is agreement.

If we sum up the main meanings in which this term is used by sociologists and political scientists, we get a very mixed 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 work, Pareto writes that "people who occupy a high position in accordance with the degree of their influence and political and social power, ... "the so-called upper classes" and constitute the elite, "aristocracy" (in the etymological meaning of the word: aristos is the best). .. the majority of those who enter it seem to have, to an uncommon degree, certain qualities, whether good or bad, that secure power." Among other definitions, we note the following: the most politically active people, oriented towards power, an organized minority that manages the unorganized majority (Mosca); people who have a high position in society and due to this influence the social process (Dupre); "the highest ruling class", those who enjoy the greatest prestige in society, statuses, wealth, persons with the greatest power (G. Lasswell); people who have intellectual or moral superiority over the masses, regardless of their status (L. Baudin), the highest sense of responsibility (X. Ortega y Gasset); persons with 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, has the greatest weight and influence (S. Keller); "God-inspired" personalities who responded to the "higher call", heard the "call" and felt themselves capable of leadership (L. Freund), charismatic personalities (M. Weber), a creative minority of society that opposes the uncreative majority (A. Toynbee); relatively small groups that consist of persons occupying a leading position in the political, economic, cultural life of society (respectively, political, economic, cultural elites) (W. Gatsman and other theorists of elite pluralism); the most qualified specialists, primarily from the scientific and technical intelligentsia, managers and senior officials in the system of bureaucratic management (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 leading layer in any social groups - professional, ethnic, local (for example, the elite of a provincial town); 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 the elitist.

Here is another of the latest generalized definitions of the elite, which is given by sociologists A. Swann, J. Manor, E. Quinn, E. Rice: "Elites by definition are people who control a greater 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, received by them ascriptively (by prescribed status) or receptively (benefit of

Beginning in the 19th century, the term "elite" ceased to be used solely to define the "quality" of goods, seeds, or military units. A is fixed in political science and sociological dictionaries to designate the upper strata of society in the system of social hierarchy. However, the widespread public use of this term begins only in the 20th century thanks to almost a century of research work on socio-political systems by such scientists as V. Pareto, G. Mosca, R. Michels, X. Ortega y Gasset, G Lasswell and others, in whose definitions significant methodological differences were observed, due to their social position and the complexity of the object under study. Let's call them elitistists and see what the elite is in their opinion:

Elite according to V. Pareto (the first to introduce the concept of "elite") - persons who have received the highest index in their field of activity, who have reached the highest level of competence; - people occupying a high position according to the degree of their influence, political and social power, constituting the "aristocracy" (most of those who enter it seem to have, to an extraordinary degree, certain qualities - no matter good or bad - that provide power) ;
Elite according to G. Mosca - the most politically active people, oriented towards power, an organized minority that manages the unorganized majority;
Elite according to X. Ortega y Gasset - people who have intellectual or moral superiority over the masses, regardless of their status, the highest sense of responsibility;
Elite according to G. Lasswell - "the highest ruling class"; persons enjoying the greatest prestige and wealth in society; persons with the highest status and power.

What is an elite? It was noted above that there is no unanimity in the constructions of the elites; on the contrary, their judgments sometimes refute each other. They agree only on the fact that they oppose the elite to the masses and note its importance for the proper functioning of society.

To complete the picture, it is worth giving a modern definition of the concept of "elite", proposed by sociologists A. Swann, J. Manor, E. Quinn, E. Rice:

Elite - people who control a larger share of the material, symbolic and political resources of society than any other stratum of society; occupy the highest positions in the hierarchy of status and power, received by them ascriptively or receptively (in some societies, elites are sharply separated from other citizens).

On the basis of the conducted historical and lithological research, we found out that the above definitions, which are welcomed in the scientific community within the framework of one or another paradigm, have lost their meaning, since there is no stratum that was considered to be the "elite". The usual concept of "elite" is an anachronism, because the new elite, and, accordingly, its new understanding, dates back to 50-60 years. XX century and has nothing to do with the definitions proposed to this day (see paragraph 1 “Public discussion about elites: prerequisites for the emergence and main milestones of development”).

Therefore, we propose to move away from a one-sided consideration of the concept of "elite" and apply a twofold approach to it - normative and positive, and based on the logic of these approaches, obtain a different definition of the term "elite" that is relevant to modern society.

Consider the normative approach first..

As part of this approach, we must define what a "true" elite is, and if we succeed in doing this, then we will be able to relate the groups that claim to have elite status to a given standard. But this approach has several problems.

The first of these is that there are no objective grounds for defining a "true" elite. Moreover, it is not very clear what these "objective" grounds could be.

This thesis needs to be explained in more detail.

Suppose that we have some basic concepts, the objectivity of which the researchers have no doubts. If, on the basis of these basic concepts, one could formulate a definition of the elite that does not contradict these basic concepts, then such an explanation could also be considered objective and “true”.

However, the concept of elite in today's structure of scientific knowledge is in itself basic, indecomposable into concepts of a more general level. Therefore, the objectivist approach to the concept of elite comes down, as a rule, to identifying the semantic roots of this word itself (the term "elite" originates from the Latin eligere: "to choose"; in modern literature it has become widely used from the French elite: "the best, selective, chosen "). By the way, considering that in each language this term, even if it is borrowed, is associated with its own connotations, inherent only in this language, then on this basis a wide variety of artificial problems arise, the presence of which allows the volume of publications on the topic to be increased many times over.

In fact, as a rule, we are dealing with subjective definitions of the elite, no matter how much the author assures us otherwise.

Under the pretext of an objective definition of the elite, they always try to give us a description of what the author would like to see the elite: what properties it should have and how to act in certain situations. Very often, though not always, we are talking about the properties that the author prescribes to himself, and about the actions that he himself would take if he were in this or that place. For example, Nikolai Berdyaev, who came from a noble family, writes about the cultural elite in his works. In his understanding, the real elite is the aristocracy of the spirit (moreover, aristocracy is determined by origin, not achievements). And Giovanni Sartori in his work "Revisiting the Theory of Democracy" (1987) considers the political elite in connection with the incorrect, in his opinion, interpretation of the term "elite" in relation to politics and power. According to Sartori, the elite is one of the instances of power, not because it is at the top of society, but because the people who make up the elite have certain qualities that provide power.

It is always very difficult to argue here. Rarely does anyone say bad things about themselves. On the contrary, everyone will present himself as good and try to please. Of course, people's assessments of "what is good and what is bad" can vary greatly, especially when analyzing specific situations and actions. With an increase in the level of abstractness of the requirements for elites, the discrepancies can be removed. For example, the definition "elites are those who are for everything good against everything bad" will not cause a lot of objections.

It is possible to discuss these topics indefinitely - each person has his own subjective preferences, but it is hardly possible to extract something useful from these discussions for understanding the social structure.

But the main problem of the normative approach lies in the realm of pragmatics: what is the purpose of reasoning about what elites should be? In comparing the current elite with the ideal and building the conclusion that these elites are not really such? The conclusion, of course, is important, but unpromising, because under the influence of reasoning, the “elites” themselves are unlikely to change. (Berdyaev put forward the following requirement for the elite: taking into account and matching the cultural and historical situation, the processes taking place in society, responsibility to the people). It is also unlikely that people themselves will overthrow the so-called elites and hand over power to the "real" elite. Even if this is so, one circumstance raises doubts: whether one should resort to the concept of elite for the purposes of agitation. On the one hand, the majority of the population does not think about power in such terms and rather is fundamentally anti-elitist, so an attempt to replace one elite, albeit not suitable, with another, suitable, can cause rejection (which we often observe). For these purposes, it is necessary not to build an adequate theory of elites, but to think over how to sell at least some elite theory to the population - this is a completely different task.

With such a formulation of the problem, many questions still remain. Let's assume that we know what the ideal elite should be, but how to make the real elite correspond to the ideal one? Only the author of an ideal model of himself can talk about such a correspondence, if he enters the elite, and even better, if he leads it. At the same time, it is still not clear how to convince other members of the elite to conform to this ideal model.

A possible objection is to suggest that there have been periods in history when national elites were much more in line with the ideals (whatever they were) than the current ones. Or look at foreign history, where there are also examples of more capable elites.

This could be answered as follows - let's try to study in more detail why the elites of other times or other countries behaved differently than today. What was so special about the conditions of their existence, because of which they behaved differently than the elites usually do.

But this is no longer a normative, but a positive research program.

Thus, we are moving from a normative approach to research to a positive approach (in the epistemological sense).

The positive approach does not invent an "ideal" elite, so the object of its study is the real, "formal" elite. We understand that the semantics of the word "elite" in many cases does not allow us to use this term in relation to real rulers, but we have no other term.

From the point of view of a positive approach, the most universal concept of the elite is formed:

Elite is a group of persons occupying the highest positions in the social hierarchy and pursuing the following goals:
in relation to the non-elite - the preservation of its dominant position;

within the elite - an increase in one's status relative to other members of the elite.

The main problem within the framework of the positive approach is formulated as follows: how the conditions for the functioning of the elite change its behavior and how this is reflected in the ideological concepts formulated by the elite.

In practice, we see completely different types of elite behavior, which might seem strange, given that the initial goals of all elites are the same. Thus, the task is reduced to isolating the factors that determine which strategies the elites choose to achieve their immanent goals.

We group these factors as follows:

- pressure from non-elite strata (this factor works extremely rarely, but the more important it is to understand exactly when and why);
- pressure from external elites (international competition);
- intra-elite competition.

This last factor seems to us the most important. As a rule, most researchers consider the elite as a homogeneous environment, which, in our opinion, is such a high level of abstraction that in reality it is possible to find an analogue that is at least a little close to a homogeneous elite only in theory. That is, the elites are always heterogeneous and in real conditions there are conflicts within them between the higher and lower strata of the elite. In addition, usually the elite is a mixture of several hierarchies, which, due to various circumstances, form a single elite hierarchy - as a rule, unstable, full of internal conflicts.

One of the ways to resolve intra-elite conflicts is to attract part of the elite to its side of non-elite strata, due to which the composition of the elite is modified and reformatted.

Thus, a positive program for studying elites is to identify patterns of intra-elite, inter-elite, and elite-non-elite interactions based on broad historical material.

One of the important elements of the ongoing research is to identify the forms and methods of ideological support for such interaction and the subsequent influence of ideological structures on the nature of the unfolding of elite conflicts.

In this case, a possible objection is that the positive approach considers the passive adaptation of elites to the conditions of their functioning, but this is an incorrect view of reality, since it is known that at certain points in time the elites implemented long-term projects.

In fact, the assertion that the elites implement some projects is a widespread logical fallacy, based on the fact that various (large, small) events occur all the time in history, and if it is known that some significant event, then with the help of retroanalysis it is possible to reproduce the chain of events that led to it.

This chain can be called a “project”, because from an external point of view, any project that is built for the future looks exactly the same: the final event (goal) and the chain of actions that we must first perform.

But what is true in perspective is absolutely wrong in retrospect.

Enough of a hypothetical example. Let us assume that the chain of events can be extended to an arbitrarily distant time, for example, to primitive man. This can always be done, since any event is preceded by some other, something also precedes that, and so on.

But this does not mean that any event that is happening now is the realization of the project of primitive man. Then it is not clear on the basis of what (for what motives) at some period the researcher (scientist) breaks the retrochain at a certain period of time. Whether this is due to a lack of information or to the fact that it is more convenient for the researcher himself.

Traditionally, the logic of a retrospective analysis is as follows: in the past, events are searched for that, in the opinion of the researcher, are associated with an event that occurred later, called a project. Based on the presence of such events, it is concluded that this series of events is the implementation of the project. In fact, certain events and statements are combined into a single project only because it is known that the final event has already happened. For contemporaries, these were just events and statements against the background of other events and statements equivalent to them.

The researcher, on the other hand, builds a retrospective logic of events and statements for the project that is in his head, but which was not some kind of project for the real participants in the events.

After the fact, when the event has already happened and someone announced it as a project, even many of the participants in the events will be inclined to believe that it really was a premeditated project, of which they themselves were active participants in the implementation. Those who disagree with the fact that it was a project will be a minority and they will hardly be heard.

It is known for certain how much work (and blood) it cost to write the canonical history of the CPSU. But it is obvious that if the October Revolution had not taken place, then, at best, a narrow circle of historians specializing in that period would have known about the Bolsheviks.

Historical projects exist only in the minds of those who already know that this or that event has happened in history. But this knowledge is nothing but false knowledge, which interferes with the understanding of the real meaning of history.

Oxford Dictionary 1823.

Vilfredo Pareto (1848-1923) - Italian engineer, economist, sociologist, and philosopher; Gaetano Mosca (1858-1941), Italian lawyer and sociologist. Along with Pareto, he is known as the creator of the theory of elites; Robert Michels (1876-1936) - German historian, economist and sociologist; José Ortega y Gasset (1883-1955) - Spanish philosopher, social thinker, publicist and public figure; Harold Lasswell (1902-1978), American political scientist.

In the etymological meaning of the word: aristos - the best.

De Swaan A., Manor J., Oyen E., Reis E.P. Elite Perceptions of the Poor: Reflections for a Comparative Research Project // Current Sociology vol.48, 2000.

According to the prescribed status / thanks to their own merits.

This operation has its own complex methodological and logical problems, the description of which takes up too much space and is not the topic of this work.

In economic theory, an example is the long and still unfinished discussion about the mistranslation of Marx and the need to replace the term "value" with the term "value".

Nikolai Alexandrovich Berdyaev (1874 -1948) - Russian religious philosopher of the 20th century.

Giovanni Sartori (b. 1924) is an Italian and American philosopher and sociologist.