Leading theorists of political elitology. The main provisions of the founders of elitology. Functional theories of the elite

The recognized founders of elitology and its "patriarchs" are Italian sociologists. G. Mosca (1858-1941) ("Fundamentals of Political Science") and V. Pareto (1848 - 1923) ("Treatise on General Sociology"), and also lived in

Italy German sociologist R. Michels (1876-1936). They were able to quite objectively and concretely formulate the main provisions of the scientific and philosophical concept of the elite, present them in the form of a certain system of views regarding the social stratum that, due to the possession of the greatest number of positive qualities, types of values and priorities (power, wealth, origin, culture, strength will, place in the church-spiritual sphere, etc.) occupies the most influential positions in the social hierarchy. The representatives of the first generation of elitologists, whose scientific activity falls on the end of the 19th-first third of the 20th century, also include the French political scientist J. Sorel, the outstanding German sociologist M. Weber, the Spanish culturologist and political scientist J. Ortega y Gasset. They formulated the ABC of the modern doctrine of elitism. It was they who made the elite the subject of a special study, tried to give it a definition, reveal the structure, laws of functioning, and role in the social and political system. Of particular practical importance are the patterns of circulation and change of elites discovered by them, the elite structure of society as a necessity and as a standard. They quite convincingly proved that the presence of a strong ruling elite headed by an authoritative leader is an indispensable condition for the dynamic development of society. The starting point of G. Moska's concept is the division of society into a dominant minority and a politically dependent majority (mass). The dominance of elites is the law of social life. This is how Mosca formulates his credo on this matter: the presence of ruling layers becomes obvious even at the most superficial glance. Mosca fixes our attention on what is already obvious at the level of ordinary consciousness - the presence of managers and governed in society, that is, ordinary consciousness, which most often does not clearly understand the reasons for dividing society into classes, does not capture the essence of socio-political relations. In any social system, there are those in power and those who are powerless. In all societies, from those barely approaching civilization to modern advanced and powerful societies, two social classes always interact - the class that rules and the class that is ruled. The first class, always less numerous, performs all political functions, monopolizes power, while the other, more numerous, is ruled and controlled by the first. Moreover, in a way that ensures the functioning of the political organism. In real life, we all recognize the existence of such a class. It is no coincidence that this idea is cited and commented on by most researchers of elitism as a classical formulation of the foundations of the theory of elites. But since the direction of public affairs is always in the hands of a minority of powerful people, with whom the majority consciously or unconsciously reckon, Mosca questions the very term democracy. He considers democracy to be a camouflage for the same power of a minority. He calls it plutocratic, recognizing that it is precisely in the refutation of democratic theory that the main task of his theoretical search lies. But it is known that the power of the minority over the majority is legitimized to one degree or another; carried out with the consent of the majority. This is explained, first of all, by the fact that the ruling minority is always an organized minority, at least in comparison with the unorganized mass. The sovereign power of an organized minority over an unorganized majority is inevitable. The power of any minority is irresistible for any representative of the majority who opposes the totality of the organized minority. However, there is another circumstance that legitimizes this power: this is that the individuals representing it differ from the rest of the mass in such qualities that provide them with material, intellectual and even moral superiority. In other words, members of the ruling minority invariably possess qualities, real or perceived, that are deeply revered in the society in which they live. The main ones among them are education, courage, flexibility, the power of persuasion, the readiness to use forceful methods in relation to the enemy. These qualities are extremely important for representatives of the ruling forces, because the masses are, in principle, apathetic and always tend to revere power. Only with a strong leader do the masses calm down, and the elite becomes invulnerable. Mosca's thesis is also very convincing about the need for those in power to have material and moral superiority, as well as military prowess, which, in his opinion, played a special role in the early stages of the development of society, but now does not play such a role, although it is of no small importance. In societies characterized by a high level of civilization, the intellectual superiority of the managerial minority and wealth are of particular importance. Wealth rather than military prowess became the dominant feature of the ruling class; those in power are rich rather than brave. In a society that has reached a certain stage of maturity, where personal power is restrained by public power, those in power tend to be richer, and to be rich means to be powerful. And indeed, when the fight against the armored fist is forbidden, while the fight against pounds and pence is allowed, the best posts invariably go to those who are better off with money. The connection is two-way: wealth creates political power in the same way that political power creates wealth. Here, the outward similarity of the positions of the elitarists with the Marxist concept of social structure is manifested. But this is only an appearance. The foundation of social development is not economics, but politics, not basic relations, but superstructural, political ones, because the ruling or political class concentrates the leadership of political life in its hands, unites individuals with "political consciousness" and a decisive influence on the economy, on the economic elite . With the transition from one historical epoch to another, the composition of the ruling class changes, its structure, the requirements for its members, but as such this class always exists, moreover, it determines the historical process. And if so, then the task of elitology is to study the conditions for the existence of the ruling political class, its retention of power, the mechanisms of relations with the masses. Distinguish between autocratic and liberal principles of organized minority rule, depending on the nature of the political situation, and skeptically evaluate the concepts of popular sovereignty and representative government. That type of political organization is the best which gives the elite the opportunity to develop, be subject to mutual control and observe the principle of individual responsibility. The power of the elite depends on the extent to which the qualities of its members correspond to the needs of the era, no matter what social stratum they are recruited from. Moreover, the ruling minority can be recruited in various ways, but the main selection criterion is the ability, professionalism and qualities that are desirable for political management. Therefore, the most important task of elitology is to analyze the personnel composition of the elites, the principles of its formation, and the systems of their organization. Moreover, even changes in the structure of society can be summarized by changes in the composition of the elites. The ruling minority is always more or less consolidated and tends to become a closed class. All ruling classes strive to become hereditary, if not legally, then in fact. But it should be noted the historical danger of this trend for the elite itself. There is a noticeable tendency in modern conditions to move from more closed to less closed ruling classes, from hereditary privileged castes to more open systems, where, in particular, education opens the way to government posts. There are two tendencies in the development of the ruling stratum: aristocratic and democratic. The first trend leads to the rigidity and lack of mobility of the ruling class, narrows the channels of entry into the elite of representatives of other strata of society, and leads the elite to degeneration. The second trend is inherent, as a rule, in historical periods of progress and dynamic social changes, when the ruling class and its elite are replenished with the most prepared and capable representatives of the social rank and file. The elite that develops in this way is the most productive and mobile. The main thing in the rule of the elite is the idea with which the ruling minority seeks to justify its power, tries to convince the majority of the legitimacy of this power. Another founder of elitology is Vilfredo Pareto, one of the most prominent representatives of positivist sociology of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, who stated that his goal was to create an "exclusively experimental sociology", like chemistry and physics. He contributed to the widespread penetration into sociology of mathematical and statistical research methods. Pareto considered society as an integrity, and its parts as functional elements of this whole. Pareto proceeds from the fact that the fundamental social law is the law of "social heterogeneity", internal differentiation, the core of which is the opposition of the mass of controlled individuals to a small number of managers, whom he calls the elite. The social system is in motion, experiencing ups and downs, but, according to Pareto, always strives for equilibrium. Moreover, this balance is not static, but dynamic. And most importantly: the dynamics of the social structure is initiated and even determined by the elite - the ruling minority. The elite is kept in power "partly with the help of force, partly with the consent of the ruled class, which is more numerous. Material and other values are distributed in society in the highest degree unevenly, and especially power, wealth, honors. Inequality in the distribution of wealth, apparently, depends much more from human nature itself than from the economic organization of society.The unequal distribution of wealth is an inexact reflection of social heterogeneity, i.e., the unequal distribution of eugenic properties, since social barriers prevent adequate correspondence.This unevenness is due to the fact that the minority controls the majority, resorting to to strength and cunning, and it seeks to legitimize its power, suggesting to the ruled that it expresses the interests of society, that the duty of the masses is to obey the elite, to recognize its legitimate and natural right to wealth. Thus, Pareto's approach is neutral in terms of value, in his concept of the elite one should not look for moral or metaphysical meaning, but only an attempt to objectively comprehend social differentiation. The elite, from his point of view, are those who are at the top in the real struggle for existence. Graphs of the hierarchical division of people according to different indicators (authority, skill, education, wealth) partially coincide with the graph of the distribution of wealth, and yet the latter turns out to be "axial". Pareto derived the inevitability of dividing society into an elite and a mass from the inequality of people's individual abilities, which manifests itself in all spheres of social life. Individuals with great influence, wealth form the "highest stratum of society, the elite." Pareto refers to it, first of all, the commercial, political, military, religious elite. This is the de facto elite. We see an extremely broad interpretation of the elite. But in Pareto one can also find an understanding of the elite in a narrow sense. This is the part of it that plays a decisive, ruling role in politics. In this sense, the word elite, according to Pareto, is analogous to G. Mosca's political class. So, not all members of the elite are included in the ruling elite (ie, understood in the narrow sense of the word); some of them form a non-ruling elite. Thus, activists of numerous political parties, non-systemic opposition, outstanding political scientists are included in the elite, but do not have a significant impact on the government. To explain social dynamics, Pareto formulates his well-known theory of "elite circulation". Here are its main ideas: The social system strives for equilibrium and, when it is taken out of this state, returns to it over time; the process of fluctuation of the system and its arrival to the "normal state" of equilibrium forms a social cycle. The course of the cycle depends on the nature of the circulation of elites. Pareto seeks to represent the historical process in the form of an eternal circulation of the main types of elites. Elites arise from the lower strata of society and in the course of the struggle rise to the higher ones, flourish there and eventually degenerate, are destroyed and disappear. This circulation of elites is a universal law of history, the sociologist concludes. History for Pareto is the history of a succession of privileged minorities who form, struggle, rise to power, enjoy power, decline, and are replaced by another privileged minority. As we can see, the scheme of this circulation has little in common with the historical-materialist approach to understanding social development; in some ways it is even speculative in its claims to universality. And most importantly, after a few generations, the aristocracy becomes pampered, loses vitality and determination in the use of force. The qualities that give the elite dominance change in the course of the cycle of social development; hence the types of elites also change. Result: the history of mankind and individual societies turns out to be a cemetery of the aristocracy. According to Pareto, there are two main types of elites that successively replace each other. The first type - "lions" They are characterized by extreme conservatism, rough, "power" methods of government. The second type - "foxes", masters of deceit, political combinations, intrigues. A stable political system is characterized by the predominance of the "lion" elite. On the contrary, the instability of the state of the political system requires pragmatically thinking energetic figures, innovators, combinators. Each elite is characterized by one of two main methods of management: the "fox" elite - manipulative, including compromises, social demagoguery; elite "lions" - a method of force and brutal suppression. The constant change of one elite by another is the result of the fact that each type of elite has certain advantages, which, however, over time cease to meet the needs of the leadership of society. Therefore, maintaining the balance of the social system requires a constant process of replacing one elite with another, as other, but, in general, repetitive situations arise before the elites. A society dominated by the elite of "lions" is a society of retrogrades, it is motionless, stagnant. On the contrary, the fox elite is dynamic. Representatives of the first love peace, invest their capital in rent, representatives of the second profit from any fluctuations in market conditions. Pareto called democratic regimes pluto-democratic. This is the power of the "fox" elite, which prefers cunning and resourcefulness to naked violence, supporting its dominance with propaganda, political combinations and maneuvering. The mechanism of social balance functions normally when, in accordance with the requirements of the situation, a proportional influx of people of the first and second orientations into the elite is ensured. The cessation of circulation leads to the degeneration of the ruling elite, to a revolutionary breakdown of the system, to the emergence of a new elite with a predominance of elements with the qualities of “foxes” in it, which over time degenerate into “lions”, supporters of a tough reaction, and the corresponding “cycle” is repeated again. Revolutions, according to Pareto, are just a change and struggle of elites: the ruling elite and the potential elite, which, however, disguises itself by speaking supposedly on behalf of the people. But this is very often only a deception for the uninitiated. Pareto notes that the highest and lowest strata (elite and masses) are heterogeneous. In the lower there are people who have the ability to manage society. In the elite, elements are constantly accumulating that do not have the qualities necessary for governance, and resort to violence and terror. The aristocracy is experiencing not only a quantitative but also a qualitative decline. At the same time, history is not only the cemetery of the aristocracy, but also the continuity of the aristocracy. "The ruling class is replenished with families coming from the lower classes." The elite, fighting the counter-elite, can use one of two methods (or both at once): either destroy it or absorb it, and the latter method is not only more humane, but also the most effective, since it makes it possible to avoid revolutions. It should be said that the British elite turned out to be perhaps the most successful in absorbing the potential and most prepared representatives of the counter-elite. For several centuries it has kept the doors open (or rather, ajar) for the most mobile members of the underprivileged classes. Significantly lower social mobility in the elite in Spain, Portugal, Latin America. Every society is fraught with instability. The closeness of the elites sooner or later leads to the aging of society and its decline. The class struggle is the most important factor in world history. But it is wrong to assume that the class struggle is engendered by economic causes arising from the relations of ownership of the means of production. The struggle for political power is the root cause of both the clash between the elite and the masses, and the rivalry between the ruling and non-ruling elites. The consequence of the class struggle in the modern era will be the domination of those who speak in the name of the proletariat, i.e. once again a privileged elite. Socialists in our time have learned very well that the revolutions of the late 18th century simply put the bourgeoisie in power in the place of the old elite, but they sincerely believe that the new elite of politicians will keep their promises more firmly than those that succeeded each other until now. However, all revolutionaries consistently proclaim that past revolutions, in the end, ended only in the people's swindling, that the revolution that they are preparing will become genuine. The proletarian movement is the independent movement of the vast majority in the interests of the vast majority.” Unfortunately, this genuine revolution, which should bring unclouded happiness to people, is only a misleading mirage that never becomes a reality. It is like a golden age that has been dreamed of for millennia.

If Pareto emphasized the replacement of one type of elite by another, then Mosca emphasized the gradual penetration of the "best" representatives of the masses into the elite. If Mosca absolutizes the action of the political factor, then Pareto explains the dynamics of elites in many respects psychologically: the elite dominates the masses, planting political mythology, while it itself rises above ordinary consciousness. For Mosca, the elite is a political class; Pareto's understanding of the elite is broader, it is more anthropological. Many major modern political scientists criticize certain aspects of the Pareto concept, especially for being overloaded with value judgments, the controversial conclusions about the "elite circulation".

Once again, we note that the merit of the founders of elitology is that they singled out the object and subject of science, systematized the accumulated knowledge about the ruling minorities, tried to formulate the patterns of formation, structuring and change of elites, the features of their functioning in various specific historical conditions.

G. K Ashin

Course in the history of elitology

Chapter 1. Elitology as a science ............................................................... .……..3

Chapter 2. Genesis of elitology. Proto-elithology ................……. 26

Chapter 3

Chapter 4

Chapter 5

Chapter 6 .......174

Chapter 7

Chapter 8

Chapter 9

Chapter 1. Elitology as a science

The subject of elitology. The 20th century sharply spurred the process of differentiation and integration of sciences. Moreover, new scientific disciplines are increasingly being formed not just as specialized areas of already established scientific disciplines, but precisely as disciplines that integrate the achievements of different, mainly related sciences (and sometimes very far from each other), and often the methods and concepts of one science turn out to be heuristic in solving problems that arise before another scientific discipline. It is precisely such a complex scientific discipline, which is increasingly claiming an independent status, that is elitology. It was formed in line with social and political philosophy, but it integrated the achievements and methods of other related disciplines. Elitology has developed as a complex interdisciplinary knowledge lying at the intersection of political science, social philosophy, political science, sociology, world history, social psychology, cultural studies.

By the way, science as such is always elitist, and its development is the preservation of the best (and the rejection of the worst), which becomes the achieved level, at which the best, new, progressive is again revealed - that is, the development of science is the choice of the elite and, in a certain sense, it is the practical application of elitology.

Elitology in the broadest sense can be considered as the science of differentiation and hierarchization of being, its orderliness, structuralization and evolution. It is known that the movement from chaos to orderliness - the content of the development process - includes the differentiation of being, with which its hierarchization is inextricably linked (the key problem for understanding the phenomenon of the elite). But we will not expand the subject of elitology, if only because, as a result, it will lose its specificity. Perhaps it would be much more accurate to say that elitology in broad sense based on the doctrine of the systemic nature of being, (and, consequently, on the general theory of systems), its differentiation and hierarchization, on the laws of thermodynamics (entropy and negentropy), synergetics. General systems theory has an extremely wide scope. Almost every subject can be represented as a certain system, i.e. a certain integrity, consisting of elements that are in relationships, connections with each other, constituting a certain unity; moreover, it is possible to identify the hierarchy of these relations, their subordination (each element of the system can be considered as a subsystem, that is, a system of a lower order, as a component of a wider system).

Of course, these dependencies do not reveal the specifics of elitology, they rather indicate the knowledge and principles from which elitology is based, on which it is based. At best, they can only be preliminary remarks about the methodological principles on which elitology relies.

Note that hierarchy is characteristic not only of the morphology of a certain system, but also of its functioning: individual levels of the system are responsible for certain aspects of its behavior, the functioning of the system as a whole is the result of the interaction of all its levels, and the system as a whole is controlled by its highest level. Thus, in complex dynamic systems, it is possible to single out the governing and controlled subsystems, to fix the phenomenon of subordination - the most important point explaining the problem of elite and elite. Among the most complex dynamic systems, biological and, of course, social systems are of particular interest, and the latter, in fact, are a specific subject of consideration for elitologists. It should be noted that one of the founders of the approach to society as a system in a state of dynamic equilibrium was the recognized classic of elitology V. Pareto. In this regard, I would also like to note the development of a systematic approach in the tectology of A.A. Bogdanov and the praxeology of T. Kotarbinsky, which are especially fruitful in relation to understanding the functioning of the political and administrative elite.

Now let's narrow the subject of elitology to social elitology, which is elitology in the proper sense of the word. Elitology can be viewed as the science of social differentiation and stratification, more precisely, as the science of the highest stratum in any system of social stratification, of its special functions related to the management of the system as a whole or its various subsystems, in the development of norms and values that serve self-maintenance. system and its development, orient it towards movement in a certain direction (to improve the system, to progress). Therefore, the elite includes a part of society, consisting of the most authoritative, respected people, which occupies a leading position in the development of norms and values that determine the functioning and development of the social system, which is the reference group on whose values, considered exemplary, the society is guided. These are either bearers of traditions that hold together and stabilize society, or, in other social situations (usually crisis ones), they are the most active, passionate elements of the population, which are innovative groups. Thus, elitology is the science of elites and, consequently, of the grounds for the differentiation of society, the criteria for this differentiation, the legitimacy of this differentiation. Of course, it needs to develop an appropriate categorical apparatus, including definitions of the concepts "best", "chosen one".

Finally, often (primarily in political science) the elite is spoken of in narrow the meaning of this term as about the political-administrative, managerial elite. It is this component of elitology that has become (perhaps without sufficient grounds for this) the most important, widespread, “applied” part of elitology, although this is only one of many elitological disciplines. In this narrow sense, the subject of elitology (more precisely, political elitology) is the study of the process of socio-political management and, above all, the highest stratum of political actors, the identification and description of the social stratum that directly exercises this management, being its subject (or, in in any case, the most important structural element of this subject), in other words, the study of the elite, its composition, the laws of its functioning, its coming to power and the retention of this power, its legitimization as the ruling stratum, the condition for which is the recognition of its leading role by the mass of followers, the study of its role in the social process, the reasons for its degradation, decline (as a rule, due to its closeness), and leaving the historical arena, as not meeting the changed historical conditions, the study of the laws of transformation and change of elites.

The structure of the subject of elitology certainly includes the history of the development of knowledge about the elites, that is, the history of elitology. In the center of the subject of elitology is the study of its laws - the laws of structure (the structure of the elite, the relationship between its elements, which are usually subsystems of the elite as an integral system - political, cultural, military, etc.), the laws of the functioning of elites, the interaction between the elements of this system, dependencies between its various components, the role in which each of these components acts in relation to the elite as an integral phenomenon, the laws of connection and subordination of the elements of this system, and finally, the laws of the development of this system, its transition from one level to another, usually higher, to new type of connections within this system.

Russian school of elitology. The term "elitology" is a Russian innovation. It was introduced into scientific circulation in the 1980s and became widespread in Russian social sciences starting from the second half of the 1990s, when a number of papers on this issue were published. We can safely say that the Russian school of elitology is taking shape.

Unfortunately, foreign colleagues are in no hurry (yet?) to recognize the necessity and legitimacy of this term (is it because it is a Russian innovation?) or its equivalent, which has not yet been proposed. It can be fully assumed that the term "elitology" hurts the ears of people for whom English is their native language. It is no coincidence that they prefer the term "political science" to political science and "cultural studies" to cultural studies. However, we do not cling to the term. You can say about this with the words of a Russian proverb: "at least call it a pot, just don't put it in the oven."

In recent years, the author of this work has visited more than 10 universities in the USA and Germany, in many of them he has delivered lectures on elitist issues, as well as made presentations at congresses and conferences. Moreover, as a rule, I was offered to give lectures and special courses under the traditional names for Americans and Western Europeans: "Sociology of the Elite" at sociological departments and "Political Elites" at political science departments. It took a long time to explain that the sociology of the elite and the problems of political elites are only a part, albeit a very important part of elitology. Indeed, do the courses "Political Elites", "Sociology of the Elite", "Theories of the Elite" taught in Western universities exhaust all the elitistological problems? They can rather be considered as separate sections of elitology, which describe certain aspects of the phenomenon of the elite. With such a fragmented approach, it is impossible to cover the subject of research - the elite - as a certain integrity, as a certain system, to reveal the laws of functioning and development of this phenomenon, to exhaust all the richness of relations within the elite and relations between the elite and society as a whole. It is on such a holistic, systematic approach to the phenomenon of the elite and the elite that elitology insists, in particular, the Russian school of elitology. As for the term “elitology” itself, its meaning cannot be exaggerated, it, like any scientific concept, is just a moment, even a key moment, of a certain concept. Moreover, elitology is the broadest concept that includes all the sciences about elites, regardless of the value orientation of this or that scientist who develops this problem, regardless of whether he is an apologist, a singer of the elite, or a critic of a society that needs an elite for its management and placing the elite in a privileged position. Elitology strives to be scientific, not ideological.

Characteristic and not without interest are the objections of Western colleagues against the very term "elitology" and against separating it into an independent science. Here is the opinion of one of them: "The term itself is rather clumsy, clumsy, moreover, it consists of two roots - Latin (elite) and Greek (logos), which already speaks of its eclecticism." I replied that this argument could be accepted, that I would be very happy to introduce the term "aristology", where both roots would be Greek, that the Greek "aristos" seemed to me preferable to the Latin root "elite". But the thing is that the term "elite", introduced into scientific circulation by V. Pareto, is well-established, firmly established in science, and the term "aristology" would introduce even more confusion into an already difficult problem.

Another objection to elitology. One of the participants in the discussion of this problem said: "It's bad when the number of scientific disciplines increases," and called to rely on the words of the famous medieval scholastic W. Ockham that "essences should not be multiplied." Answering a colleague, I had to refer to the fact that the quote from Ockham was not given by him in full: the philosopher said that "entities should not be multiplied without special need." And here is the case when there is a "special need". The role of elites in the historical process in general is too great, and Russia has suffered too much from unskilled, cruel, dishonest elites.

But let us return to the courses taught in a number of Western European and American universities, which have as their subject this or that elite, this or that aspect of the study of elites. The course "Theory of Elites" usually has only a historical and political science character. A very interesting course taught by L. Field and J. Higley "Elitism" (and a book with the same name) analyzes an important paradigm that is directly related to our problem, but this is only one of the paradigms that does not take into account the egalitarian paradigm and for this reason alone unable to claim a holistic analysis of elitology. Nor can we be satisfied with elitist concepts in the spirit of F. Nietzsche and H. Ortega y Gasset, if only because they all unconditionally accept the elite-mass dichotomy as an axiom, as a standard of a civilized society, ignoring the possibility of studying and interpreting the phenomenon of the elite by researchers that come from an egalitarian paradigm and consider the existence of an elite a challenge to democracy, leaving aside objections to perpetuating this division as an ahistorical approach to the very fact of the existence of an elite. Even less can claim to cover the entire elitistological issues of the course "Political Elite". It should be noted that the vast majority of modern researchers recognize the pluralism of elites (political, economic, religious, cultural, etc.). But if in any context the term "elite" is used without an adjective specifying which particular elite is meant, one can be sure that it is a political elite. This circumstance itself indicates that it is the political elite that comes to the fore in the public consciousness, which wipes other, non-political elites into the background (which, in our opinion, is more bad than good, because by default it assumes the primacy of the political elite). It seems to us more fair that in the hierarchy of elites, socially dominant groups, the leading place should rightfully belong to the cultural elite, the creators of new cultural, civilizational norms. The highest place in the hierarchy of elites and leaders of mankind should not be given to Alexander the Great, Caesar, Napoleon, Lenin or Churchill, but Buddha, Christ, Socrates, Mohammed, Kant, Einstein, Sakharov.

Perhaps the closest thing to the subject of elitology is the subject of the sociology of the elite. However, the subject of the sociology of the elite is essentially narrower than the subject of elitology. The sociology of the elite does not exhaust all the richness of the content of elitology. Sociological research methods should not be absolutized either; in elitology they are complemented by philosophical, political science, culturological, and psychological ones. A sociological approach to identifying the elite was proposed by one of the founders and classics of elitology of the late 19th - early 20th century V. Pareto. In various spheres of human activity, he singled out people who carry out this activity most successfully (he gave them an index of 10, and then, in descending order, to zero). Suppose, according to the criterion of wealth, one should put ten billionaires, one - to those that barely keep on the surface, reserving 0 for the beggar, the homeless (although, strictly speaking, according to Pareto there is always hierarchization, and, consequently, the elite of the poor, the homeless, etc. .). But is it possible to use this criterion in determining, say, the cultural elite? What index shall we assign to Van Gogh or Vermeer - the geniuses of painting, not appreciated by contemporaries, or Bach, whose genius was fully appreciated only by his grateful descendants? Obviously, specific cultural criteria will be needed. The sociology of the elite is the most important part of elitology, but it is still only a part of it. Therefore, the systematic approach proposed by the Russian school of elitology seems to us more promising.

It's time to declare in full voice about the formation of the Russian school of elitology. This school took shape in the last decade and a half of the 20th century (mainly the last ten years). And this is quite understandable. It is known that in Soviet times, elitist issues were tabooed. Studies of the Soviet elite were impossible for ideological (and, therefore, censorship) reasons. It is no coincidence that Russian elitology was formed during the years of Russia's democratic transition. When the censorship barriers were removed, elitist studies in Russia began to be carried out on a broad front.

In addition, there were other important prerequisites for the formation of the school of modern Russian elitology. She could rely on the powerful traditions of Russian pre-revolutionary and émigré philosophy, political science, jurisprudence, sociology, represented by such outstanding figures of science and culture as N.A. Berdyaev, M.Ya. Ostrogorsky, P.A. Sorokin, I.A. Ilyin , G.P. Fedotov, who made an invaluable contribution to the development of elitology. .

The Russian school of elitology has been rapidly developing in the last decade; its representatives have published more than twenty monographs, hundreds of articles on the most important aspects of elitology. Moscow elitologists M.N. Afanasiev, G.K. Ashin, O.V. Gaman, E.V. Okhotsky and others, Rostov elitologists A.V. .E.Kislitsin, A.M.Starostin, Astrakhan P.L.Karabuschenko, Petersburgers S.A.Kugel, A.V.Duka, elitologists of Yekaterinburg, Saratov, Tatarstan and many other regions of Russia. It is in Russia - for the first time in the world - that elitological journals are published - "Elitological Research" (a theoretical journal), "Russian Elite" (illustrated popular edition), "Elite Education". The school of Russian elitology has rightfully taken a leading position not only in the study of Russian elites (a couple of decades ago, one could learn about Russian elites only from the works of foreign Sovietologists and Russian political emigrants), but also in a number of general theoretical problems of elitology.

Elitological thesaurus. Like any emerging science, elitology needs to comprehend and clarify its conceptual apparatus, develop a general theory and methodology, transfer theoretical concepts to the operational level, develop empirical studies of elites, and comparative elitological studies.

Let's start by distinguishing between such concepts (which are still mixed) as elitology, elitism, elitism. The confusion of these terms is primarily the result of the fact that elitology was born as elitism, because its theorists were the spokesmen for the interests of those sections of the population from which members of the elite were recruited, and who acted as ideologists (and thus apologists) of these sections. Elitarism is a concept proceeding from the fact that the division of society into the elite and the masses is the norm of the social structure, an attribute of civilization (the absence of such a division is a sign of savagery, underdevelopment of society). The more aristocratic a society is, the higher it is as a society (F. Nietzsche, H. Ortega y Gasset). The elite in this sense is a stratum that is more or less closed, whose members do not accept or despise the nouveau riche. Thus, elitism is an aristocratic and deeply conservative worldview. Accordingly, the writings of its supporters are a reflection on the very highest social stratum to which they belong or whose values they are guided by.

Elitism is a phenomenon close to elitism, but not the same concept. Taking the same elite-mass dichotomy as an initial postulate, its supporters, however, do not treat the mass with open or poorly hidden contempt (which is typical for such elitarists as Plato or Nietzsche), they are more liberal, they can treat the masses with respect. mass and recognize its right to a place in the sun. In any case, in their understanding, the elite should not be a closed stratum of society, but, on the contrary, open to the most capable people from non-elite strata, including those from the social ranks. They generally recognize that a high level of social mobility is legitimate and even desirable. Any society is subject to social stratification, which is caused by an unequal distribution of abilities; in the competition for elite positions, those who are functionally more prepared for managerial activity win. The elitist is characterized by a meritocratic approach to the elite (however, this approach is not a monopoly of the elitist, it is inherent in both a number of moderate elitistists and moderate egalitarians).

Finally, elitology is the broadest concept that unites all researchers of the elite, regardless of their methodological attitudes and value preferences, including supporters of the egalitarian paradigm, for which the presence of an elite is a challenge to the fundamental value of society - equality. Among the egalitarians there are supporters of rough equalization, up to complete property equality, egalitarians, for whom it is unbearable that among the “equals” there are people who, in the words of J. Orwell, are “more equal than others” (radical egalitarians). But a much larger number of egalitarians act as fighters for "justice", by which they usually understand a more adequate system of social inequality, justify the admissibility of a certain degree of inequality in accordance with the abilities and, most importantly, the merits of people, their contribution to the development of society, that is, they demonstrate elements meritocratic approach (moderate egalitarians).

Most researchers of the elite proceed from the fact that the elite is the determining force of the historical (including political) process, its subject. Such an approach is fraught with a rather arbitrary postulation. To avoid confusion of different interpretations of the elite and its role in the development of society, we introduce a distinction between such concepts as elitology, elitism, elitism. The first is the broadest concept. Of course, all elitarists and elitistists are elitistologists, but not all elitistologists are either elitistists or elitistists. Such a distinction helps us, in particular, to avoid a common mistake, especially characteristic of American political scientists, who classify the outstanding American sociologist R. Mills as an elitist on the formal basis that he used the elite-mass dichotomy to analyze the US political system. Mills did not consider the presence of a ruling elite to be either an ideal or a norm of the political system, rightly believing that the concentration of power in the hands of this elite is evidence of the undemocratic nature of this political system. Thus, being, undoubtedly, an elitologist, and an outstanding elitologist, Mills was neither an elitist, much less an elitistist. The elitist paradigm (combining elitistists and elitarists) includes those sociologists and political scientists who, like L. Field and J. Higley, consider the selection of the elite as a subject of social control and its privileged position as the law of the social process, its norm. But after all, an elitologist who studies a really existing elite can be critical of the very fact of the existence of this social stratum, considering it a threat to democracy (even an alternative to democracy); its ideal of social organization may be a self-governing society, a society without an elite, or else (which is essentially the same thing) a society in which all members rise to the level of the elite, will be the real subject, the creators of the historical process. As for the elites and elitists, they consider such views to be a kind of social utopia, and the presence of an elite for them is an immanent element of civilized societies.

In recent years, interest in the elitist paradigm has increased, primarily in political science (moreover, this paradigm is usually considered in relation to the egalitarian, pluralistic and other paradigms). It is this issue - the confrontation and change of various paradigms in political science with an emphasis on the elitist paradigm - that Field and Higley mentioned above are exploring. Here is the diagram they draw. In the first quarter of the 20th century, an elitist paradigm emerges (they use this term to combine elitism and elitism) and displaces the egalitarian paradigm, challenging the liberal and Marxist paradigms. At the same time, it is recognized that the founders of elitism were not hostile to the liberal system of Western values and saw the main enemy in the Marxist paradigm. In the second and third quarters of the 20th century, a decline and stagnation of the elitist paradigm set in, and interest in it again increases in the fourth quarter of the century. It seems that this scheme is not entirely correct: it ignores, in particular, the explosion of interest in the elitist paradigm in the 50s, which was caused by the books of R. Mills "The Power Elite" and F. Hunter "Supreme Leadership in the USA", which caused sharp controversy in American and Western European political science, aimed generally at discrediting the radical leftist concept of Mills and his followers and defending the pluralistic paradigm. This scheme, moreover, does not take into account the conservative and aristocratic paradigm that came into the 20th century from the 19th. In short, this scheme extremely simplifies the situation that has developed in the twentieth century. The position of Field and Higley about the growing role and importance of the elitist paradigm in the last quarter of the twentieth century and further at the beginning of the twenty-first century is also disputed by many political scientists and sociologists. However, they do not have a smaller number of supporters. K. Lash writes about the "revolt of the elites" in America, J. Devlin - about the revolution of the elites in post-Soviet Russia; a close position is occupied by D. Lane, K. Ross, W. Zimmerman. In favor of Field and Higley's scheme, in particular, the growing influence of the "neo-elitists" T. Dye, H. Zeigler and others in American political science speaks.

Is Field and Higley's scheme confirmed by the example of Russian political science? To a certain extent, yes. A number of Russian political scientists write about a radical turn in Russian political science and sociology from the egalitarian, anti-elitist paradigm, which undoubtedly prevailed in the Soviet period, to the elitist paradigm. But in Russia at the end of the twentieth century there was a special, unique political situation. And it is hardly possible to illustrate the global trend of growing influence of the elite paradigm on the example of the Russian social sciences. In Russia, the undoubted growth of the influence of the elitist paradigm, in our opinion, is not the result of a natural evolution of scientific views, but rather the result of political reasons, it is a reaction to censorship, ideological persecution of elitism carried out in the Soviet years and decades. It is known that a spring, which is compressed by external forces, tends to straighten, tends to oscillatory motion in the opposite direction.

And in Russia there really was a turn from Soviet-style egalitarianism, largely pharisaic egalitarianism, which denied the existence of a totalitarian elite in the USSR, endowed with institutional privileges and concealed the real inequality of the ruling elite and the masses, in other words, pseudo-egalitarianism, promoted by the apologists of the one-party system, to the elitist paradigm . This turn is often interpreted as part of a general turn from totalitarianism to democracy.

It seems, however, that there are too many moments here that reflect the specifics of the Russian situation at the end of the 20th century in order to consider the Russian turn to the elitist paradigm of this period as confirmation of the correctness of the hypothesis of Field and Higley about a worldwide paradigm shift in political science. In science, the transition from one paradigm to another (see: T. Kuhn, The structure of scientific revolutions, M., 1975) is the result of a consistent accumulation of facts and data that do not fit into the paradigm generally accepted by the scientific community, and as a result, the accumulation of quantitative changes leads to a change paradigms (which is identical to revolutions in science). In the Russian situation at the end of the 20th century, everything happened differently. Firstly, the fact that Russian political scientists are moving from one paradigm to another is alarming at the same time and almost completely unanimous. This transition resembles rather than the natural process of the development of science, but the result of some command from above (rather, the preemption of this command, the readiness to guess and fulfill the will of the "new bosses"). This is reminiscent of the command that exists in the navy, when the admiral commands a squadron of ships going in the wake: "Right (left) rudder!" and adds: "all of a sudden!". When such a turn takes place in science, it does not at all testify to the atmosphere of freedom and democracy in it. This is too similar to the totalitarian times, when “the whole of Soviet biology” began to fight with Mendelism-Morganism in unison, or all the sciences in the country, from mathematics to philosophy, fought against cybernetics. Or - when physicists loyal to Nazi Germany "refuted" the theory of relativity created by the non-Aryan Einstein. So, perhaps, taking into account historical experience, it would be appropriate to assume that the judgment about the change of paradigms is a certain simplification of the process of development of modern Russian consciousness, perhaps such a turn is another shying from one extreme to another, which, unfortunately, is so characteristic of Russian life in last century; perhaps such an abrupt move is not safe, being a move between the Scylla of egalitarianism and the Charybdis of elitism. Perhaps the real movement of political thought takes place between these two extremes, in their struggle and, at the same time, their interpenetration, mutual consideration of these opposites. Mankind has been painfully searching for a balance between federalism and unitarism, between administrative-legal and civil-law spaces, between elitism and egalitarianism, ways of creating a stable non-violent civil power, building a civil society for more than one century.

What has been said above is at best only the beginning of an elitistological thesaurus, which we will try to supplement with other terms that deepen and expand the elitistological problems. This will primarily apply to the very term "elite", its correlation with such terms as the ruling class, ruling group, ruling clique, clan, etc.

Structure of elitology. Elitology has a complex structure. It includes philosophical elitology, sociology of the elite, political elitology, historical elitology, as well as the history of elitology, elitological psychology (including the motivation of power, the psychological characteristics of the elite), cultural elitology (the elite as a creative part of society that creates cultural values, analysis elite and mass culture), comparative elitology, which studies the general patterns and features of the functioning of elites in different civilizations, different countries, different regions of the world, elite education and elite pedagogy. Of course, this list of elitist disciplines is far from complete. P. L. Karabuschenko offers an interesting classification of elitist disciplines. In addition to theoretical elitology, he distinguishes practical and applied elitology.

Philosophical elitology represents the highest level of generalization in elitology. It, in turn, has a complex structure. It can be distinguished elitological ontology, elitological epistemology (including ancient occult science, esoteric epistemology), elitological philosophical anthropology, elitological personalism.

Ontological elitology reveals heterogeneity, differentiation, hierarchy of being. At this level, the problem of elitism and the elite is most widely posed. It should be noted that the problems of heterogeneity and hierarchization of being were in the focus of attention of ancient (Pythagoras, Heraclitus, Socrates, Plato) and medieval philosophy (Augustine the Blessed, Thomas Aquinas), they were discussed in the philosophy of modern times, in the philosophy of the twentieth century (N.A. Berdyaev , J. Ortega y Gasset). The process of development includes the differentiation and hierarchization of being, and with it the selection of the elite. This especially applies to the development of complex dynamic systems, which is always accompanied by an increase in their internal differentiation, hierarchization, and complication (and specialization in organic and social systems).

This problem has long been a general scientific one. It is included, for example, in the subject of theoretical biology. The development of organic populations is accompanied by an increase in their internal differentiation, complication, and hierarchization; the growth of internal differences leads to the selection of the most perfect individuals, the qualities and properties of which correspond to the tendencies of the system (population) towards its development. These more perfect individuals can be called elite in the population system. Elite elements are the leading element in the process of natural and artificial selection. In essence, all biological evolution - in accordance with the teachings of Darwin - is the elitology of the living, the identification of the best (most adapted to the conditions of their existence) individuals, the extinction of the less adapted, the transformation of the elite into the norm, the identification of a new elite in the population (i.e. the elite of elites ) and, further, a new turn of the spiral. Both sociobiology and eugenics deal with the problem of elitism. It is known that Plato, extrapolating the processes of artificial selection to societies, was the theoretical father of eugenics, which, as a holistic doctrine, was formulated in the second half of the 19th century by F. Galton. And it does not matter that the author of this work does not share the ideas of eugenics. It is important that biology refers to elitist issues.

Elitological epistemology Let's start with the fact that in this problem the difference between the elitist, characterized by closeness, and the elite is especially clearly revealed. Elite epistemology is an esoteric theory of knowledge for the "chosen", initiated, possessing the "gift of God", with an emphasis on occult knowledge, intuition and "illumination". During the period of the decomposition of the primitive communal system and the emergence of a class society, its stratification was based not only on belonging to the tribal aristocracy, but also to familiarization with sacred knowledge and sacraments, the bearers of which were mainly the priestly caste. This secret knowledge constituted the symbolic capital of the proto-elite, legitimizing its claims to a privileged position in society. Elite esoteric knowledge has been developed for more than three millennia - from the Brahmins, the first philosophical schools of ancient India and ancient China (including the Taoists), "occult science" developed by the Pre-Socratics, the hierarchical "theory of perfection" of Pythagoras, the Platonic concept of elitist consciousness (the state of minds that are closest to world of ideas), "eidetic vision". On the threshold of the New Age, the elite esoteric epistemology was developed by theosophy - mystical knowledge of God, revealed to the "chosen ones". Meister Eckhart (1575-1624) set the task of clarifying the divine wisdom, symbolically encrypted, the knowledge of God's self-revelation. For the Swedish mystic E. Swedenborg (1688–1772), the task of the chosen thinkers is to comprehend the true symbols of the Word of God, primarily the Pentateuch, to identify the symbolic correspondence between the earthly and the “other world”. In the 19th century, the tradition of Theosophy was developed by H. P. Blavatsky (1831-1891) with her followers. She sought to synthesize religion, philosophy, occultism, relied on the traditions of Brahmanism, the teachings of Hinduism about karma, sought to establish the identity of all religious meanings, create a universal religion, setting the task of achieving occult knowledge and supernatural abilities, the bearers of which are "initiates" who have mastered the secrets of the esoteric knowledge. R. Steiner (1861–1925), the founder of anthroposophy, devoted his works to the development of speculative mysticism in the traditions of theosophy. This mystical, occult-oriented esoteric (and at the same time elitist) theory of knowledge can be opposed to scientific epistemology (which in this respect can be called elite in the sense of its depth, critical nature and openness to criticism), the classical theory of knowledge, fertilized by the genius of I. Kant.

Elitological philosophical anthropology and elitistological personalism- a tradition that goes from Confucius, Pythagoras, Plato to N.F. Berdyaev and E. Munier, referring to a comprehensive study of human problems, paying special attention to the issue of self-improvement of the individual, ascending the steps of perfection to the level of an elite personality, Elitization of personality is in the center a number of areas of religious philosophy, starting with Buddhism (the problem of an "enlightened" personality). Philosophical anthropology is looking for an answer to the question of what a person is, what is his essence, integrity. The mode of human existence is possibility; a person is a project (M. Heidegger), a person is what he makes of himself (A. Camus). Hence - his path to self-improvement, the ability to go beyond his limits, rise above them (elitization of personality). Personalism proceeds from close premises: personality is the highest meaning of civilization. N. Berdyaev's personalism is called "eschatological", but it can rightfully be called elitist personalism: a person is the likeness of God, it acquires the features of godlikeness in the process of creativity, thereby realizing its vocation. Berdyaev argued that the most important characteristic of a person is that he is not satisfied with himself, strives to overcome his limitations, to superhumanity, to the ideal. Personalism seeks to create pedagogy, the purpose of which is the awakening and development of personal principles in a person, stimulating the self-exaltation of the personality, its elitization, i.e., elite pedagogy.

Socio-philosophical elitology is aimed at finding a normative approach to the elite, which, perhaps, is most consistent with the etymology of the term "elite", which requires that the most creative people, outstanding in their moral and intellectual qualities, belong to the elite. The meritocratic concept is close to this approach, based on the fact that the true elite is not just those who, by birth or chance, ended up “at the top”, but the elite of merit, the elite of intelligence, education, intellectual and moral superiority, erudition, and creativity.

There is no doubt that an important, one might even say central place in elitology belongs to sociology of the elite(At the same time, let us recall once again that the subject of elitology is wider than the subject of the sociology of the elite, they are related as a whole and a part). In contrast to the philosophical-sociological approach, which is primarily focused on normativity, the sociology of the elite focuses on the study of real elites. It is known how important sociology is given to the analysis of social structure and social mobility (group and individual), and of particular interest is upward mobility (primarily to the elite), the study of the mechanisms of elite recruitment. Sociology is characterized by a view of the elite as a reference group, on the values of which society is guided. Distracting as far as possible from moralizing assessments, it identifies the elite in society and in various social groups according to such criteria as property status, status, and place in power relations. The emphasis is usually placed in the traditions of M. Weber on the status approach associated with claims to prestige and privileges, the distribution of symbolic honor. Of particular interest to elitology in this regard is the problem of prescribed status associated with inherited factors, with social origin, race and nationality, and status based on personal achievements. The first plays a decisive role in societies with a closed elite, the second - with an open one. Among the sociological methods of studying elites, the method of empirical research occupies the most important place. In sociology, the statistical method of identifying the elite, proposed by V. Pareto, is widely used.

Recognizing the important role of sociology in the structure of elitology, we would like, at the same time, to object to a number of sociologists who believe that elitology as an independent discipline is not needed, since, in their opinion, the sociology of the elite covers elitistological problems. Claiming to solve all the problems of elitology within the framework of sociology, they thus demonstrate a kind of "sociological expansionism". Being a relatively young science (compared to philosophy, history), sociology was forced, identifying its object and subject of research, to “reconquer” its territory from other, already established disciplines. This "expansionism" of sociology can be seen as the "childhood disease" of an emerging discipline. The fact that the sociology of the elite exists and is fruitfully developing does not mean at all that sociology is not needed, just as the presence of a sociology of culture does not negate and does not replace cultural studies, just as the presence of a sociology of politics does not cancel or replace political science.

As scientific statistics show, of all sections of elitology, the largest number of researchers is attracted by political elitology. Their attention to this issue is a response to the broad public interest in it, to the social order, to the need to understand who is the main subject of politics - the masses or a narrow elite group, to understand who is behind the most important strategic decisions that affect the fate of millions of people. , to questions of war and peace, who these people are, whether they rightfully take their positions, how qualified they are in solving political problems. Using the data of political sociology, they investigate the social affiliation and origin of members of the political elite, age, level of education and professional training, value orientations, the main types of political elite (caste, estate, class, nomenklatura, meritocratic), groupings, clans within the elite, issues of formation and change of elites, analyze oppositional paradigms: elitism and egalitarianism, elitism and pluralism, elitism and democracy. Of particular interest are comparative studies of various types of elites, analysis of relations between political elites and the masses, the possibilities of optimizing these relations, and problems of political leadership. A significant and growing branch of political elitology is the study of regional political and administrative elites in various countries of the world (we note in this regard that over a hundred studies have been conducted on this issue in post-Soviet Russia alone).

We have noted only some areas of elitology. It is impossible not to note such important sections of elitology as the study of economic, cultural, religious, and military elites. Since almost every sphere of human activity has its own elite, if we even try to list the various elites, we will not succeed, we will go to infinity. This means that the subject of elitology will constantly expand. But it is only important to emphasize that each of the sections of elitology is a structural element of the study of the elite as a holistic phenomenon, that in each of these sections, along with their specifics, it is possible to isolate certain general patterns, create a general theory, a methodology of elitology that “works” in all these specific areas, being refracted in them in a peculiar way.

In conclusion, we note that we began the review of the structural elements of elitology from the area that has attracted the least attention of researchers in recent decades - from philosophical elitology, and ended with the one that is most intensively studied - political elitology. I would like to correct this imbalance by drawing the attention of elitologists to

problems of philosophical elitology, poorly covered in the literature, and it is the foundation on which the general theory of elitology is built.

41. Analysis of official structures and formal decision-making rules

typicalfor…( 1 answer option)

a. system method; in. behavioral method;

b. institutional method; d. comparative method.

97. American political scientist. Eastondeveloped the theory of political

concept-based systems… …(1 answer option)

a. "legality - legitimacy" in. « entrance– output»

b. "stability - instability" d. "decision - action"

a. absolute control of power over all spheres of society and citizens

b. strivingpower to control only the political process

in. government's desire to control the economy

120. Ancient democracy was…

a. straightb. representative

289. Anti-war peace movement, opposed to all

wars, regardless of their nature and goals, is called…

a. cosmopolitanism

b. pacifism

in. pauperism

d. expansionism

52. Behavioraltheories of power analyze…( 1 answer option)

a. systemic nature of power

b. unconscious motives that influence decision making

in. behavioral aspects of power relations

d. game aspect of power relations

104. Bolshevism– it's a variety…

a. right-wing totalitarianism

b. left totalitarianism

2. For the first time the department of political science arose in…( 1 answer option)

a. England in. USA

b. Germany, France

11. Is it true, that Plato considered democracy to be the best form of government?

a. Yes b. No

18. "The war of all against all» – This, according to T. Hobbes

characteristic…( 1 answer option)

a. the state of the people

b. social status of people

in. naturalthe state of the people

19. First introduced the concept« state», distinguish between the state and

society…( 1 answer option)

a. T. Hobbes in. H. Machiavelli

b. J. Locke G. C. Montesquieu

37. The structure of political science does not include…( 1 answer option)

a. international relations theory

b. cratology

in. ontology

d. theory of the rule of law

55. Power, based on massive media exposure,

called…( 1 answer option)

a. gerontocracy in. mediacracy

b. Meritocracy d. Plutocracy

69. Leading political theoristselitology…( 2 answers)

a. AT. Paretoin. G. mosca

b. M. Weber G. R. Kjellen

73. Select Key Principles for an Elite Approach to Politics( 2

answer option)

a. politics is a struggle for power

b. most people should not be involved in politics

in. the population in the state is divided into rulers and ruled

d. Most people should have access to the most important political

tools and means.

87. Political system– This…( 1 answer option)

a. set of public institutions

b. set of political organizations exercising power

in. set of state and public organizations, norms and

principles of the exercise of power

d. system of political and public organizations exercising power

95. The institutional subsystem of the political system includes…( 2

answer option)

a. ideology in. political culture

b. stateG. political parties

98. Is the statement true, that a democratic political system

is open?

a. Yes b. No

99. Is the statement true, that totalitarian political systems

belong to closed systems?

a. Yesb. No

121. In today's world, a form of democracy is common…

a. straight b. representative

132. AT to the competence of the executive bodies of state power

included… (3 answer options)

a. implementation of foreign policy

b. implementation of adopted laws

in. human rights monitoring

d. repeal of extralegal acts

d. development and execution of the state budget

134. High degree of state intervention in economic life

societies– This…(1 answer option)

a. secession c. autarky

b. statismG. Liberalism

140. In a presidential republic, the government bears the political

responsibility to…(1 answer option)

a. parliament

b. president

in. parliament and president

142. ATsemi-presidentialrepublic, the government bears the political

responsibility to…( 1 answer option)

a. parliament

b. president

in. parliament and president

164. The upper house of the Russian parliament is called…

a. Federal Assembly

b. Council of the Federation

in. Legislative Assembly

State Duma

169. The highest body of executive power in the Russian Federation– This

a. parliament in. presidential administration.

b. government Supreme Court

181. In those cases, when the President of the Russian Federation is unable to fulfill his

powers, they are temporarily performed…(1 answer option)

a. speaker of parliament

b. Chairman of the Federation Council

in. head of the presidential administration

G. Prime Minister

197. Depending on participation in the exercise of state power, all

political parties are divided into…( 1 answer option)

a. ruling and opposition

b. legal and illegal

in. opposition and legal

d. ruling and illegal

199. Is the statement true, that some political parties

limit their activities to participation in election campaigns?

a. Yes b. No

200. Choose the correct judgment:

a. all parties are divided by class

b. every political party has a program and charter

in. all political parties aim at state power

d. all parties have individual fixed membership

201. In a modern democratic party state…(1 answer option)

a. lobby for the interests of the oligarchy

b. reflect the political interests and goals of different sectors of society

in. are representative institutions

are engaged exclusively in propaganda activities

213. Possibilities of a one-party system…(1 Possible answer)

a. lack of real diversity in society's political leanings

b. unilateral advantages in media access

in. dominance of forceful methods of conflict regulation

G. all of the above

214. Highlight the correct sentence:

a. Russia has a proportional electoral system

b. The United States has a multi-party system

in. China has a two-party system

Russia has a two-party system

215 . Elections to the State Duma are carried out according to…(1 answer option)

a. majoritarian electoral system

b. proportional electoral system

in. mixed electoral system

223. The most important idea of liberalism is…(1 answer option)

a. the existence of a universal moral order

b. desire for change

in. the need for active participation of the state in the economy

G. the absolute value of the human person

224. Select in statements, corresponding to the ideology of liberalism…(2

answer option)

a. « man himself knows better than any government, what does he want»

b. “Equality is not only a legal, but also a political concept, which

should be introduced into the public sphere”

in. “The state is that without which it is impossible to establish either order or

justice, nor inner solidarity"

G. « the supreme state body can not be compared with the head,

crowning society, and with a hat, which can be easily changed»

229. Choose a saying, relevantconservative

ideologies…(1 answer option)

a. « I would like to make repairs as close as possible to the style of that building, which

being repaired»

b. “man by nature is not able to live peacefully, he is obsessed with a thirst for power,

sinful, greedy"

justice

230. Choose a saying, corresponding to the ideologysocial-

democracy:

a. “I would like to make repairs as close as possible to the style of the building that

being repaired"

b. « man by nature is not able to live peacefully, he is obsessed with the lust for power,

sinful, greedy»

in. solidarity is the interaction of all people for the sake of achieving freedom and

justice

d. “Equality is one of the necessary elements of society, while

freedom is both a means and, in a sense, an end in itself.

241. Select the characteristics of Western political culture (3 options

a. ideals of individual freedom

b. deification of rulers and their administrative activities

in. dominance of corporatism values

d. recognition of the individual as the main subject and source of politics

e. competitive type of participation in power

e. gravitation towards simplified forms of power organization

Elitology has a complex structure. It includes philosophical elitology, sociology of the elite, political elitology, historical elitology, as well as the history of elitology, elitological psychology (including the motivation of power, the psychological characteristics of the elite), cultural elitology (the elite as a creative part of society that creates cultural values, analysis elite and mass culture), comparative elitology, which studies the general patterns and features of the functioning of elites in different civilizations, different countries, different regions of the world, elite education and elite pedagogy. Of course, this list of elitist disciplines is far from complete. P. L. Karabuschenko offers an interesting classification of elitist disciplines. In addition to theoretical elitology, he distinguishes practical and applied elitology.

Philosophical elitology represents the highest level of generalization in elitology. It, in turn, has a complex structure. It can be distinguished elitological ontology, elitological epistemology (including ancient occult science, esoteric epistemology), elitological philosophical anthropology, elitological personalism.

Ontological elitology reveals the heterogeneity, differentiation, hierarchy of being. At this level, the problem of elitism and the elite is most widely posed. It should be noted that the problems of heterogeneity and hierarchization of being were in the focus of attention of ancient (Pythagoras, Heraclitus, Socrates, Plato) and medieval philosophy (Augustine the Blessed, Thomas Aquinas), they were discussed in the philosophy of modern times, in the philosophy of the twentieth century (N.A. Berdyaev , J. Ortega y Gasset) . The process of development includes the differentiation and hierarchization of being, and with it the selection of the elite. This especially applies to the development of complex dynamic systems, which is always accompanied by an increase in their internal differentiation, hierarchization, and complication (and specialization in organic and social systems).

Elitological epistemology Let's start with the fact that in this problem the difference between the elite, characterized by closeness, and the elite is especially clearly revealed. Elite epistemology is an esoteric theory of knowledge for the "chosen", initiated, possessing the "gift of God", with an emphasis on occult knowledge, intuition and "illumination". During the period of the decomposition of the primitive communal system and the emergence of a class society, its stratification was based not only on belonging to the tribal aristocracy, but also to familiarization with sacred knowledge and sacraments, the bearers of which were mainly the priestly caste. This secret knowledge constituted the symbolic capital of the proto-elite, legitimizing its claims to a privileged position in society. Elite esoteric knowledge has been developed for more than three millennia - from the Brahmins, the first philosophical schools of ancient India and ancient China (including the Taoists), "occult science" developed by the Pre-Socratics, the hierarchical "theory of perfection" of Pythagoras, the Platonic concept of elitist consciousness (the state of minds that are closest to world of ideas), "eidetic vision". On the threshold of the New Age, the elite esoteric epistemology was developed by theosophy - mystical knowledge of God, revealed to the "chosen ones". Meister Eckhart (1575-1624) set the task of clarifying the divine wisdom, symbolically encrypted, the knowledge of God's self-revelation. For the Swedish mystic E. Swedenborg (1688–1772), the task of the chosen thinkers is to comprehend the true symbols of the Word of God, primarily the Pentateuch, to identify the symbolic correspondence between the earthly and the “other world”. In the 19th century, the tradition of Theosophy was developed by H. P. Blavatsky (1831-1891) with her followers. She sought to synthesize religion, philosophy, occultism, relied on the traditions of Brahmanism, the teachings of Hinduism about karma, sought to establish the identity of all religious meanings, create a universal religion, setting the task of achieving occult knowledge and supernatural abilities, the bearers of which are "initiates" who have mastered the secrets of the esoteric knowledge. R. Steiner (1861–1925), the founder of anthroposophy, devoted his works to the development of speculative mysticism in the traditions of theosophy. This mystical, occult-oriented esoteric (and at the same time elitist) theory of knowledge can be opposed to scientific epistemology (which in this respect can be called elite in the sense of its depth, critical nature and openness to criticism), the classical theory of knowledge, fertilized by the genius of I. Kant.

Elitological philosophical anthropology and elitist personalism is a tradition that goes from Confucius, Pythagoras, Plato to N.F. Berdyaev and E. Munier, referring to a comprehensive study of human problems, paying special attention to the issue of self-improvement of the individual, ascending the steps of perfection to the level of an elite personality The elitization of the individual is at the center of a number of areas of religious philosophy, starting with Buddhism (the problem of the "enlightened" personality). Philosophical anthropology is looking for an answer to the question of what a person is, what is his essence, integrity. The mode of human existence is possibility; a person is a project (M. Heidegger), a person is what he makes of himself (A. Camus). Hence - his path to self-improvement, the ability to go beyond his limits, rise above them (elitization of personality). Personalism proceeds from close premises: personality is the highest meaning of civilization. N. Berdyaev's personalism is called "eschatological", but it can rightfully be called elitist personalism: a person is the likeness of God, it acquires the features of godlikeness in the process of creativity, thereby realizing its vocation. Berdyaev argued that the most important characteristic of a person is that he is not satisfied with himself, strives to overcome his limitations, to superhumanity, to the ideal. Personalism seeks to create pedagogy, the purpose of which is the awakening and development of personal principles in a person, stimulating the self-exaltation of the personality, its elitization, i.e., elite pedagogy.

Socio-philosophical elitology is aimed at finding a normative approach to the elite, which, perhaps, is most consistent with the etymology of the term "elite", which requires that the most creative people, outstanding in their moral and intellectual qualities, belong to the elite. The meritocratic concept is close to this approach, based on the fact that the true elite is not just those who, by birth or chance, ended up “at the top”, but the elite of merit, the elite of intelligence, education, intellectual and moral superiority, erudition, and creativity.

There is no doubt that an important, one might even say central place in elitology belongs to the sociology of the elite (at the same time, we recall once again that the subject of elitology is wider than the subject of elite sociology, they are related as a whole and a part). In contrast to the philosophical-sociological approach, which is primarily focused on normativity, the sociology of the elite focuses on the study of real elites. It is known how important sociology is given to the analysis of social structure and social mobility (group and individual), and of particular interest is upward mobility (primarily to the elite), the study of the mechanisms of elite recruitment. Sociology is characterized by a view of the elite as a reference group, on the values of which society is guided. Distracting as far as possible from moralizing assessments, it identifies the elite in society and in various social groups according to such criteria as property status, status, and place in power relations. The emphasis is usually placed in the traditions of M. Weber on the status approach associated with claims to prestige and privileges, the distribution of symbolic honor. Of particular interest to elitology in this regard is the problem of prescribed status associated with inherited factors, with social origin, race and nationality, and status based on personal achievements. The first plays a decisive role in societies with a closed elite, the second - with an open one. Among the sociological methods of studying elites, the method of empirical research occupies the most important place. In sociology, the statistical method of identifying the elite, proposed by V. Pareto, is widely used.

See: Bogdanov A. Tectology. General organizational science. In 2 vols. M., 1989.

See: Kotarbinsky T. Treatise on good work. M., 1975; his own: Development of praxeology //Bulletin of the A.Bogdanov International Institute, 2000, No. 2. The specified problem is considered in Yu.V. Yarmak's doctoral dissertation "Praxio-tectological foundations of the professional activity of the elite." M., 2002.

Let's note the following works: Afanasiev MN, Ruling elites and statehood of post-totalitarian Russia, M.-Voronezh, 1996; Ashin G.K. Modern theories of the elite, M., 1985; his own: Elitology: formation, main directions, M., 1995; Elitology. Political elite, M., 1996; Fundamentals of elitology, Almaty, 1996; Elitology. Change and recruitment of elites, M., 1998; Ashin G., Berezhnaya L.N., Karabuschenko P., Rezakov R., Theoretical foundations of the elitology of education, Astrakhan, 1998; Ashin G., Okhotsky E., Course of elitology, M., 1999; Ashin G., Ponedelkov A., Ignatiev V., Starostin S., Fundamentals of political elitology, M., 1999; Gaman-Golutvina O.V. Political elites of Russia, M., 1998; Ponedelkov A. Elite (political_administrative elite) Rostov-on-Don, 1995; Karabuschenko P., Plato's Elitology, Astrakhan, 1998; his own: Anthropological elitology, Astrakhan, 1998; Power elites and the nomenklatura. Annotated bibliography of Russian editions of 1990–2000, editor-in-chief A. Duka, St. Petersburg, 2001. The book contains an annotated list of 460 publications on this issue. At present, this number exceeds 600. Since 1998, the journal "Elitological Research" has been published.

Field L. and Higley J, Elitism, L., 1980, p.p.4, 117-130.

K. Lash's book "The Rise of the Elites" is clearly opposed to the famous book by X Ortega-y Gasset "The Rise of the Masses". See: C.Lash, The Revolt of Elites, 1995.

Devline J. The Rise of the Russian Democracy. The Causes and Consequences of the Elite Revolution, 1995; Lane D. and Ross C., The Transition from Communism to Capitalism. Ruling Elites from Gorbachev to Yeltsin , N.Y. .1999; Zimmerman W., Russian People and Foreign Policy: Russian Elite and Mass Perspectives 1993 – 2000, N.Y., 2002.

Karabuschenko P.L., Anthropological elitology, M.-Astrakhan, 1999, pp. 21-26.

It should be noted that by the end of the 20th century the problem of hierarchization recedes into the background and is lost in postmodernism.

See: Karabuschenko P.L., Plato's Elitology, Astrakhan, 1998, p.184

Chapter 1. Elitology as a science................................................……..3

Chapter 2 Genesis of elitology. Protoelithology.................……. 26

Chapter 3 Classics of elitology of the late 19th - early 20th centuries...73

Chapter 4 The evolution of elitology and its typology......................…..98

Chapter 5 Methodological installations of elitism.....………….. 132

Chapter 6 Elite: dispute over the term...............................................….174

Chapter 7 On the history of Russian elitology..........................…..222

Chapter 8 History of American Elitology...............................243

Chapter 9 The dispute over the structure of power and the structure of US elites….. 269

Chapter 1. Elitology as a science

Elitology in the broadest sense can be considered as the science of differentiation and hierarchization of being, its orderliness, structuralization and evolution. It is known that the movement from chaos to orderliness - the content of the development process - includes the differentiation of being, with which its hierarchization is inextricably linked (the key problem for understanding the phenomenon of the elite). But we will not expand the subject of elitology, if only because, as a result, it will lose its specificity. Perhaps it would be much more accurate to say that elitology in the broadest sense based on the doctrine of the systemic nature of being, (and, consequently, on the general theory of systems), its differentiation and hierarchization, on the laws of thermodynamics (entropy and negentropy), synergetics. General systems theory has an extremely wide scope. Almost every subject can be represented as a certain system, i.e. a certain integrity, consisting of elements that are in relationships, connections with each other, constituting a certain unity; moreover, it is possible to identify the hierarchy of these relations, their subordination (each element of the system can be considered as a subsystem, that is, a system of a lower order, as a component of a wider system).

Now let us narrow the subject of elitology to social elitology, which is elitology in the proper sense of the word. Elitology can be viewed as the science of social differentiation and stratification, more precisely, as the science of the highest stratum in any system of social stratification, of its special functions related to the management of the system as a whole or its various subsystems, in the development of norms and values that serve self-maintenance. system and its development, orient it towards movement in a certain direction (to improve the system, to progress). Therefore, the elite includes a part of society, consisting of the most authoritative, respected people, which occupies a leading position in the development of norms and values that determine the functioning and development of the social system, which is the reference group on whose values, considered exemplary, the society is guided. These are either bearers of traditions that hold together and stabilize society, or, in other social situations (usually crisis ones), they are the most active, passionate elements of the population, which are innovative groups. Thus, elitology is the science of elites and, consequently, of the grounds for the differentiation of society, the criteria for this differentiation, the legitimacy of this differentiation. Of course, it needs to develop an appropriate categorical apparatus, including definitions of the concepts "best", "chosen one".

Finally, often (primarily in political science) the elite is spoken of in the narrow sense of this term as a political-administrative, managerial elite. It is this component of elitology that has become (perhaps without sufficient grounds for this) the most important, widespread, “applied” part of elitology, although this is only one of many elitological disciplines. In this narrow sense, the subject of elitology (more precisely, political elitology) is the study of the process of socio-political management and, above all, the highest stratum of political actors, the identification and description of the social stratum that directly exercises this management, being its subject (or, in in any case, the most important structural element of this subject), in other words, the study of the elite, its composition, the laws of its functioning, its coming to power and the retention of this power, its legitimization as the ruling stratum, the condition for which is the recognition of its leading role by the mass of followers, the study of its role in the social process, the reasons for its degradation, decline (as a rule, due to its closeness), and leaving the historical arena, as not meeting the changed historical conditions, the study of the laws of transformation and change of elites.

Unfortunately, foreign colleagues are in no hurry (yet?) to recognize the necessity and legitimacy of this term (is it because it is a Russian innovation?) or its equivalent, which has not yet been proposed. It can be quite assumed that the term "elitology" hurts the ears of people for whom English is their native language. Not coincidentally, they prefer the term "political science" to political science and "cultural studies" to cultural studies. However, we do not cling to the term. You can say about this with the words of a Russian proverb: "at least call it a pot, just don't put it in the oven."

C structure of elitology. Elitology has a complex structure. It includes philosophical elitology, sociology of the elite, political elitology, historical elitology, as well as the history of elitology, elitological psychology (including the motivation of power, the psychological characteristics of the elite), cultural elitology (the elite as a creative part of society that creates cultural values, analysis elite and mass culture), comparative elitology, which studies the general patterns and features of the functioning of elites in different civilizations, different countries, different regions of the world, elite education and elite pedagogy. Of course, this list of elitist disciplines is far from complete. P. L. Karabuschenko offers an interesting classification of elitist disciplines. In addition to theoretical elitology, he distinguishes practical and applied elitology.

Ontological elitology reveals heterogeneity, differentiation, hierarchy of being. At this level, the problem of elitism and the elite is most widely posed. It should be noted that the problems of heterogeneity and hierarchization of being were in the focus of attention of ancient (Pythagoras, Heraclitus, Socrates, Plato) and medieval philosophy (Augustine the Blessed, Thomas Aquinas), they were discussed in the philosophy of modern times, in the philosophy of the twentieth century (N.A. Berdyaev , J. Ortega y Gasset) . The process of development includes the differentiation and hierarchization of being, and with it the selection of the elite. This especially applies to the development of complex dynamic systems, which is always accompanied by an increase in their internal differentiation, hierarchization, and complication (and specialization in organic and social systems).

problems of philosophical elitology, poorly covered in the literature, and it is the foundation on which the general theory of elitology is built.

See: Bogdanov A. Tectology. General organizational science. In 2 vols. M., 1989.

Field L. and Higley J, Elitism, L., 1980, p.p.4, 117-130.

K. Lash's book "The Rise of the Elites" is clearly opposed to the famous book by X Ortega-y Gasset "The Rise of the Masses". See: C.Lash, The Revolt of Elites, 1995.

Devline J. The Rise of the Russian Democracy. The Causes and Consequences of the Elite Revolution, 1995; Lane D. and Ross C., The Transition from Communism to Capitalism. Ruling Elites from Gorbachev to Yeltsin, N.Y., 1999; Zimmerman W., Russian People and Foreign Policy: Russian Elite and Mass Perspectives 1993 – 2000, N.Y., 2002.

Karabuschenko P.L., Anthropological elitology, M.-Astrakhan, 1999, pp. 21-26.

It should be noted that by the end of the 20th century the problem of hierarchization recedes into the background and is lost in postmodernism.

See: Karabuschenko P.L., Elitology of Plato, Astrakhan, 1998, p.184.