The term "elite" originates from the Latin eligere — to choose; in modern literature, it is widely used from the French elite — the best, the chosen, the chosen. Since the 17th century, it has been used (by merchants, in particular) to designate goods of the highest quality. In the 18th century, its use expanded, it began to be used to name "chosen people", primarily the highest nobility, as well as selected ("elite") military units. Since the 19th century, this concept has also been used in genetics, breeding, and seed production to designate the best seeds, plants, and animals for their further cultivation.
In England, as the Oxford Dictionary of 1823 attests, the term began to be applied to the highest social groups in the system of social hierarchy. Nevertheless, it should be noted that the concept of the elite was not widely used in the social sciences until the beginning of the 20th century (i.e., before the appearance of the works of V. Pareto), and in the USA — even until the 30s of our century. However, there can be little doubt that etymology can have a purely auxiliary meaning in determining the content of a concept that acts as a moment, a nodal point, and partly the result of a certain social concept. What is the elite? It has already been noted above that when answering this question in the constructions of the elitists, not only will we not find unanimity, but, on the contrary, we will come across judgments that sometimes contradict each other. It seems that the elitists agree on only one thing — in postulating the necessity of the elite for society. In all other aspects, there is more disagreement between them than agreement. If we summarize the main meanings in which this term is used by sociologists and political scientists, we get a very colorful picture. Let's start with the definition of Pareto, which, in fact, introduced this concept.: These are individuals who have received the highest index in their field of activity and have achieved the highest level of competence ("A treatise on General Sociology"). In another work, Pareto writes that "people who occupy a high position according to the degree of their influence and political and social power, ... the so—called upper classes constitute the elite, the aristocracy (in the etymological meaning of the word: aristos - the best) ... the majority of those who enter it, it seems, They possess certain qualities to an extraordinary degree, whether good or bad, that ensure power." Among other definitions, we note the following: the most politically active people, power-oriented, an organized minority that governs an unorganized majority (Mosca); people who have a high position in society and thus influence the social process (Dupree); the "upper ruling class", persons who enjoy the greatest prestige in society, status, wealth, persons with the greatest power (G. Lasswell); people with intellectual or moral superiority over the masses, regardless of their status (L. Lasswell). Baudin), the highest sense of responsibility (X. Ortega y Gasset); persons with positions of power (A. Etzioni), formal authority in organizations and institutions that determine social life (T. Dai); a minority performing the most important functions in society, having the greatest weight and influence (S. Keller); "inspired" personalities who responded to "the supreme call", heard the "call" and felt capable of leadership (L. Freund), charismatic personalities (M. Weber), a creative minority of society opposed to the non-creative majority (A. Toynbee); relatively small groups that consist of people who occupy a leading position in the political, economic, and cultural life of society (respectively, the political, economic, and cultural elites) — (V. Gattsman and other theorists of elite pluralism); the most qualified specialists, primarily from the scientific and technical intelligentsia, managers and senior officials in the bureaucratic management system (representatives of technological determinism), people with qualities that are perceived in this society as the highest values (supporters of the value interpretation of the elite); persons exercising power in the state, making the most important decisions and controlling their implementation by means of the bureaucratic apparatus (L. Sanisteban), the leading stratum in any social group — professional, ethnic, local (for example, the elite of a provincial city); the best, most qualified representatives of a certain social group (the elite of pilots, chess players, or even thieves and prostitutes — L. Boden). In any case, the elite—mass dichotomy is the leading methodological principle of social structure analysis for elitists.
Here is another of the latest generalized definitions of the elite, given by sociologists A. Swann, J. Manor, E. Quinn, E. Rice: "Elites, by definition, are people who control a greater share of the material, symbolic and political resources of society than any other stratum of society. They occupy the highest positions in the hierarchy of status and power, which they have received ascriptively (according to their prescribed status) or receptively (due to their own merits). In some societies, elites are sharply separated from other citizens. The elite are those people who occupy the highest positions of power, control most of the property and have the highest prestige." These authors estimate that the number of these people is about one percent of the total population. Let's compare these definitions. The confusion of terms is immediately apparent: some people mean only the political elite by elite, while others interpret the elite more broadly. J. Sartori rightly writes not only about the multitude of meanings of the term, but also about the overabundance of terms: political class, ruling (ruling) class, elite (elite), ruling elite, ruling elite, ruling minority, etc. Such overabundance only leads to confusion. A. Zuckerman is right when he notes in this regard: "Different names are used to refer to the same concept, and different concepts are designated by the same name." Therefore, the task is not to introduce another term, but to clearly define the concept that has become the most widespread, the concept of the elite, to introduce it with strict, unambiguous content. Note that the concept of elite is closely related to the problem of social stratification: the elite is the highest stratum in any system of social stratification. Naturally, when defining the concept of a political elite, we are talking about the political stratification of society. The definitions existing in political science also differ from each other in terms of the breadth of the elite concept. Proponents of a narrower definition refer to the elite only as the highest echelon of state power, proponents of a broader definition refer to the entire hierarchy of managers, highlighting the highest level of government that makes decisions that are vital for the whole country, the middle level that makes decisions that are significant for individual regions, individual spheres of social activity, and finally, an extensive bureaucratic apparatus. In order to hierarchize the structural elements of the elite, S. Keller introduces the concept of "strategic elites". The term "super elite" or elite has also appeared in the elite system. In relation to the lower structural levels of the elite, the term "sub—elites", regional elites, etc. is proposed. Finally, in the political elite itself, one should distinguish between the ruling elite and the opposition (if it is a "systemic" opposition fighting for power within a given political system) and the counter-elite, aiming to change the entire political system. Of the numerous criteria for distinguishing the elite, functionalists emphasize one, and indeed the most important one, J. Sartori calls it altimetric: the elite group is such because it is located — according to the vertical section of the structure of society "at the top". So, according to the altimetric criterion, Sartori sarcastically remarks, it is assumed that whoever is at the top is in power, an assumption based on the wise argument that power elevates to the top, and whoever has power therefore possesses it because he is at the top. The altimetric criterion reduces the matter to justifying the actual state of things. In this regard, the functional approach turns out to be very vulnerable to criticism from the positions of those sociologists who give primacy to another criterion for identifying the elite — the criterion of merit, according to which the ruling elite should consist of the most worthy, outstanding, highly moral people. However, in our opinion, the elite's value interpretation suffers from even greater shortcomings than the structural and functional one. To the question of who rules society, an elitist of value orientation can give an answer: the wise, the far-sighted, the most worthy. However, any empirical study of the ruling groups in any current (and pre—existing) political systems will easily refute this statement, because it will show that too often they are cruel, cynical, corrupt, self-seeking, power-hungry, who do not disdain to achieve their goals by any means.
But if the demands of wisdom and virtue for the elite are a norm that is completely refuted by reality, then — let us be forgiven for the pun — what is the value of a value approach? Usually, an elitist of conservative orientation proclaims as his ideal the combination of this norm with reality (this was Plato's ideal), and, as a result, the combination of formal and informal authorities. However, from the very beginning, this ideal is burdened with a number of prejudices and stereotypical attitudes, because it almost always looks for the virtuous and wise in representatives of the ruling classes (as Plato actually did). Moreover, the stability of the social system — the real ideal of conservatives — requires the continuity of the elite, and for the most outspoken reactionaries this is the transition of elite positions from fathers to children with minimal access to them by "outsiders". The desire of elitists to present the elite in socio—psychological terms as people who are superior to others in intelligence, endowed with certain abilities or moral qualities, easily turns into an open apologetics of the elite. If such judgments can be forgiven to the thinkers of antiquity, then since Machiavelli's time they cannot but sound naive. This is especially true for modern elite researchers, who can quite clearly see how high the percentage of people among the elite is deceitful, hypocritical, immoral, dodgy, dodgy, unscrupulous seekers of power. One can ask supporters of the value approach to the elite the question: why is it that among the ruling elite the percentage of people from the propertied classes is many times higher than the percentage of people from the poor? Is it really among a minority of the population — the richest people, owners of basic means of production — that we should look for the most worthy, wise, and capable? S. Keller is right when she writes that such views are "close to mysticism." To believe that it is the representatives of the ruling elite who are the most worthy, moral members of society, one must either fall into mysticism, or admit that class limitations sometimes develop into complete class blindness. Supporters of the "moralizing" approach to the definition of the elite — Bilen-Milleron and others — are forced to distinguish between the "good" and the "bad" elite. Naturally, the "moralizers" experience certain inconveniences from the fact that the ruling elite of even advanced democratic countries is strikingly different from the idealized portrait of the "noble elite" they paint. It is not for nothing that at one time P. Sorokin and W. Landen, who themselves were not completely free from such a "moralizing" approach, exploring the elites of industrial society, made an unequivocal conclusion about the "immorality of the upper classes."
It seems that the value or meritocratic criterion for identifying the elite turns out to be purely normative, not correlated with sociological data (thus, "it turns out to be in the field of political philosophy, not political sociology). And it is no coincidence that G. Lasswell, who took the term "elite" from Pareto, had to change accents. If Pareto's term was both altimetric in nature (elite — "upper classes", "people who occupy a high position according to the degree of their influence, political and social power") and at the same time valuable in nature (elite — "the most qualified" people, "possessing qualities that provide them with power"), then Lasswell cleanses the term from value criteria, defining the elite as the people with the most power. But, having seemingly gotten rid of one difficulty, Lasswell not only did not get rid, but, on the contrary, aggravated another difficulty. If we limit ourselves to a purely altimetric approach, ignoring the qualities of the ruling groups, then what right do we have to call them the elite, i.e. the best, the chosen ones? As Sartori writes, "why should we say "elite" without meaning at all what this term means, i.e. expresses by virtue of its semantic significance? Further, if "elite" no longer indicates qualitative traits (ability, competence, talent), then what term will we use when these characteristics are meant? Thus, the semantic distortion, having described a circle, returns to give rise, in turn, to a conceptual distortion. If we want to further refine the Pareto concept with the help of Lasswell, and conversely, if we want to correct Lasswell with the help of Pareto, then a distinction should be made, both terminologically and conceptually, between the power structure and the elite structure. Not all controlling groups are by definition... "elite minorities"; they may simply be "power minorities." Sartori himself, discovering the shortcomings of both functional and value-based approaches to the elite and discussing the problem of their synthesis, tends to the latter as a whole. At the same time, we note that the value approach may result not in apologetics, but, on the contrary, in criticism of the elite, in revealing its inconsistency with the norm and, thus, in a program to improve the quality of the elite. Therefore, many political scientists believe that this is the way to develop and even save democracy. As noted by the American political scientist V. Key, the crucial element on which the well-being of democracy depends is the competence of the political elite. "If democracy shows uncertainty, tends to decline or catastrophe, then this is exactly where it comes from." A similar thought was expressed by D. Bell: "The assessment of a society's ability to cope with its problems depends on the quality of its leadership and the character of the people." Note that if we adopt value criteria, we will be forced to distinguish and even contrast the "de facto elite" and the "elite in itself," and then the task of creating an optimal political system becomes the task of making the "elite in itself" the "de facto elite." However, proponents of the functional approach face no less difficulties, because they are forced to assume that the same person, having capital and power resources, is considered a member of the elite, and having lost these resources, ceases to be such, that is, it is not he who is elite, but his chair, his money.
As we have seen, the axiological approach to the problem (the elite is a set of individuals with advantages on a certain value scale) turns out to be vulnerable; the elitists of this field themselves are forced to admit that these are often values with a negative sign. Therefore, today most elitists tend to consider the elite as a group of people in power, regardless of the moral and other qualities of these persons themselves. This is, in particular, the approach of the "Machiavellian" school of elitists, who, following Mosca, identify the elite with the ruling class. But instead of explaining how and why an economically dominant class becomes politically dominant, they consider political relations as primary, determining all other social relations. As a result, their cause and effect are reversed. We should also note that a number of elitists (F. Nietzsche, Ortega y Gasset, N.A. Berdyaev, T. Adorno), in contrast to the interpretation of the elite as a group in power (in their view, this is usually a pseudo—elite or vulgar elite - not independent, in need of the masses and therefore subject to mass influences, corrupted by the masses), considers the elite to be valuable in itself, regardless of its positions of power. Moreover, in their opinion, the spiritual, genuine elite seeks to isolate itself from the masses, to isolate itself and thereby preserve its independence, to withdraw into a kind of "ivory tower" in order to preserve its values from massing. The famous novel "The Game of Beads" by G. Hesse can serve as an illustration of such views. The position of Charles Mills is interesting, who, distinguishing between the ruling and the spiritual elite, sought ways to achieve accountability of the former in relation to the latter. It is interesting to continue considering the decades-long disputes among elitists regarding the content of the concept of elite. The debate on this issue was conducted at a number of international sociological and philosophical congresses, congresses of political sciences, where the arbitrariness of the irrationalist interpretation of the elite (including charismatic), attempts to interpret the elite as a group of individuals with certain (superior) psychological characteristics, "a complex of superiority in mind, character, abilities" (La Valette) was noted. It was noted at the IV World Sociological Congress that the elite—mass dichotomy reflects the structure of socio—political systems too superficially. In the report of J.In fact, this congress contained a very remarkable admission: "One has to be surprised that sociological research is based on such an inaccurate, poorly objective and ambiguous concept as the concept of the elite. Adding the adjective "political" does not make the task easier. By conjuring up a hypothetical community of people different from the masses, the term "elite" implicitly refers to numerous social philosophies that seek to justify and spread a very inaccurate and "moralizing" concept of social differences. Nevertheless (and this is characteristic), after such scathing criticism, the speaker urged not to abandon the concept of "ruling elite", which, as he noted, is useful as a research hypothesis. "What is the value of this pseudo-scientific concept? — Another speaker, J. Meisel, asked a question. — Should elite theories be classified as pre-scientific? Or should they be viewed solely in the spirit of the Sorel myth?" Nevertheless, he defended the term. Recognizing the conservative orientation of the majority of elitists, he noted that "the concept of elite was truly sent down by God himself" to all those who long to join the battle against hyperdemocracy and socialism, "these twin utopias." J. Ketlin noted in his speech that "the term is evaluative, not scientific in nature." Actually, the overwhelming majority of the participants in the discussion pointed out the vagueness of the term "elite", but again, not in order to abandon it, but to make the necessary clarifications. J. Sartori made this clarification as follows: "In a broad sense, the elite is the top management, that is, all those who occupy a high position and are called to leadership. The elite is a synonym for the political elite. No concept is better suited to define the ruling class." Yu. Pennati agreed with two definitions at once: Monzel (elite — "a small group that in a large social group is considered capable of governance and leadership, which has the external attributes of power and is established as a result of a certain choice or public assessment") and Stemmer (elite — "a qualified minority, the ruling class in a hierarchically organized society"). The above-mentioned J. Love concluded: "Strictly speaking, the word "elite" can be understood not absolutely, but only relatively; this concept means a set of selected individuals of a certain social group (for example, the elite of the nobility). Although the criteria for this selection remain uncertain, it seems that these are high human qualities."
As we can see, the criticism of the term "elite" results only in its clarification, which is done again either in terms of value or in terms of functionality. Most elitists strongly defend the legitimacy of using the concept of elite. Thus, the French sociologist L. Bodin believes that "the word elite has retained all its prestige."… The elite is a group that is completely different from the others. It can hardly even be called a class. The elite is quality, will, and morality. She puts forward a problem that must be solved in any socio-economic regime, and the future of humanity depends on this solution." From our brief review of the debates about the concept of elite, it can be concluded that both the value and functional interpretations of this concept are not free from serious shortcomings. Recognizing this, S. Keller sees a way out in reconciling both of these concepts, making the highly controversial assumption that combining two untrue concepts can give one true one, in any case, closer to the truth, more complete. Keller suggests "analyzing the power functions of the elite, regardless of whether these functions are successfully or unsuccessfully performed," distracting from the qualities of their bearers, that is, he essentially reproduces the functional interpretation of the elite in a somewhat modernized form. On the contrary, Sartori, identifying opportunities to synthesize these approaches, tends towards a value-based, meritocratic interpretation. He believes that the altimetric (structural and functional) characteristic of the elite suffers from a lack of "semantic properties, distorting the very meaning of the original concept of the elite, and if the terms "powerful minority" and "elite minority" (the first is altimetric, the second is meritocratic) are not distinguished, then both phenomena will inevitably be confused." Who is right? It is clear that the eclectic combination of the two concepts turns out to be an unviable palliative. If we had to choose one of the two concepts mentioned above, the political scientist, in our opinion, would have to prefer the altimetric model. Let's try to justify this. We will keep in mind, first of all, the ambiguity of the term "elite", and, secondly, that there are different types of elites; moreover, the criteria for distinguishing these elites may be different. When identifying, for example, the cultural elite, the value criterion "works". It's a different matter when we isolate the political elite. Here we are forced to turn to the altimetric criterion, because if we are guided by the criterion of value, elitism may ... lose its subject! Because, to be honest, the real powers that be are far from being models of morality, and they are not always the "best." So if, according to the etymology of the term, the elite is considered to be the best, chosen, and highly moral, then they are unlikely to include political figures at all, at least the vast majority of them. Then in what sense can the term be used in political science? Apparently, it is more likely in the altimetric, functional sense. Finally, we believe that it is necessary to clearly distinguish between political philosophy and political sociology in the structure of political science (along with other political science disciplines, for example, political psychology, political history, etc.) So within the framework of political philosophy, since it is normative, one should prefer a value-based, meritocratic criterion, and within the framework of political sociology. Unfortunately, we are forced to focus mainly on the altimetric criterion. The approach of a political sociologist differs from that of a cultural scientist. Cultural scientists usually apply the term "elite" to prominent cultural figures, to the creators of new cultural norms, sometimes it acts as a synonym for the "aristocracy of the spirit." For a political sociologist, the elite is that part of society (its minority) that has access to the instruments of power, which recognizes the commonality of its interests as a privileged social group and protects them. Therefore, the judgments that we in Russia have lived without an elite for many decades of the 20th century, because the best people were destroyed or languished in concentration camps, were in exile or "internal emigration" — judgments that can often be found in the literature of recent years — are moral, axiological, but not political. Once there was a power process, it was carried out by certain institutions, certain people, whatever we call them.; it is in this functional sense (and not moralizing) that the political scientist uses this term, regardless of the moral, intellectual and other qualities of the elite.
Special mention should be made of the discussions on the problems of the elite in our country. In the Soviet scientific literature, the term "elite" was first introduced in the second half of the 1950s. It is introduced, so to speak, through a "back door", namely, through the permitted genre of "criticism of bourgeois sociology" (a term as ridiculous as "bourgeois physics" or "bourgeois biology"). In other words, it could only be about the elites in capitalist countries, and in a negative context. It is known that in Soviet times, the elitist problem in relation to the analysis of social relations in our country was taboo. The official ideology claimed that in the USSR there is no exploitation of man by man, therefore, there is not and cannot be a ruling exploiting class, there is not and cannot be an elite. This was a lie: under Soviet rule, there was a higher social stratum (and the elite can be considered as the highest stratum in the system of social stratification), which performed managerial functions and possessed institutional privileges, that is, all the attributes of an elite, albeit a very specific elite. As M. Djilas showed, the peculiarity of this elite, this "new class" consisted primarily in the fact that its exploitation of the masses of the people was carried out not through private ownership of the main means of production, but through the collective ownership of this class (and the state itself was in this ownership). And the elite—mass dichotomy worked quite well when analyzing the socio-political structure of the so-called "socialist" countries. It is no coincidence that censorship did not allow the use of the term "elite" in relation to countries that were considered socialist. The elitist analysis of the ruling strata of socialist countries was carried out by foreign Sovietologists and political emigrants — A. Autorkhanov, M. Djilas, M. Voslensky. Any ruling class ideologically justifies and justifies its rule. The Soviet elite, this "new class", went further, as Voslensky noted, it hid its very existence, in Soviet ideology this class did not exist. It was believed that in the USSR there were only two friendly classes — workers and collective farmers, as well as a stratum of intellectuals. And this elite was especially careful to hide their privileges — special distributors, special housing, special dachas, special hospitals — all this was elevated to the rank of a state secret. Discussions about the elite, about the change of elites, about their quality, about the very term "elite" in relation to the political leadership of Russia, about whether the post-Soviet elite is an established social stratum, or whether it is at the beginning of its formation, were widely developed in our country in the 90s. Thus, the famous Russian sociologist J.T. Toshchenko strongly objects to the fact that the current rulers of Russia are called the elite. And there is no shortage of arguments to support this position. How can one call the elite in its true meaning people whose rule has led to a dramatic deterioration in the life of the population, to a reduction in its number? Then maybe these are examples of morality? Alas, this is one of the most corrupt groups in Russian society, whose members think more about their own enrichment than about the welfare of the people. This is the main reason for the estrangement that exists between the people and the elite. These people quite soberly consider their "entry into power" as temporary and, accordingly, act as temporary workers, concerned primarily with rapid personal enrichment. Having been in power and fallen out of it, they usually turn out to be very rich people, large shareholders of banks and corporations, owners of solid real estate. A significant part of them are former party and Komsomol nomenklatura officers, usually of the second and third echelons, who managed to exploit the situation and easily changed their beliefs, often they are former shadow officials who have now legalized themselves, sometimes they are people with a criminal record. Moreover, these people really like being called the "elite". It tickles their ego. So is the term "elite" legitimate in relation to them? Maybe it's more correct to call them a ruling group or a clan? But then the same approach should be applied to the political elite of other countries, which also do not have high morals. Wouldn't this dispute then be a dispute about words, a terminological dispute? If, according to the etymology of the term, the elite is considered to be the best, the highly moral, then they are unlikely to include political figures at all, at least the vast majority of them. A. Einstein, A.D. Sakharov, A. Schweitzer, Mother Teresa, but the current political leaders will not get in. Then in what sense can this term be used in political science? The answer to our question, in our opinion, is related to the need to distinguish between political philosophy and political sociology in the structure of political science (along with other political science disciplines such as political psychology, political history, etc.). The specificity of political philosophy lies not only in the fact that it represents the highest level of generalization of the political life of society, but also in the fact that it focuses on the normativity of political processes, whereas political sociology describes and explains real political processes, which are sometimes very far from normative. So, within the framework of political philosophy, precisely because it has a normative character, the meritocratic criterion should be preferred to the value criterion, but within the framework of political sociology we are forced, alas, to focus mainly on the altimetric criterion.
