The Meaning of Elitism

The central proposition of elitism is that all societies are divided into two classes – the few who govern and the many who are governed. The Italian political scientist Gaetano Mosca expressed this basic concept as follows:

In all societies – from societies that are very undevelopedand have largely attained the dawnings of civilization, down to the most advanced and powerful societies – two classes of people appear – a class that rules and a class that is ruled. The first class, always the less numerous, performs all of the political functions, monopolizes power, and enjoys the advantages that power brings, whereas the second, the more numerous class, is directed and controlled by the first, in a manner that is now more or less legal, now more or less arbitrary and violent.

For Mosca it was inevitable that elites and not masses would govern all societies, because elites possess organization and unity of purpose.

An organized minority, obeying a single impulse, is irresistible against an unorganized majority in which each individual stands alone before the totality of the organized minority. A hundred men acting uniformly in concert, with a common understanding, will triumph over a thousand men who are not in accord and can be dealt with one by one.

 

Contemporary writers generally attribute elitism to the impact of urbanization, industrialisation, technological development, and the growth of the social, economic, and political organisations in modern societies. Robert Dahl writes, "The key political, economic, and social decisions... are made by tiny minorities... It is difficult – nay impossible to see how it could be otherwise in large political systems.” Sociologist Suzanne Keller writes. "The democratic ethos notwithstanding, men must become accustomed to bigger, more extensive and more specialized elites in their midst as long as industrial societies keep growing and becoming more specialized." And according to Harold Lasswell, "The discovery that in all large-scale societies the decisions at any given time are typically in the hands of a small number of people" confirms a basic fact: "Government is always government by the few, whether in the name of the few, the one, or the many."

Elitism also asserts that the few who govern are not typical of the masses who are governed. Elites possess more control over resources – power, wealth, education, prestige, status, skills of leadership, information, knowledge of political processes, ability to communicate, and organization – and elites (in America) are drawn disproportionately from among wealthy, educated, prestigiously employed, socially prominent, white, Anglo-Saxon, and Protestant groups in society. In short, elites are drawn from a society's upper classes, which are made up of those persons in a society who own or control a disproportionate share of the societal institutions – industry, commerce, finance, education, the military, communications, civic affairs, and law.

On the other hand, elite theory admits of some social mobility that enables non-elites to become elites; elitism does not necessarily mean that individuals from the lower classes cannot rise to the top. In fact, a certain amount of “circulation of elites" (upward mobility) is essential for the stability of the elite system. Openness in the elite system siphons off potentially revolutionary leadership from the lower classes, and an elite system is strengthened when talented and ambitious individuals from the masses are permitted to enter governing circles. However, it is important that the movement of individuals from non-elite to elite positions be a slow and continuous assimilation rather than a rapid or revolutionary change. Moreover, only those non-elites who have demonstrated their commitment to the elite system itself and to the system’s political and economic values can be admitted to the ruling class.

Elites share in a consensus about fundamental norms underlying the social system. They agree on the basic "rules of the game " as well as on the continuation of the social system itself. The stability of the system, and even its survival, depends upon this consensus. According to David Truman. "Being more influential, they (the elites) are privileged; and being privileged, they have, with few exceptions, a special stake in the continuation of the system in which their privileges rest.” Elite consensus does not mean that elite members never disagree or never compete with each other for preeminence; it is unlikely that there ever was a society in which there was no competition among elites. But elitism implies that competition takes place within a very narrow range of issues and that elites agree on more matters than they disagree.

In America, the bases of elite consensus are the sanctity of private property, limited government, and individual liberty. Richard Hofstadter writes about American elite struggles:

The fierceness of political struggles has often been misleading: for the range of vision embodied by the primary contestants in the major parties has always been bounded by the horizons of property and enterprise. However much at odds on specific issues, the major political traditions have shared a belief in the rights of property, the philosophy of economic individualism, the value of competition, they have accepted the economic virtues of capitalist culture as necessary qualities of man.

Hofstadler's analysis of consensus among leaders in American history echoes a central principle of elitism.

Elitism implies that public policy does not reflect demands of "the people" so much as it reflects the interests and values of elites. Changes and innovations in public policy come about as a result of redefinitions by elites of their own values. However, the general conservatism of elites – that is, their interest in preserving the system – means that changes in public policy will be incremental rather than revolutionary. Public policies are frequently modified but seldom replaced.

Basic changes in the nature of the political system occur when events threaten the system. Elites, acting on the basis of enlightened self-interest, institute reforms to preserve the system and their place in it. Their motives are not necessarily self-serving; the values of elites may be very "public regarding," and the welfare of the masses may be an important element in elite decision making. Elitism does not mean that public policy will ignore or be against the welfare of the masses but only that the responsibility for the mass welfare rests upon the shoulders of elites, not upon the masses.

Finally, elitism assumes that the masses are largely passive, apathetic, and ill-informed. Mass sentiments are manipulated by elites more often than elite values are influenced by the sentiments of the masses. For the most part, communication between elites and masses flows downward. Policy questions of government are seldom decided by the masses through elections or through the presentation of policy alternatives by political parties. For the most part, these "democratic" institutions – elections and parties – are important only for their symbolic value They help tie the masses to the political system by giving them a role to play on election day and a political party with which they can identify. Elitism contends that the masses have at best only an indirect influence over the decision-making behavior of elites.

Naturally, elitism is frequently misunderstood in America, because the prevailing myths and symbols of the American system are drawn from democratic theory rather than elite theory. Therefore, it is important here to emphasize what elitism is not, as well as to briefly restate what it is.

Elitism does not mean that those who have power are continually locked in conflict with the masses or that power-holders always achieve their goals at the expense of the public interest. Elitism is not a conspiracy to oppress the masses. Elitism does not imply that power-holders constitute a single impenetrable monolithic body or that power-holders in society always agree on public issues. Elitism does not pretend that power in society does not shift over time or that new elites cannot emerge to compete with old elites. Elites may be more or less monolithic and cohesive or more or less pluralistic and competitive. Power need not rest exclusively on the control of economic resources but may rest instead upon other leadership resources – organization, communication, or information. Elitism does not imply that the masses never have any impact on the attitudes of elites but only that elites influence masses more than masses influence elites.

Elitism can br summarized as follows:

1. Society is divided into the few who have power and the many who do not. Only a small number of persons allocate values for society; the masses do not decide public policy.

2. The few who govern are not typical of the masses who are governed. Elites are drawn disproportionately from the upper socioeconomic strata of society.

3. The movement of non-elites to elite positions must be slow and continuous to maintain stability and avoid revolution. Only non-elites who have accepted the basic elite consensus can be admitted to governing circles.

4. Elites share a consensus on the basic values of the social system and the preservation of the system.

5. Public policy does not reflect demands of the masses but rather the prevailing values of the elite. Changes in public policy will be incremental rather than revolutionary.

6. Active elites are subject to relatively little direct influence from apathetic masses. Elites influence masses more than masses influence elites.