We have all become familiar with politicians, journalists, and social commentators referring to the attitudes, influence, and power of ‘elites’, whether this be the ‘WOKE elite’, the ‘liberal elite’, or the ‘metropolitan elite’. Yet, the idea of the elite is notoriously slippery and is rarely given any precise meaning. It is, it would seem, a boo-word that can be used indiscriminately to discredit political opponents for their lack of democratic responsibility. Is there a meaningful sociological concept of the elite that can be used in empirical studies? If so, what is an elite, and who are its members?
Pareto, the founder of elite analysis in social science, saw the general term ‘elite’ as referring to the category of those at the top of any statistical distribution: of wealth, intelligence, ability, political skill, criminal expertise, poetic or artistic skills, and so on. They are simply ‘the best’. His real purpose, however, was to identify what he called the ‘governing elite’, the holders of key positions of power in the most salient social organisations and bodies. This concept inspired a long tradition of studies into ‘power elites’. Recently, however, there has been a growth in elite studies that ignore Pareto’s views on governance and power, and return to the simple statistical and descriptive category of an elite. As a result, the focus on power is lost, and almost any social group can be defined as, or seen as having, an elite. Unlike popular critical usage, these studies do identify clearly defined groups, but these are so diverse that it is difficult to see them as having anything significant in common.
A major example of this new strand in elite studies is the book Born to Rule by Aaron Reeves and Sam Friedman, which seeks to develop a viable way of understanding current debates about the British elite. Their study starts well. Although the concept is not initially defined, it is implicitly seen as similar to Pareto’s governing elite. This is evidenced by their relating their concerns to those who have studied or searched for a ‘ruling class’ or ‘power elite’ (on page 8 and following). Their concern is with ‘who rules Britain?’. To this end, when they discuss confusion over the definition of the elite, they argue that ‘its meaning must be clear and coherent’ if it is to ‘delineate precisely who (both individually or as a group) exercises a disproportionate degree of control over the societies in which we live’ (page 22). An elite can be defined, it must be assumed as no conceptual definition is given, as the group that holds and exercises the power that gives them control over the shape and development of British society.
Reeves and Friedman then turn to an operation al definition of this power, controlling, or governing elite, and this is where their study begins to fall apart. Their elite consists of those who are included in the biographical dictionary Who’s Who. What they fail to realise is that Who’s Who does not aim to identify a governing elite and that its selection criteria lead its editors to identify a very different category of persons: Who’s Who lists those in the upper levels of status or social standing. The authors of Born to Rule? mistakenly claim that this approach is similar to that taken by C. Wright Mills and by Philip Stanworth and Tony Giddens, and that it corresponds to Mosca’s idea of the ‘ruling minority’ of those who have the ‘ability to exercise authority over others’ on the basis of their occupancy of ‘top positions in organisational hierarchies’ (page 23). In fact, they are led in a very different direction.
This is made clear by considering what the publishers of Who’s Who state about their method on their commercial website (www.ukwhoswho.com) . The biographical; dictionary is described as listing those who are ‘noteworthy and influential’. The website further specifies that the volume ‘recognises distinction and influence’. This was specified in the first edition of 1897, which says that it aims to include all those who are ‘prominent’ by virtue of such factors as inheritance, office, or an ‘ability which singles them out’. The current editorial statement says that it recognises ‘distinction ... attained in professional lives’ and the ‘influence they exert’. While the main focus is on British citizens, others are included if they are of ‘importance’ in British life. To this end, the editors include all of those in certain positions: MPs, senior judges, high-ranking civil servants, members of the House of Lords, ambassadors, and other unspecified positions ‘when the appointment itself is of general public interest’. Thus, the volumes include Fellows of the Royal Society and the British Academy, senior military officers, senior clerics in the Church of England, university Chancellors and Vice Chancellors, Chief Executives in FTSE companies, recipients of knighthoods and some other royal honours. An anonymous Selection Board reviews non-hierarchical professions to identify those who are prominent in their field ‘on the basis of their continuing achievements’ and who have attained ‘exceptional pre-eminence’ in the arts, acting, sport, science, and business. In line with their 1897 purpose, they also include all holders of UK hereditary titles.
The key criteria, often restated, are distinction, prominence, pre-eminence, and being singled out. To this is added the statement that some may also be ‘influential’. It is clear that these selection criteria relate only tangentially to the idea of a governing elite. It certainly includes salient positions of command, but those are a small proportion of the total list. Nor does it focus on identifying an advantaged economic class: it includes numerous wealthy persons, but leaves many out. This listing of those who are ‘noteworthy and influential’ is therefore a very clear attempt to document the top status levels in British society. The unifying assumption is that status can be measured by occupation and occupational achievement in politics, business, science, the arts, the professions, and by hereditary titles as (imperfect) indicators of traditional lineage and wealth. The economic class background and their membership of a governing elite are empirical matters to be investigated, not assumed.
Perhaps recognising something of this definitional difference from the idea of a governing elite, Reeves and Friedman weaken their view of elite power by saying that those in the Who’s Who list ‘can be said to hold a certain significance beyond their specialised areas’ and that ‘their actions are at least somewhat significant to the character and development of the nation’ (page 23, my emphasis). This is a remarkably weak―but probably quite accurate―recognition of the ‘influence’ of those in the Who’s Who list. Indeed, they begin to notice a concern for status, rather then governing power, when they note that ‘inclusion in Who’s Who ‘acts as a marker of consecration’ that ‘publicly anoints’ those listed (pages 24, 25): inclusion in Who’s Who is a recognition, and public reporting of, social honour.
Reeves and Friedman do recognise that this may mean that the ‘real elite’ (page 31) is a much smaller subset of the Who’s Who list. In particular, they argue that the wealthiest members may comprise an inner elite within the upper status levels. Using probate records and survey data, they identified those from the list that fell within the top 1% of wealth holders and so comprise a ‘wealth elite’ that ‘really rules Britain today’ (page 34). In doing this, of course, they ignore those who are very wealthy but not listed in Who’s Who. They have, nevertheless, come close to identifying those who comprise the core of a dominant or upper social class, defined by the combination of an advantaged class situation and a solidifying status ranking. This important question, however, is not addressed, and the authors persist with the misleading label of the ‘wealth elite’. This group is, arguably, the most important in relation to the issues with whi9ch Reeves and Friedman are concerned, but it is not theorised or adequately placed in relation to their wider ‘elite’ or to issues in the study of class and status.
Despite its lack of theoretical grounding, their discussion does give a great deal of fascinating information about the attitudes and lifestyle of those who stand highest in the status hierarchy. Their analysis of the views of the ‘wealth elite’, in particular, tell us a great deal about those who are, most clearly, close to the governing elite. Indeed, they argue that the wealth elite ‘has a distinctive profile when it comes to policy preferences and social attitudes’ (page 158) and sop they concentrate on discussing the attitudes, values, and cohesion of this narrower group of power holders drawn from a wealthy class. This is the real value of the book, and we must read its empirical findings while simultaneously translating them into a more rigorous theoretical framework of class, status, and governance.
Reeves and Friedman have, therefore, glossed the fundamental distinction between a ‘governing elite’ and a ‘status elite’. While they are, of course, at liberty to describe the top status level as an elite, they should not equate this with those who hold the governing powers of command by using the unqualified term ‘elite’. This simply confuses their readers and leads to misunderstandings. In view of my previously stated view―quoted by Reeves and Friedman in the very first sentence of their first chapter―that elite is ‘one of the most misused words in the sociological lexicon’, it might be preferable if this word were discarded from sociological analysis and left to the political rhetoric of journalists and politicians. Sociologists and political scientists should use only the well-established concept of the governing or ruling elite used by Pareto, Mosca, and Millks if they wish to analyse and explain the structure and exercise of power.
