Elites, groups, government and the shaping of social change - Lecture 4 Flashcards
Why is there a debate between pluralism and elitism?
Because people have different assumptions
What is pluralism?
It is a move away from focus on institutions to actual behaviour of groups.
The unit of analysis is a plural set of groups with contestation and negotiation with each other and the state
There are horizontal distinctions
Groups in society responding to particular issues
There are diverse interests.
Focus on power specifically potential power and actual power. Potential power is the variety of sources, differences in access. Actual power is what actors manage to make from potential power while competing with others
To study who has power means looking at the processes between groups and states and who has used resources of power best
What is elitism?
Also moves away from focus on institutions to focus on the behaviour of elites
Analyses how elites shape the outcome of politics
Vertical distinction between rulers and ruled
Idea that dominant ideology can bring progress and deserves consent to improve the position.
Power is located in actors, in the rules and to understand it need to understand the circulation and cohesion of elites in societies
What is the first risk of elitism and pluralism?
Pluralist politics yield more light
Elites were increasingly accepted around 1900 to resolve complex problems (important place for experts in companies and government, development of management) Democratic elitists promoted this and were concerned about too much popular influence and too little progression which would kill potential for progress through modernisation and rationalisation so they were careful about flawed depictions of sovereignty
Pluralists reject the idea of common interests and ideas as prime movers. Pluralists feed the worst fears of democratic elitists. Interests are seen to result from group actions. Risk perception that pluralist politics might spoil the progress of the party
What is the second risk of elitism and pluralism?
Elite plans yield limited light
Societal modernisation meant there were more novel elites
On the one hand, there is light but only to see the path and plans proposed by the leader therefore obscuring or cutting off others.
On the other hand, other lights might be ignored because the experts have the privileged position
Idea that plans claim to enlighten thinking but they only do so in a limited way
After 1914-45 there was reluctance against dominant ideology and fear of authoritarian tendencies and elites determining outcomes fuelled this risk
What is behind the risks?
James Scott’s High Modernism
What is Scott’s High Modernism?
The aspiration to employ the benefits of science and technology to acquire progress in all realms of human life.
A faith shared by a wide set of ideologies adhered to typically by progressives who came to power with the promise to change society
The aspiration driving first modernity (of Beck) in a way.
All those believing we could have better society shared the sets of ideologies. Provided hope after 4 disastrous decades.
Aspiration since C17 driving first modernity. It was fully expressed after the state developed mature machinery around 1900
What is Scott’s Radical Authority of High Modernism?
This is the faith in progress through controlling the nature of society.
Idea that if we need progress to control society then those who have the knowledge are fit to rule justifying the position of elites and well-educated people. Others need to be educated and their informal, local, tacit knowledge was increasingly rejected
It therefore devalued politics because it allowed for rational plans and there was more favour on actual knowledge. Goes against pluralism
How does Scott describe elites?
As the ‘main carriers and exponents were the avant-garde among engineers, planners, technocrats, high-level administrators, architects, scientists, and visionaries’
‘typically progressives who have come to power with a comprehensive critique of existing society and have wanted to use that power to bring about enormous changes… [deploying] the armory of holistic social engineering’
According to Scott, what did the elites promise?
Promise of experts to deal with urgent complex problem and replace nepotism, arbitrariness, etc by rational, fair governance.
They did create a brave new world - ‘it would have been difficult not to be a modernist at the end of the 19th century in the West’
All enthusiasm was towards modernity
In what ways does Scott draw awareness to the first risk in this Zeitgeist of enthusiasm for modernity?
Said that ‘high modernism thus tends to devalue or banish politics’ and ‘political interests can only frustrate the social solutions devised by specialists with scientific tools adequate to their analysis’
Scott was highly aware of the risk and wanted to warn against them in understanding where this comes from. It isn’t just tension there is good too.
In what way does Scott draw awareness to the second risk?
Radical authority of high modernism in the context of strong state leads to large projects.
Elite plans yield limited light and they may overrun local realities.
Large amounts of money needed, people must be dislocated/change lifestyles, coordination of many state agencies leads to a strong government over society and market. Only the leaders’ path is lightened
Thinking is oriented on the future: the certainty of better future justifies many short term sacrifices: Imposing means-end reasoning, cost benefit etc. Other things obscured
Knowledge, technology, to control nature and society means that local knowledge and therefore other light is suppressed and ignored
What fuelled the fear that this can materialise and lead to disasters?
There were two things which could happen.
Discovery of society and nature as objects which the state could describe and manage (which was initially limited by state capacity)
Around 1900 ‘tragic episode in state development’ yielding 3 conditions
- Administrative ordering of society and nature means that there is ‘Scientific reasoning, and knowledge to replace habits, practices and structures’ and traditional knowledge - condition of authoritarianism?
- State developed strong administrative capacity, employing knowledge and technique, tension for civil society
- Weakened civil society (<consent and administrative ordering)
What is meant by the idea of the Scylla and the Charybdis?
The Charybdis represents pluralism in that too many ideas and interests limits progress
Scylla is authoritarianism which might occur with the expert knowledge
Have to navigate between them and arrive somewhere safely
Historical Example 1 USSR: What were Lenin’s views on societal modernisation?
1907 Theory of the Agrarian Question
Lenin adhered to high modernism and was impressed by taylorism, fordism and modernity
He found electrification enlightening both physically and symbolically as a developmental model
He favoured industrialisation of agriculture by drawing upon knowledge, experience from Germany, Austria. Promoted abolishing of family farms and was away that this requires a state against ‘idiocy of rural life’
What is Lenin’s view on the party and the people?
1903: typical elitist metaphors yielded - school classes with agitators having the required scientific knowledge, teaching the masses and implementing the right way of thinking, army in which the party cadres is the vanguard exploring the way and giving direction to discipline the masses
1917 had a more egalitarian tone but maintained that industrialisation required discipline and tough measures were needed
What was Rosa Luxemburg’s view to contradict Lenin’s elitist view?
She was a member of the revolutionary vanguard but against Lenin
She argued that the masses are autonomous and creative, not just something which can be led. More leverage needs to be given to the potential of the masses. Revolution is a living organism
What was Aleksandra Kollontay’s view against Lenin’s elitism?
She shared Luxemburg’s views
Led the unions’ revolt who were acting up against government and strongly argued for the positioning of women arguing that there was a separate elite who were more in charge than justified
How did Collectivisation of agriculture change under Stalin in 1920?
It started under Lenin but took off under Stalin
Stalin was a very scientifically informed person but was modernist too. Views were more modern than socialist.
He had a focal vision of the new human as a combination of the bolshevist specialist, engineers and functionaries and this is something which he shared with the US. Idea of breeding these kinds of people
This led to collectivisation of agriculture
How did the collectivisation of agriculture see the demise of family farming?
The existing order was destroyed
Traditional family farms became rationally designed state farms call sovchozes or collective farms called kolchozes
Involved central planning by specialists and it was enforced where necessary, If people didn’t collaborate they would be forced
How did this collectivisation of agriculture lead to discontent and protest?
Increasing myth of the socialist farmer especially after Stalin died, instead it was novel serfdom and slavery. Bad prizes, distribution of land, agricultural techniques and monoculture
The system did not work. Prices were too inflated and unaffordable, food was scarce, direct confrontation and interference with daily life. Led to low productivity, efficiency, soil depletion and food scarcity.
Eventual result in malfunctioning food economy and popular discontent.
Discontent and protest in turn led to a well functioning communism which further prevented popular discontent
Protests as the counterproductive effect of the modernisation process.
How does the collectivisation of agriculture highlight the risks of pluralism and elitism?
The novel elite imposed its will with rural protest oppressed and counter voices like Luxemburg and Kollontay were ingored meaning the first risk didn’t materialise. Global knowledge was lost and became a Pyrrhus victory by the use of local knowledge ecologically and economically
3 conditions of state development - administrative ordering, state capacity, weak civil society - meant that the second risk of autocracy did materialise
What about in less extreme situations? Does the same happen?
Contemporary European, American societies show wide sense of discontent with elite (plans)
Without groups there is no pressure for social change or risk of authoritarian turn.
Without circulation of elite there is no proper direction and elaboration of change
With groups and elites there is no change
Therefore groups and the state can produce social change and strengthen democracy too
How can we see Risk 2 in 1813 with King William I?
In 1813 there was a sort of passive culture and King William returned
There was authoritarian rule, promoted societal modernisation with infrastructure, gas lighting etc. This got politicised and there were protests against things like spending on industrialisation.
There are the three conditions for risk 2 but where did the resistance come from? The conditions for the second risk are only partly met
