This section was created for laying out links to articles on the topics: state, government and elite theory - which can be combined with the concept political eliteogy. and . The creator of science develops several themes in elitology, which may subsequently form a new Grigoriev's theory of elites.

Elite of society

Elite of society- this is a group of persons occupying the highest positions in the social hierarchy and pursuing the following goals:

• - in relation to the non-elite - the preservation of its dominant position;
• - within the elite - increasing one's status relative to other members of the elite.

At present, the questions of the formation of the future state, which should replace modern models, occupy the NEOCONOMIC Center much more than the analysis of the state of the economy. The point here is that actually - well, what's wrong with the fact that Grigoriev opened the capitalist economy after Marx and concluded: capitalism in its modern form is not a tenant. In a crisis of changing formations, no one can be saved. It will be bad for all peoples - the question is about the elites of countries that can be demolished by revolutions if they do not begin to rebuild today. And since political elite is directly connected with the state, which provides it with a privileged position, then the question is transferred to the principles of reform. Here the main question arises - how should the traditional state be transformed in order to overcome the present one, which Oleg Grigoriev considers the structural crisis of capitalism. The features of the new state - the principles of its structure and ways of influencing the modern elite of society (peaceful evolutionary or revolutionary?) - that's what became important for the future development of mankind. After all, there must be some special conditions for the elite to change its role and ways of obtaining powers. I believe that the most likely transition to socialism is to change states - like cantons in Switzerland or delegation of authority from below, as in Israeli kibbutzim.

This forces us to analyze the experience of building socialism in the USSR, which today is more correctly considered state capitalism. Grigoriev economist, in whose theory the state plays the leading role, considers Soviet socialism the model of the economy that in post-revolutionary Russia the new state took to carry out its tasks, retaining only communist terminology.

The experience should not be considered a failure - the USSR collapsed rather due to limited human resources (Khrushchev pushed China with its billion inhabitants). Perhaps in the future, people will consider the "surrender" of socialism in a "separately taken" - only as an act that prevented a nuclear conflict (but even that is not a fact, if you look at today's behavior of the United States). The "victory" of capitalism took place due to the expansion of the American zone into the global one and the shrinkage of the Soviet zone into an isolated one - due to the small population, which causes the market to be limited.

Actually, classical capitalism is long gone. BUT modern capitalism, under the influence of a real structural crisis, is becoming obsolete as a mechanism for the functioning of the economy, therefore, the question arises so ACUTELY: what model is left for the self-preservation of states? While we are talking about socialism, and under communism, as you know, the state is dying out (it must be understood - in the form that is familiar to us).

Online world crisis In chapter:

Elite concept , which develops the theme of political power, is an integral part of modern political science. The founders of the theory of elites are representatives of the Italian school, the Italians V. Pareto (1848-1923). G. Mosca (1858-1941) and the German R. Michels (1876-1936), who moved from Germany to Italy. Their views are attributed to the "Machiavellian" school, since it is believed that for the first time the elite as the ruling group in society was considered in the works of their compatriot Machiavelli.

G. Mosca - Italian researcher, general, one of the founders of political science. The main works of Gaetano Mosca are "Theory of Government and Parliamentary Government", "Fundamentals of Political Science", "History of Political Doctrines".

Elite theories are theories about separating people in any society elite and masses . Mosca developed the notion that “in all societies (from the underdeveloped or with difficulty to the foundations of civilization to the most developed and powerful) there is two classes of people - the ruling class and the ruled class. The first, always less numerous, performs all political functions, monopolizes power and enjoys the benefits that power gives, while the second, more numerous class is ruled and controlled by the first ... ”Moska G. Ruling class. // Anthology of world political thought. In 5 vols. T. 2. ? M., 1997. ? P. 118. One of the essential tendencies and dangers in the development of elites is its transformation into a hereditary, closed group, which leads to its degeneration and replacement by a counter-elite. "The ruling classes inevitably decline if they cease to improve the abilities with which they came to power, when they can no longer perform their usual social functions, and their talents and service lose their significance in society." Mosca spoke for openness and continuity in the functioning of elites as a guarantee of the stability of society and the political system.

Developing his theory, Mosca developed " law of social dichotomy ”, gave the concept of a political class, defined two types of organization of political management, the qualities of a political class and the conditions for access to it, ways to consolidate the power of a political class and update it, singled out two trends in the development of a political class, etc.

Regardless of Mosca, the concept of elites was developed Wilfredo Pareto (1848-1923) - Italian sociologist and classic of elitology. The most famous work is "Treatise on General Sociology".

In the field of political science, Pareto became famous for his theories of ideology and theories of political elites . In "The Rise and Fall of the Elites". "Treatise on General Sociology" he formulated the main provisions of his theory. Pareto highlights two strata of the population : the lower stratum, the non-elite and the higher stratum, the elite, divided into two parts - the ruling elite and the non-governing elite. The author gives the classic definition political elite , the essence of which is that it is “the class of those who have the highest indices in their field of activity ... who directly or indirectly play a prominent role in the management of society and constitute ruling elite , the rest form non-governing elite » .

circulation , i.e elite cycle, Pareto sees it as main driving force of political processes and social change: “The history of mankind is the history of a constant change of elites; some rise, others fall." In this process of revolutionary change of elites, many members of the old (decayed) elite are killed, imprisoned, deported, or reduced to the lowest social level. However, some of them save themselves by betraying their class, and they often occupy leading positions in the revolutionary movement. Pareto's conclusion is that the main result of revolutionary changes is the emergence of a new elite with some admixture of the old.

Robert Michels (1876-1936) - German political scientist and sociologist. Explored political processes, being influenced by the works of M. Weber and Italian elite theorists G. Mosca and V. Pareto. In the field of socio-political processes, Michels was interested in the problems of socialism, fascism, and nationalism. However, his significant contribution to political science is connected with the study of political parties . His work "The Sociology of a Political Party in a Democracy" appeared in Germany in 1911. Separate chapters with comments were published in Russian only in 1990-1991.

In his opinion, political parties - a necessary means for social movements to defend their main interests. However, political parties, like any large organization, are forced to entrust monopoly power to their leaders. Michels came to the conclusion that oligarchization - inevitable form of life of large social structures. The rise of the party oligarchy over political parties and social movements is the result of a number of factors: the incompetence of the masses, the lack of knowledge and skills in political work, the need for effective leadership in the conditions of inter-party struggle. The party oligarchy, skillfully using various resources, begins to exist not for social movements, but at the expense of these parties and movements. this implies "iron law of oligarchization" Michels: "In all parties, regardless of their type, democracy leads to oligarchy", according to which, democracy, if it were possible, would inevitably degenerate into an oligarchy. This conclusion contradicts the conclusion of Plato, in whose classification, on the contrary, the oligarchy turns into democracy. According to Michels, democracy as a state system is impossible in principle. Civilized humanity, according to Michels, cannot exist without a ruling political class. “The majority of mankind, doomed by the cruel fatalism of history to eternal “minority”, will be forced to recognize the domination of an insignificant minority that has emerged from its own environment and come to terms with the role of a pedestal for the greatness of the oligarchy” Michels R. Sociology of political parties in a democracy. // Anthology of world political thought. T. 2.? pp. 189-190..

The law of oligarchization presupposes the replacement of one ruling stratum by another as a pre-established form of human cohabitation in large unions. “The socialists can win, but not socialism, which perishes at the moment of the victory of its adherents ... The masses are satisfied that, not sparing their strength, they change their masters” Ibid. ? S. 190..

The class struggle takes place in society as a whole and in individual parties, even the workers, who are a mixture of classes. Each party has its own leadership layer, which is also inevitably subject to the process of oligarchization. Michels cites the proverb of the French workers: "If you have chosen, then you are lost." The larger and more heterogeneous the party becomes, the stronger the process of oligarchization in it.

The same applies to trade unions. “How insignificant are the differences between the tendencies in the development of state oligarchies (government, court, etc.) and proletarian oligarchies” Ibid. ? P. 193. The “representative”, who feels his complete independence, turns from a servant of the people into a master over them - both a state “servant” and a party one.

Michels' general conclusion: "Democracy coexists very well with a certain degree of tyranny for other psychological and historical reasons: the masses endure domination more easily when each of its individuals has the opportunity to approach it or even join it" Ibid? P. 196 .. Michels' merit is that he extended the concept of the elite to all major social groups and, having generalized, proclaimed one of the few laws in sociology and political science.

At the same time, Michels noted that without parties in the modern era it is impossible to achieve success in the political struggle, the struggle of various social strata for the distribution and redistribution of public resources. Despite the fact that the struggle for democracy takes on oligarchic forms, inter-party competition, according to Michels, contributes to the selection and promotion of the most worthy to power in the state.

The theories of the Machiavellian school were common in Italy, Germany, France between the First and Second World Wars. But wide popularity came to them on the American continent. In the 30s. a seminar on the study of Pareto was held at Harvard University (his theory of social action was later revised by structural functionalism). G. Moska's ideas about an empirical approach to the knowledge of political phenomena, that the object of study is a living reality, also contributed to the formation of the Chicago School of Political Science. The World Congress of Political Scientists (Munich, 1970) noted the special role of the Italian school, which served as the starting point for numerous studies of political elites.

The beginning of the 21st century was marked by a large-scale and multifaceted crisis in the social and humanitarian sphere. One of its components is the problem of the development of science and the possibilities of cognition of man and society. In our country, after 1991, the theoretical and methodological vacuum that formed after the collapse of the monopoly of Marxism and formation theory as explanatory models for history and modern development our society.

Over the past 20–25 years, different theories and approaches have been applied. Someone continues to use formation theory. Other researchers are developing a civilizational approach. The theory of modernization and a number of other approaches have been actively spread. But, despite all this, in our opinion, no theory has yet been found or proposed that could fully explain our history and modernity, moreover, using such concepts and disciplines that would be adequate specifically to Russian (as well as Soviet ) society, and were not an imitation of Western concepts and disciplines that have a limited field of application.

Naturally, within the framework of one article it is impossible to fully present such a theory, or rather a set of theories in the social and humanitarian sphere. We will touch on only one of the areas. We will talk about such an interdisciplinary science as elitology. Let us give its brief definition, which was given by the founder of Russian elitology, Professor G.K. Ashin: "This is the science of elites and the elite, of the highest stratum in the system of socio-political stratification ...".

Elitology combines such sciences as sociology, political science, philosophy, cultural studies, psychology and history. Usually, the study of elites takes place within the framework of sociology and, especially, political science, less often in other sciences. More than one hundred articles and monographs have been written in this vein. Professor G.K. Ashin considers elitology mainly from the positions of sociology and philosophy. At the same time, historical science and its place in the structure of elitology remain out of sight of many researchers.

In this regard, the work of P.L. Karabuschenko "Introduction to the elitology of history", in which the author reveals the points of contact between history and elitology, and also suggests the structure of the elitology of history. Speaking about the methodological combination of history and elitology, the author rightly notes that "both of these scientific disciplines will benefit in terms of expanding the field of application of their scientific potential and strengthening the means of studying the role of an outstanding personality in history" .

P.L. Karabushchenko identifies the following structure of the elitology of history: “The elitology of history is one of the most important sections of modern elitological science and is included in the structures of its analytical section. It is an integral part of historical science, which, in addition to the elitology of history, also includes the history of elitology (which, in turn, is divided into: a) the history of elitological ideas and theories and b) the history of elites - the history of the development of specific elite groups). These two "stories" are components of historical elitology and represent a single complex of historical and elitist knowledge.

The researcher also highlights the object, subject and methods of the elitology of history: “we could define elite historical thinking as its object; as a subject - the influence of the elite on historical processes and the very nature and content of historical science. Among the most popular methods are such as dialectical, personalistic (biographical), hermeneutic method, method of system analysis, statistical method.

It seems to us that P.L. Karabushchenko managed to determine the object, subject, methods and structure of the elitology of history. However, in the future, the author reduces the elitology of history to "historical neo-personalism". In addition, the article does not provide a clear definition of the elitology of history, its components are scattered throughout the text.

In our opinion, the concept of "elitology of history" can be applied, but we propose to use the concept of "historical elitology". Here is the structure of this section of historical science:

1) History of elitological teachings;

2) Historical elitology (studies the most general patterns of the emergence, development and collapse of elites in various societies);

3) The history of specific elites (for example, the history of Russian elites and elites in other countries in various historical periods; the history of supranational structures, for example, the history of various transnational corporations, banking structures that have had and continue to influence the course of history).

4) Comparative historical elitology (where criteria applicable for comparing elites in different societies should be developed).

It cannot be said that no research is being conducted in Russia within the framework of historical elitology. A significant contribution to its development is made by leading Russian historians S.V. Kulikov and F.A. Seleznev. S.V. Kulikov studied in detail the Russian bureaucratic elite during the First World War, offering his theory. F. Seleznev actively develops the problems of elites and counter-elites in Russia during the First World War, also considering the Old Believers from these positions. It should also be noted the doctoral dissertation of S.A. Kislitsyn, dedicated to the study of the Bolshevik political elite of 1920–1930. The results achieved show the prospects and relevance of the ongoing research, since a look at the elites from the standpoint of history allows us to understand how they were formed, developed and what they came to in the present. For example, it is historical elitology that could explain why the Russian Empire collapsed first, and then the USSR. This is important not only for studying the past, but also for understanding the present and future development.

The structure of historical elitology proposed by us can be applied not only in scientific research, but also in the educational process. Historical elitology could become a compulsory discipline for students of all social and humanitarian specialties. It must be said that the creation of one historical elitology is not enough. Researchers are faced with the task of creating a new social science which would overcome narrow specialization within the framework of social humanities. In this regard, elitology in general and historical elitology in particular are elements of social and historical systemology. These sciences are yet to be created. As the historian and social scientist A.I. Fursov, “one of the tasks of the current stage in the development of rational knowledge about society is the development of a field of knowledge dedicated to closed structures as a special historical subject, the synthesis of an epistemological field ... the creation of a full-fledged multidimensional science without “white spots” and signs of cognitive disability” .

A good basis for such a field of knowledge will be a systematic approach, which is general scientific. Its application would make it possible to smooth out the contradictions between the so-called "techies" and "humanists", create a basis for understanding each other, on the one hand, and emphasize the remaining specifics of social, humanitarian and natural science research, on the other hand.

Thus, historical elitology is a new branch of historical science that studies the history of elitological teachings, the most general patterns of the emergence, development and collapse of elites in various societies, as well as the history of specific elites (national and supranational). Its definition reflects a structure into which a comparative historical aspect can be added. On the examples shown, we can see that historical elitology is a relevant and promising direction in science. It is historical science with the help of historical elitology that is able to give powerful impulse not only to their own development, but also to enrich elitology as a whole.

Man is the measure of all things

Protagoras

The measure of everything that exists is

man, but not everyone, but only a sage

Democritus

God is the measure of everything that exists.

Plato

Introduction

E lithology is the science of the elite, or rather, who is the elite and who considers himself an elite, but in fact is not an elite. These two hypostases reflect the very essence and at the same time the contradiction of elitology as a science about the elite, as the ideology of the elite and as the consciousness of the elite itself. Thus, we have before us an expanded understanding of the elite as a socio-cultural, and not just a socio-political phenomenon, where the first place is the study of the principle of elite, the main criterion in determining the quality and nature of the elite itself.

E Lithology is a relatively young scientific discipline, which, however, has deep historical roots. As a science, elitology arose in the late 80s - mid-90s. of the twentieth century in Russia and is associated with the scientific activities of the patriarch of Russian elitist thought Gennady Konstantinovich Ashin (10/21/1930, Nizhny Novgorod). It was he who appeared in the Soviet period national history the first popularizer of Western theories of elites, and at present - the main ideologist of elitology as a complex science. Today we have the right to say that there is not only a "Russian school" of the theory of elites, but also that it was Russia of the 90s of the twentieth century that became the birthplace of elitology itself. True, we must also recognize with all responsibility that in order for elitology to finally become an independent science, much more effort must be made. But even today it is clear that elitology is the most promising science of the late twentieth century. The pace of its development indicates that the process of its formation as an independent scientific discipline is significantly ahead of similar processes in the history of the development of other popular social sciences of the outgoing century (primarily sociology and political science).

And It was in the 90s of the twentieth century that elitology openly declared itself as a science. Her claims to an independent scientific existence are directly related to her desire to get out of the ideological dependence of political ideology, in the captivity of which were almost all the previous theories of elites. Meanwhile, elitology encounters rather stiff resistance from the ideologists and methodologists of sociology and political science, who question the expediency of introducing even the very term "elitology" into scientific use. These conservative anti-elitological sentiments are easily explained. These "objections" are not at all about the principles of studying the elite and elite, but contain a covert attempt to maintain a monopoly on the indicated scientific problems. For sociology and political science, it would be beneficial if there were no elitology, but rather disparate theories of elites would be preserved. It is more convenient for them to "pull" the elitistological theme into their "scientific quarters" and interpret it according to their principles, and most importantly, their capabilities. Such a position is not only selfish (from the point of view of ethics), but also erroneous (from the point of view of methodology). Unified elitology, of course, takes away from these and many other "old" sciences a piece of their bread, but takes away not all, but only that part of it, which by birthright is its property. At the same time, the fact that elitology for the most part does not get the best pieces of these sciences is striking. It will have to sit on breadcrumbs and water for a long time before a single branch scientific discipline should turn out from this raw material. But even now, elitology should declare its claims to science and should make every effort to formalize it theoretically and methodologically. For this, it is necessary to develop both general methodological and individual branch aspects of elitology. The widest range of research is needed. The diversity of such studies should lead methodologists to clarify the foundations of the scientific status of this area.

H This work is devoted to the study of one of these branches of elitology. It explores all that amazing that is in the man himself. An analysis of what makes a person both admire and be horrified by his nature, by himself. The idea of ​​human chosenness and the uniqueness of a single individual is the central theme of all world philosophy, literature and religion. The idea of ​​a person is the idea of ​​his continuous self-improvement. It is precisely these problems that are directly involved in such a branch of anthropology and elitology as anthropological elitology . Even Plato made one very important observation, which can become the program slogan of all anthropological elitology: “... we we consider the most valuable thing for people is not salvation for the sake of existence, as the majority believes [those. mass ], but achieving perfection and maintaining it throughout one's life "(Plato. "Laws", 707 d). It is in the process of improvement that the true essence of a person is revealed, and it is precisely this problem that anthropological elitology deals with.

BUT Anthropology and elitology are two independent scientific disciplines, which in this work acquire their ideological unity and commonality in the search and formulation of questions of interest to them. How justified, how legitimate is such a combination - "anthropological elitology"!? We will get the answer to this question in this work itself, unless, of course, we get to the bottom of the problem indicated in the very title of this book.

With the stereotype that exists now in social science easily classifies "elitology" as a political science, completely unjustified, I would even say erroneously, concluding it on the study of the nature of the political elite. Meanwhile, the political elite is just one of the types of elites, of which there are an extraordinary number and where this same political elite sometimes plays not so much a positive as a negative role. Therefore, one of the main goals of this study is to overcome this, undoubtedly, negative stereotype, which, in our deep opinion, interferes with the general course of development of elitology as an independent scientific discipline. In our opinion, it is not the political elitology that is the dominant part of this scientific discipline, but the anthropological one that is at its basic foundation. It is necessary to radically change our attitude towards elitology as an exclusively political science. Elitology is a complex scientific discipline, which should begin precisely with its anthropological part. Anthropological elitology itself, of course, should be preceded by an historical-methodological block that describes and explains both its historical past and the basic principles of the methods for studying it. But the sequence of studying the nature of elitism in general should go from anthropology to sociology and political science. That is advantageous and different elitology from elite theories that she is studying not so much " elite ", how many " elite " generally. So, the subject of elitology is, first of all, "elite", and only then its derivative - "elite". It is anthropological elitology, in our opinion, that reveals the essence of “elitism” to the greatest extent, while political elitology tries in every possible way to hide this essence from us. Therefore, the subject political elitology and is the "elite", the subject anthropological elitology- "elite". Since “elite” is a derivative of “eliteness”, then the priority of anthropological elitology over political one should not cause us any special objections.

BUT anthropological elitology studies the nature of human uniqueness, i.e. chosenness. She is interested in one single question: why some people are considered great, while others are not; why do some people achieve success and recognition in life, while others (perhaps no less gifted) fail? Thus, we are talking about the study of those qualities of the human personality that contribute to the formation of human dignity, and hence anthropological chosenness. It is the problem of "personality" that is the central issue of all anthropological elitology.

H human chosenness is a consequence of the personality's claim to recognition from the reality that is significant for it. The assertion of self-consciousness of the individual in social and temporal space is one of the main sources of alienation of the individual, its self-determination, in its awareness of its originality, originality, uniqueness, chosenness ...

O the superiority of man over the rest of the natural world, we know only through the efforts of man himself. Starting from the first philosophical systems, we only hear about the dignity of all mankind and the unworthiness of individual subjects that discredit this dignity. Even a man's god tells him that he can and should be better than he really is. Apparently, the human conscience has developed throughout its history certain protective measures, with the help of which it saves this biological species from degradation. And the most effective means of this salvation is the social environment, culture and religion.

RELEVANCEWith Today, elitology is firmly taking its place among not only the social and political sciences, but also the humanities. This became possible thanks to the humanization of this science itself, its appeal to the problem of man. The movement of the general development of mankind towards an information post-industrial society with open political and cultural systems makes the social sciences become more and more humanized, subordinate social and political interests to universal values.

AT released in recent times works in the field of elitology overwhelmingly show that elitology receives its worthy development exclusively as a socio-political science. The defended candidate's and doctoral dissertations are of the same nature. It is noteworthy that there are practically no works that would approach the study of elitism from the standpoint of the humanities not as a socio-political or economic phenomenon, but as a universal socio-cultural phenomenon. Thus, in elitology, we put the problem of elite consciousness in the first place, i.e. the question of the subject of the elite. The analysis of this subject of the elite should largely determine the qualities of both the elite itself and the criteria by which the process of elitization proceeds. Unfortunately, political elitology examines the subject of elitology very thoroughly, but at the same time one-sidedly, seeing in it predominantly socio-political, rather than anthropological processes. Our task is to show the full depth and degree of significance for the general elitology of its anthropological section. To draw the attention of elitologists to the existing problems of anthropological elitology, which is engaged in the study of the subject of the elite and the problem of elitization of the individual in particular.

W Anthropological elitology can fill these lagoons. At the end of the twentieth century, anthropological elitology becomes the dominant section of all elitology. Interest in a person whom we refer to as an elite develops into a problem of analysis spiritual world a chosen personality, elite because of its anthropological uniqueness, and not because of the socio-political status it occupies. The criteria for identifying the subject of the elite by anthropological parameters give completely different indicators than those that are currently used in applied research by political scientists and sociologists. Anthropological criteria are more stringent and completely devoid of ideological predilections and political sympathies. Anthropological criteria of elitism testify to the personal dignity of a person as a subject of the elite. At the same time, the indicator of social status is always a secondary, and not a primary, factor in relation to the anthropological indicator.

BUT anthropological elitology is called upon to study the degree of disclosure of human dignity and the level of perfection achieved by it. She also looks into the abyss of human fall, but only looks, providing social psychology and philosophy to study this level of anthropological existence.

BUT Anthropological elitology offers its own special way of recruiting the elite, excluding any chance and socio-political subjectivism. In our opinion, only anthropological criteria can give precise definitions of the content of the concept of the subject of the elite. The definition of these criteria will allow to remove from the elite all random elements (pseudo-elite) who, by the "evil irony" enrolled in this chosen stratum. The elimination of this "garbage" will help the elite itself to avoid discrediting its idea and accusing it of incompetence in its activities.

GOALS AND OBJECTIVES OF THE RESEARCH Today, anthropological elitology is as little studied problem as elitology itself as a whole. In this regard (in terms of study), socio-political elitology was the most fortunate than anthropological. In our opinion, the final formation of modern elitology will become possible only when it decides not only on its history and methodology, but also when all its constituent parts receive an equal degree of theoretical and applied development. The development of anthropological elitology, therefore, is very relevant for the development of this science as a whole, since it eliminates the above disadvantage.

To The main objectives of this study also include the problem of identifying anthropological criteria, with the help of which it is possible with great reason to identify the subject of the elite, regardless of his socio-political status. Political elitology sins precisely with the primitivism of the criteria of the elite it proposes, which allows non-elite elements very often, under favorable conditions, to penetrate into the chosen stratum. At present, it is the political criteria of elitism that predominate in elitology, which makes it very difficult to analyze other types of elites.

The present work faces the following tasks: 1) revealing the methodological foundations of elitology; 2) analysis of the history of the development of anthropological elitology within the framework of anthropological philosophy; 3) the task of showing the place and role of the "superman theory" in the development of the doctrine of anthropological elitology; 4) the task is to give the most adequate description of the nature of the elite consciousness; 5) on the basis of the theory of elitist consciousness, reach the problem of the elitology of the individual ("elitopersonalism"); 6) to show the connection between elite consciousness and the theory of elite culture, and, finally, 7) to give a systematic analysis of the issue of elite and elite education, as an educational process aimed at achieving an elite level of consciousness and mastering the values ​​of elite culture.

T Thus, the structure of anthropological elitology can be defined by us as follows: a) The historical foundations of anthropological elitology; b) Elitology and the "theory of the superman"; c) Elitology of consciousness; d) Elitology of personality (or elitological personalism); e) Elitology of culture; f) Elitology of education.

G The main feature of anthropological elitology is its apolitical nature (to be outside of any ideology is its main principle) and anti-sociality - "elite" for it is a concept, first of all, an intellectual (spiritual), and not a social (property) one. All elitologically thinking minds from Plato and Seneca to F. Nietzsche and N. Berdyaev wrote about this. Anthropological elitology is to a greater extent a personalistic philosophy, seeing in the subject of the elite, first of all, the presence of an elite consciousness, and only then analyzes the social position he occupies.

T Thus, the subject of this section of elitology is anthropological stratification based on mental, spiritual and intellectual differentiation. The hierarchical indicators of the anthropological factor should serve as reasons for social and political hierarchies. Unfortunately, in practice, this just stratification solution was always an unattainable utopian dream of the "Confucius" and "Platon", who repeatedly proposed the social reorganization of society according to this principle. In our time, anthropological elitology places great hope on the coming post-industrial society, in which information and educational technologies will occupy a dominant position, and, consequently, the role of the human factor in influencing social development will certainly increase.

THE DEGREE OF STUDY OF THE TOPICAT surveys of anthropological elitology began to be dealt with by ancient philosophy. In this regard, we have reliable historical foundations, with the help of which it is possible to construct a model of the modern structure of the anthropological type of elitology. Basically, the problem of spiritual chosenness is represented by such a favorite theme of all philosophy as “wisdom” and “sage”, “genius” and “genius”, “perfection” and “perfect”, “superconsciousness” and “superman”. Chosenness in the sphere of spirit and consciousness has always been the Mecca of all refined minds, who aspired to stand out from the masses surrounding them. Therefore, we can meet anthropological elitology literally in any philosophical system, in any book on philosophy, theology or ethics. Almost all the outstanding minds of mankind believe that human nature is imperfect, he is an incomplete idea of ​​God. Moreover, God Himself provided a person with the opportunity to complete this work at will through active creativity. Man in the face of the need for perfection is, perhaps, the main theme of anthropological elitology.

H The phrase “anthropological elitology”, which we now actively use, should force us to involve in the analysis all the literature that is directly related to the issues of anthropology and elitology. However, the analysis of these sources shows a very scarce and limited information space, in which there are practically no common points of scientific contact between these two scientific disciplines. This information vacuum is explained by the fact that the scientific interest of anthropology and elitology has never been directed to the study of common problems, they have never looked at each other as potential partners in solving common issues. The process of their scientific rapprochement began literally in last years and has not yet reached the level where one can speak of a theoretical analysis of the problem posed. Therefore, there are no special works on anthropological elitology, and those that are available very schematically and superficially convey the content of this issue.

M We have separate, as a rule, random, “outputs” of anthropology on the topic of analyzing the transformation of the elite into the mass, and we practically find a complete lack of interest in anthropology on the part of the leading socio-political elitologists of the 20th century (culturologists look preferable in this regard). An analysis of the mentality of an elite subject, as we see, for example, by V. Pareto or J. Ortega y Gasset, does not yet mean that these authorities of elite theories had a steady interest in elitist anthropology. In this sense, the elitological views of N.A. Berdyaev and K. Mannheim are more anthropological, but, as a rule, these authors are most often not referred to as elitologists, due to the originality of their thinking.

P certain works of such ancient philosophers as Pythagoras, Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Seneca, Plotinus, Proclus can be recognized as recognized sources on anthropological elitology; medieval: Augustine, Alcuin, Thomas Aquinas, Roger Bacon and others; Renaissance and Modern Times: Pico della Mirandola, Erasmus of Rotterdam, N. Machiavelli, F. Bacon, B. Spinoza, T. Hobbes, J. Locke and others; Modern times: J.G. Fichte, F.V.I. Schelling, L. Feuerbach, F.M. Dostoevsky, V.S. Berdyaev, P. Teilhard de Chardin, J. Ortega y Gasset…

BUT The analysis of each of these primary sources can become a separate topic for studying the source study and historiographical issue of this problem and take up more than one volume. In our case, we will confine ourselves to stating this fact itself, since a more detailed analysis of it would lead us away from the essence of the problem posed before this study.

November 1998

Chapter I. Methodological foundations of elitology

P od" Elithology"Traditionally, an independent sociological discipline is understood that studies the stratum that supplies leaders, reveals the process of socio-political management in society, describes the social stratum that directly exercises this management. Strictly speaking, among Western sociologists it is widely believed that all sociology deals exclusively with the description of activities elite, "chosen personalities", "social engineers" (statesmen, organizers). The social elite is defined by her as a group of people standing at the top level of the hierarchy, capable of creating patterns of needs and behavior. The main role of the elite is to give examples, examples of how to live, how to behave morally in human situations, how to deepen, elevate and enrich human needs, i.e. create culture.In this regard, many Western sociologists speak out against the creation of a special science (elitology) that would comprehensively study this issue. not agree with this formulation of the question and draw the reader's attention to the fact that the problems of the elite are not limited to sociological aspects alone and go far beyond the scope of this science. If the problem of the elite were limited only to social or political boundaries, then the question of creating a single scientific complex discipline would really be irrelevant. But the problem of elitism goes deep into such sciences as psychology, cultural studies, religious studies and, most importantly, philosophy. In this regard, sociology is powerless to offer any reasonable alternative to elitology, which once again testifies in favor of the expediency of creating a unified science of the elite and elite in general.

G The main question of the current state of elitology is the question of how much this scientific direction can generally count on scientific recognition, i.e. to what extent is elitology a science? Many critics of elitology still continue to consider it a kind of ideology of a particular political elite, with which we categorically disagree. We have repeatedly stated that elitology is not an ideology (in fact, the old theories of elites are most consistent with this formulation), but a science. Elitology is indeed historically connected with the theories of elites, but this kindred connection goes along the line of "theory" and not ideology. If elitology has not yet fully developed as a science by modern times, this is precisely the fault of ideology. Elitology has all the theoretical grounds for being a science. But we must also acknowledge with you that at present it is still a "science" in potential. G.K. Ashin in one of his works on elitology writes that in our differentiated and integrated age, “new scientific disciplines are increasingly being formed not just as specialized areas of already established sciences, but as disciplines integrating the achievements of different, mainly related sciences. It is precisely such a complex scientific discipline, which is increasingly claiming an independent status, that is elitology, which has developed as a complex interdisciplinary knowledge lying at the intersection of political science, social philosophy, sociology, world history, social psychology, cultural studies. It is possible that elitology is the latest science of the twentieth century, separated from philosophy and getting rid of the influence of political ideology. In any case, the coming century should confirm or refute this assertion of ours, but we have every moral basis for making such a forecast. So, elitology is a potential science that develops its potential, ignoring all ideological considerations.

P the subject of elitology is the study of the processes of socio-political management, the identification and description of the social stratum that directly exercises this management, being its subject (or, in any case, the most important structural element of this subject), in other words, the study of the elite, its composition, laws its functioning, its coming to power and the retention of this power, its role in the social process, the reasons for its degradation and departure from the historical arena.

D For a long time, elitology existed in a fragmented form, in the form of branch specialized disciplines considered within the framework of the social sciences. Its separation into an independent scientific discipline took place only in the 20th century, when, having accumulated a fairly rich scientific material, it emerged as a potential leader among other social sciences. The problem of the elite can be the subject of study of any social discipline, but a comprehensive solution to this problem can only be within the framework of a special science, which is elitology. The structure of this branch of social science can be established by us from its past branch existence, when it belonged to such scientific disciplines as history, psychology, political science, cultural studies, religious studies and, of course, philosophy.

AT At different times and among different peoples, elitology had a very different name, but always remained the same in essence. It was both the perfect knowledge of the initiates (the elite) and the knowledge of the elite itself. Therefore, in the development of elitology as a science, we can distinguish two stages: 1) when elitology existed mainly in the form of esoteric knowledge, i.e. knowledge accessible only to the elect, those few initiates whom we call the elite, and 2) when an independent teaching about its creators stood out in this esoteric knowledge, i.e. a person of the elite (saint, genius, prophet, sage, politician-king, etc.), as well as the elite itself. Over time, this doctrine necessitated a practical study of this stratum, as a result of which the sociological and political science branches of elitology appeared. Thus, evolutionarily, elitology can be subdivided into "elitology of knowledge", an earlier and more general form of special occult science, and "elitology of the elite", i.e. directly the very science of the elite. In this regard, the subject of the elite is defined by elitology not only as the owner of an elite socio-political place and the fulfillment of a significant role in society, but also as the bearer of a certain elite knowledge.

E lithology pursues the only main goal - to give the most adequate description of the socio-cultural activities of the elite. The tasks that elitology faces can be reduced to several main provisions, which in their totality constitute the "elitological circle". So, from our point of view, the most urgent elitistological problem is the search for a fairly stable set of elite criteria for the most diverse socio-cultural groups of society. Secondly, elitology has always sought to trace the history of the development of the very idea of ​​the sociocultural chosenness of the subject of this stratum (that is, the very history of elitology as a science).

P Before elitology there is also a rather significant problem of analyzing the foundations of the spiritual world of an elite person, i.e. elitist consciousness and another closely related philosophical and psychological problem - the problem of personality (see: "elitopersonalism" and "elitepedagogy" - the whole range of these issues could be attributed by us to the subject of the so-called "philosophy of chosenness"). The socio-political problems of elitology, analyzing the activities of the social elite (political science, sociology, history), are a fairly weighty monoblock. Elitology also faces the problem of correlation and interaction between elite and mass culture. And, finally, the task of overcoming the criticism of elitology by democratic egalitarian ideologies.

P The problem of leadership and genius, as well as holiness, can be defined by us as a phenomenon of "super-elite" or "elite of the elite", i.e., what is an example (ideal, as a value system) for the elite itself. All this is elitology in its, so to speak, pure, scientific form.

With on the other hand, elitology can and should be considered as a kind of interdisciplinary system that cements any scientific knowledge that is significant (i.e., chosen, elite) for all mankind. Therefore, the main problem of elitology lies in itself - being the science of eternal socio-anthropological relevance, it itself (without false modesty) has become the most relevant science "of all times and all peoples." From the scientific point of view, elitology (in the broad sense of the word) combines the relevance of all sciences, i.e. the most significant part of knowledge, chosen by importance and degree of novelty, reflecting the very essence of this or that phenomenon (for example, any textbook or encyclopedic Dictionary). Elitology fulfills all the principles mentioned above as categories in relation to these sciences. And if philosophy is the "science of sciences" and the "art of the arts", then elitology is the "repository of secret knowledge". In any science in its most significant, i.e. esoteric part, there is such a kind of "elitology" and, in turn, each science finds its place in elitology, when we begin to give some system to these branch types of elitology, i.e. reduce them to a concrete actual unity.

D To confirm this thesis, let's open any textbook on physics, history, chemistry or any other scientific discipline. What do we see there? First of all - works, discoveries, deeds and laws, great scientists, writers and artists. Who are they? The scientific elite is the knowledge elite. But this personalization opens the way for us not only to knowledge as such, but also to the very spiritual world of its author; gives us the key by which we can penetrate into the sphere of his consciousness, which is elitist in its very essence. Let's take any philosophical or scientific concept in its place where we are talking about the ideal, and sooner or later, directly or indirectly, but we will come out with you to the problem of this elitist consciousness.

With today, it seems, the time has already come when elitology can publicly declare its scientific independence and claim the place and the role that rightfully belongs to it in the family of the humanities and social sciences. It was the 20th century that opened elitology as a science to the scientific community. It was He who brought her out of the underground. And, above all, this became possible thanks to such outstanding thinkers as G. Lebon, V. Pareto, G. Mosca, N. Berdyaev, R. Michels, J. Ortega y Gasset, Z. Freud, E. Fromm and others And if today we raise the elitistological problem, we do it with one single purpose - to give a new, more significant assessment of the very elite of knowledge, which showed humanity an example of the extraordinary heroism of its spirit, because only the elite itself can write about the elite best of all. Even the criticism of elitism is carried out from the position of another counter-elite, publicly professing the principles of democratic egalitarianism, but with all this remaining an elite in its spirit and, most importantly, in its consciousness (which, however, should not mislead us on this score).

X Although it is extremely difficult to analyze the elite, adhering to any position other than the elitist concept, since the theory of elitism has actually become part of the worldview of the elite itself, but it would be deeply mistaken to consider elitology solely as the ideology of the socio-cultural elite that dominates society. Elitology is a science, not an ideology . This is its fundamental difference from the "classical" theories of elites from the beginning of the mid-twentieth century. We only note that the scientific data of elitology were willingly used by various ideological concepts, often politically and even spiritually antagonistic in relation to each other. And this is not the fault, but the misfortune of elitology - to be forever at the epicenter of ideological battles, to be constantly under the close supervision of various political forces, while losing the purity of its scientific subject.

To Each science has its own historically developed, specific arsenal of logical means of thinking, with the help of which the comprehension of the properties and essence of their objects is carried out. Of course, any science operates with concepts of varying degrees of generality and significance, but its "backbone" consists of fundamental concepts - categories that, taken in the system, form its so-called categorical structure. The terminological circle of elitology includes such concepts-problems as: "difference", as individuality; "inequality" as a quality, "hierarchy"; "domination" as domination; "leadership"; "power"; "control"; "personality"; "genius"; "wisdom"; "holiness"; "ideal"; "perfection"; "superiority"; "responsibility"; "moral"; "chosenness"; "relevance"; "authority"; "privilege"; "psychological distance"; "elite consciousness"; "elite knowledge" or "esotericism" - i.e. the very signs that most often characterize the elite. The categorical apparatus of elitology is at the same time a list of its main problems, the identification of the essence of which in relation to the elite is what this social science is engaged in. Throughout the history of the development of human thought, these problems have always been at the center of scientific interest. Their similar activity is explained, first of all, by the importance that they played in public life and the fact that their carrier was the most active part of society, its top - elite.

THE MAIN STAGES OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF ELITHOLOGY AND The history of elitology is a special section of the “great elitology” and studies the development of not only the elitological ideas themselves within the framework of philosophy and various scientific disciplines, but also the socio-political history of the elite itself. Its main goal is to reveal the ideological origins of elitology as a science, to show the variety of forms of expression of this thought, to establish the most natural methodological laws of its development and functioning.

R elitology traditionally considers the ancient Greek philosopher of the Athenian school Plato to be the founder of the classical theory of the elite, although individual features this scientific discipline we find already in the philosophy of Confucius, Buddha, Pythagoras. But it was Plato who laid the foundations for the so-called "philosophy of chosenness", which later became the mother of elitology. Already in Plato we see a clear division of the problem of "chosenness" according to social and anthropological principles. His elitological doctrines will be later developed by elitologist philosophers of subsequent eras, such as Aristotle, Plotinus, Augustine, Alcuin, N. Machiavelli, F. Bacon, T. Hobbes and others. In fact, this entire period - from Plato to F. Nietzsche - we we can call it philosophical, since only representatives of the philosophical school dealt with elitological problems. But it was already the second stage in the formation of elitology as a science. The first - pre-philosophical period - was the time when elitology existed within the framework of esoteric knowledge, as we have already said at the very beginning of our "Introduction".

With the end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th centuries, the third stage begins. It is associated with the names of the classics of the science of the elite - V. Pareto, G. Mosca, R. Michels, who, in fact, turned the "philosophy of the elite" into elitology. The birth of elitology took place under the sign of anti-democratism, which for a long time tore it away from the attention of scientists of the "social democratic direction." The elitology of that time was exclusively focused on the philosophy of aristocracy, the main ideologists of which in the 20th century were N. Berdyaev and J. Ortega y Gasset. In terms of politics, elitism stood on rather rigid anti-communist positions, which, undoubtedly, was the reason for its criticism from the pro-Soviet social scientists of that era, who opposed its principles to its principles of socialist aelitism.

AT In the 1930s, the concept of "mass society" was formed, the main idea of ​​which was that with the advent of an industrial highly urbanized society, the structure of relations between people and society is radically changing. As a result, there are radical changes in the public consciousness itself. It is increasingly polarized into the "intellectual behavior" of the elite and the hallucinatory (ie, illusory, uncontrollable) state of the masses. Only in the 1940s did the concept of "democratic elitism" appear (J. Schumpeter, K. Mannheim, G. Lasswell), where the competition of various political elites for power is already allowed. The masses in this case influence politics by their choice of competing elites. According to Lasswell, democracy differs from oligarchy not in the absence of an elite, but in the "closed" or "open", "representative" or "non-representative" nature of the elite. He argued that "the elite of modern Western society differs from the elite of the past in that its members have knowledge and skill and therefore are more suited to the needs of leadership than were slave or feudal democracies of their time."

At in the 1950s and 1960s, works appeared in Western sociology that criticized the theories of the ruling elite (R. Mills) and put forward the thesis that it would be correct to speak not of a single ruling elite, but of "dispersal of power." It was proposed to abandon the concept of a single elite, suitable only for relatively low-organized societies, and to recognize the plurality of elites, the number of which is constantly growing. The political process is seen as a confrontation between different elites. The concept of the elite is so reduced that in essence this variant of the elite theory coincides with the concept of political pluralism. According to the theory of elitist pluralism, in modern industrial society the distinctions between the elite and the masses are blurred and the masses have access to political leadership. Proponents of elite pluralism argue that there are many elites exercising leadership in a particular area; there is elite competition, and the policy is to reach a compromise between competing groups; the masses put pressure on the elites using the mechanism of elections.

ELITE THEORIES. With ama elitology as a general science of the theories of elites, we could subdivide into three main sections: a) classical elitology, i.e. sociological and political doctrines (Plato - Pareto); b) elitology of consciousness, based mainly on the "reflection of the great philosopher" and, finally, c) specialized elitology, which includes such theories of elites (which differ in the way of substantiation) as: 1/ historical school (J. Vico, T. Carlyle) ; 2/ racial-anthropological (J.A. Gobineau, J.V. Lapouge); 3/ concepts of elite art (T. Adorno, G. Marcuse, J. Ortega y Gasset); 4/ scientocracy theory (D. Bell); 5/ psychological theories (G. Gilbert, B. Skinner); 6/ psychoanalytic (Z. Freud, E. Erikson); 7/ socio-psychological (E. Fromm, G. Lasswell); 8/ elite personalization (N.A. Berdyaev, L. Shestov); 9/ technocratic theories (J. Burnham, J. Galbraith); 10/ biological (R. Williams, E. Bogardus).

H and on the basis of all of the above, we can construct the following genetic chain of the classics of elitology: Plato (and before him Pythagoras, Heraclitus, Democritus, Socrates) - Aristotle - Platonists - Seneca - Apostle Paul - Plutarch - Dionysius the Areopagite - N. Machiavelli - T. Hobbes - J. Vico - German romantics - T. Carlyle - J.A. Gobineau - F.M. Dostoevsky - F.Nietzsche - G.Lebon - N.K. Mikhailovsky - V. Pareto - M. Weber - G. Mosca - R. Michels - J. Ortega y Gasset - N.A. Berdyaev - R. Mills - Z. Freud - A. Toynbee - E. Fromm - K. Mannheim - K. Jaspers - M. Young and others. This list can be replenished with representatives of philosophical and cultural trends, religious and mystical doctrines ( Buddhism, Confucianism) and socio-political utopianism (T.Mor, T.Campanella) depicting us with idealistic images of an ideal person, perfect in all his respects.

« ELITARISM AND ELITISM.E lithology, as a science that studies the socio-cultural stratum that supplies leaders, describes this problem in two versions of its conceptual apparatus. We could designate the first variant by the term "elitism", the second - "elitism". Let us immediately clarify our terminological position.

ELITARISM- this is a system of views that initially justifies the generic behavior of the elite; this is, sometimes not even entirely critical, a view of the elite from the point of view of the elite itself - an internal judgment about the elite by a representative of this elite. Elitarism, as an ideology of domination, is thus an esoteric worldview of the elite, adequately reflecting the aristocratic type of socio-cultural behavior.

AT different from elitism ELITISM is a view of the elite from the outside, this external most often critical judgment. For example, the view of a representative of the knowledge elite on a representative of the power elite, etc. Among the most striking manifestations of elitism, we can include the "Plato-Machiavellian" theory of the ideological justification of the power of the political elite.

And elitism and elitism, as the ideological concepts of the elites, are the central part of the worldview of the representatives of this stratum. The importance of studying these doctrines is due to the significant role played by the carriers of this system of knowledge in the socio-cultural life of any society. This is what, with each new century, is the ever-increasing relevance of elitology, which actually collects and processes the strategic knowledge of the advanced part of society. But elitology is not only a generator of the advanced thought of mankind (in this regard, all sciences in their actual-significant part for society are directly or indirectly "small elitologies"), but also a science that studies the functioning of the very "mechanism" that produces this knowledge, i.e. . studies the man himself - his material, socio-political and spiritual position in society.

AT about the relationship of elitism and elitism, it is important to note their constant in the field of theory and permanence in the field of consciousness of the subject of the elite. The problem is that both of these directions are determined and it is often difficult for a researcher to determine which part of elitology is elitism and which is elitism? The interpenetration of elitism into elitism and vice versa is due to the fact that both of them are a reflection, which differs only in the purposefulness of its action.

AT As an example, we can cite the classic elitology of the Italian sociologist Vilfredo Pareto: as a representative of the knowledge elite and theorist of the sociological school of elitology, he is an exponent of elitism, but as a native of the blood elite (Pareto belonged to an old aristocratic family of Italy) and as a representative of the power elite (with Mussolini, he became a senator of the Italian kingdom in 1923), his views can already be classified as elitism. Almost the same, but with minor reservations, we can say about the genesis of the worldview of Confucius, Plato, T. More, N. Machiavelli, F. Bacon and other followers of this tradition. General conclusion: every time elitism develops into elitism, when representatives of the knowledge elite begin to be part of the power elite, and, in turn, elitism turns into elitism, when representatives of the power elite begin to generalize and transfer to other elite strata what they have accumulated (mainly theoretical) actual material.

E Lithism can also be called the spiritual legacy of the Church Fathers - Anthony the Great and Co. - who left behind spiritual instructions on ways to improve human nature. Anthony the Great and Co. justify in them (See: "Philokalia" in 5 volumes) the asceticism of the soul and the flesh, the asceticism due to which a person becomes morally perfect and looks like a saint in the eyes of an outsider, but sympathetic observer. In this case, all hagiographic literature (lives of the saints) is elitism - a response to the works of the Church Fathers.

H We should also say a few words here about the so-called "hidden" or historical elitism, which lies in the very method of historical narration. The vast majority of historians of the past preferred to present events about the elite from the perspective of the elite itself. Such elitist historians as Gaius Suetonius, Plutarch, Vasarius and the like dealt exclusively with the biographies of great people and events of antiquity and their time. This does not mean that they did not write about anything else. But we know them only through these biographies. Memoir literature in the spirit of Philippe de Comines was and remains just as popular with the public as hagiographic literature dealing with the biographies of saints and epic literature about great deeds. legendary heroes. History, one way or another, but "revolves" around its center - the cultural and socio-political elite of society. It is difficult to find a historian who would violate this ancient historiographical tradition, because one can write about the masses only through the images of outstanding figures who managed to capture the minds and hearts of the crowd they led. Robin Hood and Nightingale the Robber, Wat Tyler and Stenka Razin, and K. Marx - F. Engels - V. Lenin - I. Stalin and Co., this is also an elite, not the masses.

AT Let's take as an example the book by E.V. Fedorova "People of Imperial Rome" [Moscow, 1990] and see how the historical information about these same "people" is distributed in it. The book consists of two parts: 1) " Simple people Imperial Rome" (p.13-40) and 2) "Emperors and their relatives" (p.41-335). From the given figures, it is obvious that the author of this book is most interested. It is not said. Hundreds of other similar examples could be cited, but it would take too long. We only note that this kind of elitism is most evident in the history of science - so all school and university courses are completely composed of retellings of the ideas of great scientists, aristocrats of the spirit. This the same elite that left us traces of its extraordinary consciousness in the form of scientific knowledge.Acquiring this knowledge, we thereby ourselves join the nature of the elite consciousness.And sometimes we do this completely unconsciously.

STRUCTURE OF ELITHOLOGY G Speaking in general about the structure of elitology as a science, we will need to single out at least four of the most important components of this discipline, namely: 1) types of elitology; 2) the main elitological directions; 3) the main sections of elitology and 4) the problematic blocks of elitology, as well as the so-called "auxiliary" elitological disciplines (see table No. 1).

I The core of the structure of elitology is directly the theory of elites, dealing with the problems of stratification, recruitment and functioning of the socio-cultural dominant of society. In addition to this "core", the so-called sectoral disciplines adjoin elitology, such as: 1) anthropological elitology; 2) sociological elitology; 3) political elitology; 4) elitology of history; 5) elitology of cultural studies; 6) philosophy of elitology; 7) psychological elitology; 8) elite pedagogy; 9) religious elitology.

R Of course, the structural boundaries between these sectoral elitist disciplines are conditional, since many elitist problems (such as elite consciousness; Personality; authority, etc.) lie at the junction of many elitist disciplines and require a comprehensive research method. However, the branches of elitology we have indicated are more related not so much to its structure as to its history and are often independent areas of other social science disciplines in relation to it.

Table No. 1 Structure of elitology

I. TYPES OF ELITHOLOGY	1) PRACTICAL 2) THEORETICAL 3) APPLIED
I I . MAIN ELITHOLOGICAL DIRECTIONS	1) ANTHROPOLOGICAL 2) PUBLIC (SOCIAL)
II I. MAIN SECTIONS OF ELITHOLOGY	1) Elitology of history; 2) Elitology of state and law; 3) Elitology of politics; 4) Elitology of religion; 5) Elitology of culture; 6) Elitopedagogy and psychology; 7) Elite personalism; 8) Philosophy of chosenness.
IV. PROBLEM BLOCKS OF ELITHOLOGY	1/ Socio-political bloc; 2/ Ethical-religious block; 3/ Philosophical and cultural block.
V. AUXILIARY ELITHOLOGICAL DISCIPLINES	1/ Hagiography and hagiology; 2/ Asceticism; 3/ Genealogy; 4/ Hermeneutics; 5/ Eugenics; 6/ Ideology; 7/ Personalism; 8/ Psychographology; 9/ Elitopsychology; 10/ Social Darwinism; 11/ "Philosophy of self-consciousness" 12/ Ethics of perfection.

I. Anthropological elitology.BUT Anthropological elitism proclaims a person the highest form of being, who has become a leader due to the presence in him of a self-developing system that has no direct analogue in wildlife - consciousness (Book of Genesis, 2:7). This doctrine of views is based on the notion of the superiority of the human race over the surrounding world (anthropocentrism, or, in F. Bacon's terminology, "the idol of the race"), which is known to almost all peoples. We could also define such views as "anthropo-elitism", i.e. recognition of man as the "crown of nature", the main provisions of which were formulated by the philosophy of the Renaissance.

II. Sociological elitology.AT The focus of this sectoral elitology is the social essence of the elite, the problem of its stratification, recruitment, management, economic and political domination, and finally, the problem of the behavior of the elite. The elite has long been the subject of study of micro and macro sociology. This is especially true of the "theory of conflict" (the haves and the have-nots - K. Marx, R. Dahrendorf) and the sociological theory of the elites of the classics of the 20th century elitology V. Pareto and G. Mosca.

III. Political elitology.P political elitology deals with issues of political leadership, issues of political recruitment and management of the power elite (management), as well as the ideology of justifying the political domination of the ruling elite (Plato, N. Machiavelli, T. Hobbes, R. Michels, etc.).

IV. Elitology of history.And historical elitology deals with problems related to the role of an outstanding personality in public history, issues of a charismatic leader, personality cult, social hierarchy, genealogy of noble families (dynasties) and celebrities, as well as the historical spiritual heritage of prominent figures in politics, science and culture (Plutarch , Suetonius, D. Vico, T. Carlyle and others).

V. Culturological elitology. To ulturological elitology is primarily associated with the need to study the cultural heritage of an outstanding personality; it is the study of the worldview of the Genius through the analysis of his personalized world of ideas. Cultural elitology has found its most complete expression in the so-called concept of "elite art", the founders of which are A. Schopenhauer, F. Nietzsche, J. Ortega y Gasset, T. Adorno, G. Marcuse and others. elite culture to be in the center of attention of this sectoral elitist discipline.

VI. Philosophy of elitology (or "Philosophy of chosenness"). F ilosophical identification of elitist issues is reduced to three main positions: 1) the ethical problem of being chosen; 2) the problem of being chosen within the framework of social philosophy and 3) the problem of elitist consciousness, where a) when an analysis is given of the generic consciousness of the elite as a group (stratum) and b) when the reflection of individual elitist consciousness is analyzed (the problem of personality, genius, holiness, etc.).

G The main thesis from which the philosophy of chosenness proceeds is connected with the idea of ​​the founder of the theory of elites, Plato, who argued that "the crowd is not inherent in being a philosopher" ("State" VI, 494a) and that philosophers are chosen, this is the lot of the few - "the elite of the spirit." Through elite-personalism, the philosophy of chosenness is most closely connected with psychological elitology and elite pedagogy.

VII. Psychological elitology. P Psychological elitology reveals the essence of those concepts that are associated with the problem of "psychological distance" between people with different psycho-physiological and socio-cultural abilities. Psychology deals with questions of consciousness, personality, genius, and so on. (Ts. Lombroso, Z. Freud, E. Fromm), deriving them from the mativational behavior of a person belonging to the elite stratum of society.

H It is also necessary to note the close connection between psychological elitology and the pedagogy of elite education, which reveals the genesis of the personality, the mechanics of its intellectual and spiritual development, the forms and means of such education.

VIII. Elitopedagogy.AT Education is an explanation of the scale of values ​​between good and evil. Therefore, elite pedagogy is primarily a hierarchy of knowledge. And since any hierarchy is already a kind of elite, then, therefore, we should talk about the values ​​of the spiritual world of man. As well as the philosophy of chosenness and psychological elitology, elit pedagogy studies the genesis of a brilliant personality, i.e. the process of her self-education, as well as the analysis of those pedagogical systems that allow her to reveal her creativity.

IX. Religious elitology. E lithology of the religious type reveals a rather original layer of ethics of spiritual perfection of the founders of all world religions, as well as esoteric religious teachings of the past, such as Pythagoreanism, Orphism, Hermeticism, etc. (E. Schure). In addition, we are also talking about the "philosophy of asceticism" (Buddhism, Christianity), i.e. about the hagiographic analysis of the spiritual world of the Saint and about the influence that he had with his pastoral feat on the formation of public religious consciousness.

TYPES OF ELITHOLOGYAT in a certain sense" practical elitology» combines applied political science and sociology in the study of the real power elite, which occupies leading political positions at the current historical moment. What distinguishes practical elitology from theoretical elitology is that the latter considers the elite as an already historically established phenomenon, while the former explores its current, momentary and still unfinished state. And here it is appropriate to recall the well-known phrase of the 19th-century English historian Edward Freeman that "history is the politics of the past, and politics is the history of the present." It is also important to note the difference between practical elitology and applied elitology. This difference lies in the fact that applied elitology deals with the introduction of elitological theoretical data into practice (politics and culture) and is, as it were, the final link in the doctrine of the elite (general elitology): "practical elitology" - "theoretical elitology" - "applied elitology" . Strictly speaking, the specified sequence of parts of elitology reflects the current state of their degree of development. Practical elitology is purely empirical in nature and is actually a propaedeutic branch of general elitology. How important the role of this propaedeutics is can be seen in the ratio of publications on this topic. There are indeed significantly fewer general theoretical (analytical) works on elitology than publications on practical elitology. The approximate ratio of these works can be defined as 1 to 100.

D For practical elitology, the issue of precise classification and identification of the current elites is important. Therefore, it is necessary to dwell on these important points and give them a brief description. The methodological foundations of practical elitology can be reduced to the following points. As a rule, practical elitology deals with the problem of correlation between the power elite and counter-elites; considers the recruitment of elites and the development of their party ideologies. But very often practical elitology faces another important and as yet unsolvable problem - the problem of the "pseudo-elite". The pseudo-elite is the main scourge of all elitology: it is a kind of its unsuccessful myth, the most vulnerable link in its theoretical construction.

P The problem of studying the real elite lies in the "black triangle" of the following questions: 1) what does the subject of the elite think about himself (ie, does he identify himself with the elite?); 2) how does the elite itself perceive it?; 3) what associations does it evoke in the mass public consciousness? The identification of answers to these questions can clarify the first part of the problem of identifying a real elite: whether a given subject belongs to the elite or not, i.e. we are talking about the personal composition of a particular elite. The second part of the problem: what is the nature of this elite? The typology of elites will make it possible to arrange elite subjects according to the principle of specialization of their merits. At the same time, the very category of “dignity” should be clarified. Elitology recognizes that "dignity" can be both "real" and "formal" in nature. In addition, “dignity” can be “stated by the state” (first of all, it is some kind of administrative position) and “individually achieved” (developed). Moreover, “established dignity” is not always honestly achieved, i.e. the principle of meritocratic justice is not always respected. Achieving the established (due) in the first case means entering one way or another into power of an administrative-political nature, and in the second - the assertion of power of a purely personalistic nature, i.e. affirmation of the self as a fundamental component of personality.

T Thus, “an ideal (“normal” from a scientific point of view) elite is such an elite when the dignity of what is established and achieved coincide: “formal elite” - when only one of these components is available or even their appearance is created. The ultimate boundary of the formal elite can be a pseudo-elite, i.e. false identification with the elite of the bearers of mass culture and ideology, only on the basis of their external political (or other) activity.

H It is also necessary to clarify such concepts as the “status elite” (which is most characteristic of the political elite) and the “knowledge elite” (which is mainly characteristic of the intellectual elite). This classification clarifies and supplements the typology of the elites of D. Bell, who divided the elite into: "blood elite", "wealth elite" and "knowledge elite". The publications available today on these elites force us to conclude that these topics are singled out in general study elites into an independent block of research, as those priorities that have a significant impact on the formation of elitology. If we compare the ratio of the status elite and the knowledge elite, we can identify the following parameters:

Table No. 2 Comparative characteristics of the status elite and the elite of knowledge (merits)

Options
	status elite	knowledge elite
Representation of the masses	ideological	theoretical
idea of ​​an elite	pragmatic	epistemological
elitization process	rank achievement	Elite education
the nature of the selection	Administrative
character of leadership	Formal real	real-formal
the psychological nature of the subject	Dependence on collectivism	predominance of individualism
principle of personal dignity	based on image and activity
quality of consciousness	knowledge of power	power over knowledge

With The status elite has only a small part of the qualities that the knowledge elite has, just as the knowledge elite itself has only a certain part of the quality of the status elite. This is due to the uneven process of their development, as well as the competition that has always taken place between them since the time of Confucius and Plato.

P Practical elitology pays incomparably more attention to the problems of the political elite. Scientific publications on this issue indicate that the main problem of the political elite are issues related to personnel policy. The problem of the pseudo-elite is also the problem of a subject who accidentally fell into the elite group, according to all his data, is the bearer of mass consciousness and mass culture. The client principle of elite selection contributes to the accumulation of anti-elite substance within the elite itself, which makes it non-functional and dependent on the social situation. The elite closes and the influx of fresh, truly elitist subjects stops, as a result of which, in the words of A. Toynbee, there is a “leaving of the creative minority” from the arena of social development. The personnel issue can be resolved only with careful attention to the level of education of individuals nominated for the elite and to the quality of the educational institutions they graduated from.

H Despite the fact that practical elitology is mainly descriptive, the data bank it forms on the real state of the political, financial and economic elites creates favorable prerequisites for the productive development of theoretical elitology. Unfortunately, practical elitology does not pay due attention to the issues of anthropological elitology, leaving these problems at the mercy of psychology and philosophy. Given the recent rather sharp turn in the interests of elitology from socio-social problems towards the human factor, it can be assumed that the number of publications on this issue should increase in the near future. This assumption is supported by the fact that anthropological elitology reveals the mechanisms of the internal motivation of the subject of the elite and should, in theory, precede the study of its social existence. Moreover, anthropological elitology has, where big story their practical study than elitology is a social and undoubted interest from such sciences as psychology, pedagogy, cultural studies and philosophy. Practical elitology thus reaches a completely new level of its development, which in general should put all elitology on a par with the leading social sciences.

« THE MAIN QUESTION" OF ELITHOLOGY. With from the point of view of mass consciousness, the elite is made up of all formal and non-formal leaders, their inner circle and those who actively assist them in achieving their goals. From the standpoint of the elite consciousness, the elite is a narrower circle, from which all pseudo-elite elements that fell into the category of this stratum in the first case are excluded.

P Perhaps the most fundamental issue of elitology as a science of the socio-cultural activities of the elite is the question of criteria and the resulting problem of typology of the elite itself. This question can really be recognized as the main one, since all other elitistological problems are based on it, i.e. it is the initial, preparatory material for any elitist research.

P The situation is further complicated by the fact that various social sciences (political science, sociology, etc.) offer their own, from their point of view, the most correct and acceptable criteria for elitism, which often do not work, and sometimes are even wrong premises for other disciplines or even directions elitology itself. So, for example, the criteria of elitism that are used by political elitology to determine the political elite are completely unsuitable for the criteria of the anthropological elite. As a result of this inconsistency, these two types of elites very often critically assess each other, and in some cases even deny each other the very elite, arguing that this or that elite is not an “elite” at all, but only its appearance. Thus, the question of the criteria of the elite is the main issue of all elitology as a whole, since it directly goes to the general methodological problems of this scientific discipline.

CLASSICAL ELITE THEORIESAT in its modern form, the sociological theories of elites were formed at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries. Sociologists are considered their forefathers. Wilfredo Pareto (1848 - 1923), Gaetano Mosca(1858 - 1941) and Robert Michels(1876 - 1936). The core of V. Pareto's sociology was the development of a "new logic" that makes it possible to analyze from a formal point of view the verbal manifestations of the activity of individuals and, on this basis, to build hypotheses that make it possible to identify the permanent elements of social action. He declared "the law of circular motion, the rise and fall of elites" to be the most important law in the development of human society. In his four-volume Treatise on General Sociology (1916), he attempts to present the relation of feeling to thought, and then the relation of feeling and thought to the direction and control of social life. In his opinion, the development of society proceeds according to a strictly defined "law of the elite." Pareto divides the entire population into two strata: the highest and the lowest: "Every people," he explains, "is ruled by an elite, a chosen element of the population." V. Pareto proceeds from two provisions: the objective inequality of people and the subjective idea of ​​a person about equality. Their interpretation serves as a catalyst for changes in society. According to Pareto, the elected, "elitist" part of society is constantly being washed out and filled with free space by representatives from the lower strata. It is in this process of "circulation of the elite" that arises as the effect of a combination of the above elements of social action that a continuum of history is born. The accumulation of "superior" quality in the lower strata and the degradation of the higher strata constitute a weighty reason for the disturbance of the social balance. The ruling classes are renewed not only numerically, but also qualitatively, according to their kind. The "decadence" of the elite is in direct proportion to the social mobility it needs for its renewal. The stability of the social property tends to weaken in the case of the elite.

T Thus, in Pareto society is represented precisely as the circulation of elites. It is heterogeneous. The inevitability of the division of society into the elite and the masses and the heterogeneity of society are determined by the initial psychological inequality of individuals, which manifests itself in all spheres of public life. The peculiarity of this or that social group depends on the natural features and talents of its members, and this, in turn, determines the social position of the group at one or another rung of the social ladder.

And hierarchical division of people may be carried out according to different indicators(authority, education, talent, career, etc.). But Pareto considered wealth to be the main indicator of eliteness. The elite determines the dynamics of society and its equilibrium. If the social system is out of balance, then over time it returns to it. The fluctuations of the system and its arrival in the normal state forms a cycle. Pareto imagined historical progress as an eternal circulation of the main types of elites: "Elites arise from the lower strata, rise to the top, flourish there, but, in the end, degenerate, annihilate and disappear. Degrading members of the elites descend into the masses." Pareto considered this cycle of elites to be the universal law of history. The qualities that provide dominance to the elite change during the cycle of social development, hence the type of elites changes, and history turns out to be the graveyard of the aristocracy. Comparing the elite with the masses, Pareto believes that the former is characterized by productivity, a high degree of activity. It must have at least two most important qualities: the ability to convince by manipulating human emotions, and the ability to use force where necessary, depending on the specific historical situation. If Pareto focuses on replacing one type of elite with another, then G. Mosca advocated the gradual penetration of the "best" elements of the masses into the elite; if Mosca absolutized the political factor, then Pareto preferred the psychological one. Therefore, the value interpretation of the elites originates from Pareto, and the concept of the school of the political elite originates from Musk.

G.Mosca proved the inevitable division of any society into two groups unequal in social status and role. In 1896, in "Fundamentals of Political Science" he wrote: "In all societies, from the most moderately developed and barely reached the beginnings of civilization to the enlightened and powerful, there are two classes of persons: the class of managers and the class of the ruled. The first, always relatively small, performs all political functions, monopolizes power and enjoys its inherent advantages, while the second, more numerous, is controlled and regulated by the first ... and supplies it with the material means of support necessary for the viability of the political organism. Mosca analyzed the problem of the formation of the political elite and its specific qualities. He believed that the most important criterion for entering it is the ability to manage other people, i.e. organizational ability, as well as material, moral and intellectual superiority that distinguish the elite from the rest of society. There are two tendencies in the development of the ruling class: aristocratic and democratic. The first of these is manifested in the desire of the political class to become hereditary, if not legally, then in fact.

P the predominance of the aristocratic tendency leads to the "closing and crystallization" of the class, to its degeneration and, as a result, to social stagnation. This, ultimately, entails an intensification of the struggle of new social forces for the occupation of dominant positions in society. The second, democratic trend is expressed in the renewal of the political class at the expense of the most able to manage and active lower strata. Such renewal prevents the degeneration of the elite, makes it capable of effective leadership of society. A balance between aristocratic and democratic tendencies is most desirable for society, because it ensures both continuity and stability in the leadership of the country, and its qualitative renewal.

To R. Michels made a major contribution to the development of the theory of political elites. He studied the social mechanisms that give rise to the elitism of society. Basically, in solidarity with Mask in interpreting the causes of elitism, Michels emphasizes organizational abilities, as well as the organizational structures of society, which strengthen the elitism and elevate the ruling stratum. He concluded that the very organization of society requires elitism and naturally reproduces it.

AT society operates "the iron law of oligarchic tendencies." Its essence lies in the fact that the development of large organizations, inseparable from social progress, inevitably leads to the oligarchization of the management of society and the formation of an elite, since the leadership of such associations cannot be carried out by all their members. The effectiveness of their activities requires functional specialization and rationality, thinking of the leading core and apparatus, which gradually but inevitably get out of the control of ordinary members and subordinate politics to their own interests, taking care, first of all, about maintaining their privileged position. Ordinary members of organizations are quite passive and show indifference to everyday political activity. As a result, any organization, even a democratic one, is always actually ruled by an oligarchic, elite group. Such most influential groups, interested in maintaining their privileged position, establish various kinds of contacts among themselves, unite, forgetting about the interests of the masses.

AT In the works of V. Pareto, G. Masky, and R. Michels, the concept of the political elite has already received a fairly clear outline. She was scheduled the most important properties, parameters that make it possible to distinguish and evaluate various elitist theories of modernity. These include: 1) special properties inherent in the representatives of the elite; 2) relationships that exist within the elite layer and characterize the degree of its cohesion, integration; 3) relations between the elite and the non-elite, the masses; 4) recruiting the elite, i.e. how and from whom it is formed; 5) the role of the elite in society, its functions and influence.

With Among the modern trends in the theory of elites, it is necessary to highlight such as the "Machiavellian school", "value theories", theories of "democratic elitism", "concepts of elite pluralism", "left-liberal concepts". A detailed presentation of the main points of these elite theories is beyond the scope of this study. Therefore, we will focus on one of these positions, which, in our opinion, is closest to the theory of elite education. The value theories of the elite, as well as Machiavellian concepts, consider the elite the main constructive force of society, however, soften their position in relation to democracy, seek to adapt the elite theory to the real life of modern states. The diverse value concepts of the elites differ significantly in the degree of protection of aristocracy, attitude towards the masses, democracy, and so on. However, they also have a number of the following general settings:

With social equality should be understood as equality of life chances, and not equality of results, social status. Since people are not equal physically, intellectually, in terms of their vital energy and activity, it is important for a democratic state to provide them with approximately the same starting conditions. They will come to the finish line at different times and with different results. Social "champions" and outsiders will inevitably appear. Some supporters of the value theory of elites are trying to develop quantitative indicators that characterize its impact on society. So, N.A. Berdyaev, based on an analysis of the development of different countries and peoples, deduced " elite coefficient"as the ratio of the highly intelligent part of the population to the total number of literate people. An elite coefficient of over 5% means that there is a high potential for development in society. As soon as this coefficient dropped to about 1%, the empire ceased to exist, stagnation and ossification were observed in society. the elite turned into a caste, a priesthood.World history shows that the degradation of the elite always coincides in the strangest way with the degradation of society or the state itself.Apparently, these processes are most closely related, but this problem is the responsibility of political elitology, although some these questions were still considered by the English historian A. Toynbee in his famous book "Comprehension of History".

C value ideas about the role of the elite in society prevail among modern neoconservatives, who argue that elitism is necessary for democracy. But the elite itself should serve as a moral example for other citizens and inspire respect for itself, confirmed in free elections. The main provisions of the value theory of elites underlie the concepts democratic elitism (elitist democracy), which have become widespread in the modern world. They proceed from the understanding of democracy proposed by J. Schumpeter as a competition between potential leaders for the trust of voters. Political elections themselves are a mechanism of elitization, and suffrage is, in essence, the right of the elite. As K. Mannheim wrote, "democracy entails an anti-elitist trend, but does not require going all the way to the utopian equation of the elite and the masses. We understand that democracy is characterized not by the absence of an elite stratum, but rather by a new way of recruiting and a new self-awareness of the elite."

With Proponents of democratic elitism, citing empirical research, argue that real democracy needs both elites and mass political apathy, since too much political participation threatens the stability of democracy. Elites are necessary, first of all, as a guarantor of a high-quality composition of leaders elected by the population. The very social value of democracy depends decisively on the quality of the elite. The ruling stratum not only possesses the properties necessary for governing, but serves as a defender of democratic values ​​and is able to restrain the political and ideological irrationalism, emotional imbalance and radicalism often inherent in the masses.

T Thus, elitologists argue that the "chosen ones" acquire leading positions due to their natural qualities, "innate abilities to occupy a privileged position" (G. Lasswell), "desire for power" (M. Ginsberg), due to "divine insight", mystical qualities (L. Freund), etc. In all these statements, the personal qualities of the subject of the elite are put in the first place, which means that we are talking about the anthropological foundations of this sociocultural group.

R Having examined some of the methodological features of modern elitology, we now turn our attention to the history of the development of anthropological elitology within the framework of the history of philosophy.

Elite theories

elitology society middle ages

Introduction

Currently, there are a large number of different theories that justify the legitimacy of dividing society into a controlling minority and a controlled majority. Ideas about the inevitability of such a division of society were expressed in ancient times. It is enough in this connection to name the names of Confucius, Plato, Machiavelli, although at that time they did not receive scientific justification. The first scientifically developed concepts of elites were proposed at the beginning of the 20th century.

Elitology is a special scientific discipline that deals with the consideration and analysis of the specific patterns of formation and development of elites in society, the analysis of their personnel at various stages of social development. At the same time, elitology is not a homogeneous science. Within its framework, there are a number of paradigms, which include elitism and elitism.

There is no doubt that the elitist paradigm is very attractive. Its relevance and attractiveness is especially growing in modern conditions when it becomes extremely fashionable to consciously take yourself and your worldview beyond the "faceless gray mass".

The concept of elitism

In recent decades, the term "elite" has not only firmly entered the scientific sociological and political language, but also went far beyond it, becoming commonly used. This term comes from the Latin eligere and the French elite - the best, selective, chosen. Since the 17th century, it has been used to refer to goods of the highest quality, and then to the name of "chosen people", especially the highest nobility. In England, as the Oxford Dictionary of 1823 testifies, the term came to be applied to the highest social groups in a system of hierarchical society. Then the concept began to be used in genetics, biology and other natural science disciplines. In the social sciences, the term "elite" was not widely used until the end of the 19th - beginning of the 20th centuries. (that is, before the appearance of the works of V. Pareto), and in the USA - even before the 30s of our century. With the institutionalization of science, the main directions in the study of elites were determined - the history of political thought, the theory of elites, the sociology of elites, etc., the object and subject of elitology was formed.

Object-elite: the entire elite, certain types of elites, an individual

Subject - patterns of formation and functioning of the elite

Elitism - The belief that government in practice is the property of the elites, that, according to Hume's aphorism (Hume), "Must implies possibility", it makes no sense to talk about control of the government by the people if in practice the people cannot do this, and that we'd better accept what we're doomed to anyway. Most often these views are associated with the names of Gaetano Mosca, Wilfred Pareto (early 20th century) and Joseph Schumpeter (mid 20th century). Their works have a shade of "elitism", since they justify in every possible way the presence of representatives of elites "in power" in democratic states, confirming their arguments with arguments of a normative nature. However, their original argument did not imply the undesirability of democratic control of the government, if it could somehow be achieved.

Stages of formation of political elitism. The ideas of ancient philosophers about the aristocracy as the rule of the best

The first prototypes of elitist theories were reflected in the writings of Plato, who was one of the first to systematically set out his political ideas in the dialogues "State", "Politician" and "Laws". Their essence is as follows:

1. Plato considered the state to be the most important and direct form of existence of society. The philosopher sought to paint a picture of an ideal society and state.

· Genuine virtue - true knowledge - is possible only with an ideal state. Plato considered such a state a perfect aristocracy - the rule of the best and noble philosophers-sages. The other four forms of state - timocracy (rule by the military), oligarchy, democracy and tyranny, he called imperfect.

3. Plato was the first to point out the relationship of politics, the state with social changes (division of labor, the emergence of classes, inequality).

4. The philosopher argued that the ideal society consists of rulers-philosophers, warrior-guards, artisans.

The hierarchy of estates is based on their correspondence to the three principles of the human soul - reasonable, furious and businesslike. Each estate is occupied with its own business: the wise philosophers carry out a just rule, since only true knowledge is available to them; guardians protect society; artisans and farmers create the material means of life.

A student of Plato, Aristotle, considered polity to be the best form of state - the rule of the majority, which has a property and educational qualification. Politea unites everything best features aristocracy (virtue of rulers), oligarchy (wealth), democracy (freedom). Translating this idea of ​​Aristotle into modern language, we can say that this is government in the interests of the middle class.

The development of elitist ideas in the Middle Ages

The development of elitist ideas in the Middle Ages is associated with the emergence of the theological theories of Thomas Aquinas and Augustine the Blessed, who deified the nature of state power. Despite the divine nature of state power, its acquisition and use, according to Thomas Aquinas, depends on people. Consequently, the essence of power is divine, but the forms of its implementation are determined by the people themselves. The indignation of the people against the power of the monarch was recognized as a mortal sin, since it was tantamount to speaking out against God. However, secular power itself must follow Christian precepts and not oppress its people. Otherwise, Thomas Aquinas recognized the lawful overthrow of the tyrant.

Contribution to the formation and development of elitism N. Machiavelli, F. Nietzsche

Nietzsche declared the will to power to be the fundamental principle of the world process; the driving force of history is "an insatiable desire for the manifestation of power, and the use of power, the use of power as a creative instinct" . Morality plays a corrupting role for him, it is the "weapon of the weak", the "instinct of the crowd", which is overcome by "supermen".

The aristocracy in the teachings of Nietzsche is not at all equivalent to the domination of the ruling elite over the masses; what matters most is the quality of the elite. In his works, "know" and "rabble" are used not as socio-political categories, but as moral ones, out of touch with the existing social hierarchy. "Know" and "rabble" are defined not by wealth or poverty, but by greatness and insignificance. The greatness of the soul is the lot of the few, and it is precisely this that gives meaning to a person, making him a superman. Only life has absolute value, and real life appears when a person becomes a god. A bright, real life is worthy only of a person who has become a god - a superman.

The motive of the superman is the most important part of Nietzsche's elitist views. “I am teaching you about the superman. Man is something that must be surpassed ... Superman is the meaning of the earth. Calling man a "dirty stream", Nietzsche writes that the superman in relation to man is like a monkey in relation to man. The superman is the aristocracy (genuine elite) of society. Nietzsche's hero is arrogant, tough, devoid of sympathy for the weak, inferior.

Nietzsche's "ruling caste" self-identifies itself. "There is an instinct for recognition of rank, which is most of all a sign of high rank, there is a pleasure delivered by the nuances of reverence, and it indicates a noble birth and habits associated with it." Nietzsche defines the signs of nobility: "... not to have a desire to transfer one's own responsibility to someone, not to have a desire to share it; to classify one's advantages and the use of them as one's duties" . This is how the credo of elitism is frankly formulated - the strong power of the aristocracy, which "must firmly believe that it exists not for society, but that it (society) is nothing more than" a foundation and a platform that can serve as a footstool for some kind of chosen beings to fulfill their highest task and in general for the higher being"

Nicolo Machiavelli. His views on the problem of relations between rulers and subjects are controversial. On the one hand, he opposed the feudal lords, who hampered the unification of Italy, on the other hand, he most of all feared a revolt of the masses who had gone out of obedience. He is looking for the optimal ratio between the rulers and the people and sees him in strong power. At the same time, Machiavelli condemns tyrannical power, which corrupts the rulers and the masses, which, accustomed to enduring the tyrant, becomes "servile, hypocritical." Although the personality of the political leader is at the center of Machiavelli's attention, he, unlike his predecessors, does not reduce the political process only to the deeds of heroes, in his view it is very colorful. Machiavelli distinguishes between active and passive participants in the historical drama: this is the monarch, and the nobility, and the commoner, who goes to the city square and supports the sovereign or an officer who rebels against him, participates in a military clash, a usurer who subsidizes a politician, a church leader, etc. He draws vivid psychological portraits of leaders; their actions are stimulated mainly by bad passions, innate, inherent in people. They are "ungrateful, changeable, hypocritical, cowardly in the face of danger, greedy for gain." Machiavelli is ready to justify the immoral means by which rulers achieve power. At the same time, power is not only a value in itself, but a means to achieve certain political goals. In order to rule, rulers must know the main incentives for human activity (and this, according to Machiavelli, is the lust for power and the possession of property), study and use to their advantage the tastes, inclinations, weaknesses of the crowd and, thanks to this, dominate it.

An interesting typology of methods of government proposed by Machiavelli, which ensure the effectiveness of power: these are "lions" (decisive rulers based on force), and "foxes" (flexible politicians, which are characterized by dexterity, pretense, cunning, they are masters of negotiations and behind-the-scenes intrigues ). Solving the dilemma on whom the sovereign should stake out of the two contending forces - on the people or on the nobility, Machiavelli unambiguously chooses the people. The sovereign must be in friendship with the people, otherwise hard time he will be overthrown: "he will never be deceived among the people and will be convinced of the strength of such a support." Machiavelli concludes that the interests of the people are much more in line with the interests of the state. He by no means idealizes a people who, like the sovereign and the aristocracy, are subject to the influence of circumstances, although to a lesser extent than the former, and writes that "a people that long and humbly endures the tyranny of power or a foreign yoke is a depraved people who have lost the precious gift of the gods is love of freedom, independence, honesty, courage.

Formation of elitism as a scientific direction. Theories of elites V. Pareto, G. Moski, G. Tarda, R. Michels.

Makevialist school (G. Mosca, V. Pareto) - elitism is inherent in any society. This is based on the fact of natural differences between people: physical, psychological, mental, moral. The elite is characterized by special political and organizational qualities. The masses recognize the right of the elite to power. Elites replace each other in the course of the struggle for power, since no one yields power voluntarily.

The theory of elite democracy (R. Dahl, S. Lipset) - the elite does not rule, but manages the masses with their voluntary consent, through free elections.

Value theories (V. Ropke). The elite is a layer of society endowed with high management abilities. The elite is the result of a largely natural selection of individuals with outstanding qualities and abilities. The formation of the elite does not contradict the principles of democracy. Social equality of people should be understood as equality of opportunity.

The concept of elite pluralism (S. Keller, O. Stammer, D. Riesman). the elite are numerous. None of its members is capable of exerting a decisive influence on all areas of life at the same time. In a democracy, power is distributed among various groups of elites who influence decision-making, defending their interests. Competition makes possible control by the masses.

Left-liberal concepts (R. Mills). society is controlled exclusively by one ruling elite. The possibilities of democratic institutions (elections, referendums) are insignificant.

Elitist concepts of the XIX-XX centuries.

In political science, the French term "elite" became widespread in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, and is associated with the names of such scientists as Gaetano Mosca, Vilfredo Pareto and Robert Michels.

Let us briefly dwell on the main positions of their elitist concepts.

Gaetano Mosca (1858-1941), an Italian sociologist and political scientist, in his work "Fundamentals of Political Science" tried to prove the inevitable division of society into two groups unequal in social status and role. He divided society into the ruling class (ruling class) and the ruled class. Mosca expressed the idea that a certain stability of the ruling class is necessary, and the penetration of new elements into it should not happen too quickly and should not be too significant. The concept of the ruling class G. Moska had big influence on the subsequent development of elitist theories. However, it has been criticized for absolutizing the political factor and underestimating the role of the economy. This theory has found approval in totalitarian states. The direction developed by him is called organizational.

Vilfredo Pareto (1848-1923) - in his "Treatise on General Sociology" wrote that the world at all times ruled and should be ruled by a chosen minority - an elite endowed with special qualities: psychological (innate) and social (acquired in the process of education and education). The elite is divided into the ruling elite, which directly or indirectly participates in governance, and the non-ruling counter-elite - these are people who have the qualities characteristic of the elite, but do not have access to leadership due to status or other reasons. V. Pareto first introduced the concepts of "political (ruling) class" and "circulation of elites" - that is, a system of "exchange" of people between the elite and the rest of the population. The circulation of elites, in his opinion, entails the circulation of ideas.

Robert Michels (1876-1923) - a German political scientist who became one of the ideologists of fascism - in his work "Interpretation of the causes of elitism" studied the social mechanisms that give rise to elitism, concluded that the very organization of society requires elitism and naturally reproduces it. In his research, he sought to prove the impossibility of implementing the principles of democracy in Western countries due to "oligarchic tendencies" in mass political organizations.

The Machiavellian school (G. Mosca, V. Pareto and R. Michels) orients its followers to the fact that any society is characterized by elitism. This is based on the fact of the natural differences of people: psychological, mental, moral. According to supporters of this direction, the elite is characterized by political and organizational qualities, and the masses recognize its right to power, that is, its legitimacy. The change of elites occurs in the course of the struggle for power, since no one yields power voluntarily.

Currently, there are various areas of elite theories: the value theories of the elite, theories of democratic elitism, the concept of elite pluralism, left-liberal theories. They reflect certain aspects of reality and substantiate the legitimacy of dividing society into a ruling minority and a controlled majority.

Within the framework of the theory of democratic elitism (R. Dahl, S. Lipset), democracy is understood as a competitive struggle of contenders for the leadership of society during election campaigns. And the elite is seen as a champion of democratic values ​​- freedom, equality, the right to work, social security, etc. It leads the masses with their voluntary consent, through free elections.

In value theories (V. Ronke, J. Ortega y Gasset), the elite is seen as a layer of society endowed with high management abilities. Joining the elite is not an arbitrary or violent process, but a fair introduction of the most capable to the levers of control.

The concepts of elite pluralism (or functional theories of elites) (S. Keller, O. Stammer, D. Riesman) prove that the elite is plural. None of its members is capable of exerting a decisive influence on all areas of life at the same time. In a democracy, power is distributed among various elites who influence decision-making, defending their interests. The elites are controlled by the masses through elections, referendums, polls, the press, pressure groups. Competition between elites prevents the formation of a coherent elite group and makes control by the masses possible. The boundaries between the masses and the elites are conditional. Access to the elite is open not only to representatives of big capital, but also to those who have outstanding personal abilities and knowledge.

The left-liberal concepts of elites (R. Mills, R. Miliband, R.-J. Schwarzenberg) are based on the position that society is controlled exclusively by one ruling elite. In real life, the elite is at a high level of power and does not allow the masses to participate in politics. The possibilities of democratic institutions (elections, referendums, etc.) are insignificant. The ruling elite occupies key positions in the state and, on this basis, secures power, wealth and fame for itself. There is a big difference between the elite and the masses, which is almost impossible to overcome.

In the political science of the XX century. "elite" includes:

* people with exceptional intellectual abilities and the highest sense of responsibility (J. Ortega y Gasset);

* the creative minority of society, opposite to the non-creative majority (A. Toynbee);

* a minority that has the greatest influence in society and / or performs the most important functions in it (S. Keller);

* leaders or prominent representatives of any social groups - professional, ethnic, local ("elite" of pilots, chess players and even thieves) (M. Boden);

* persons who received the highest index in their field of activity (V.Pareto);

* the most politically active subjects oriented towards power (G. Moska);

* owning the greatest fortunes or having the greatest prestige (PLusswell);

* occupying leading positions in the political, economic and cultural life of society (W. Gettsman) (6).

According to Dreitzel. Elite - the holders of the highest positions in a group, organization or institution, the selection into which is carried out according to the principle of knowledge productivity.

By Waida. Elite - a group of people at the top of the hierarchy, capable of creating patterns of need and behavior.

According to Sultanov Elite is a group structured in a certain way, which, by virtue of its status, relevant conditions, general perception, political traditions, ideology in a given society has the potential to have a decisive influence on most other groups and institutions in this society.

The political elite is an internally differentiated integrated group of persons who have the qualities of leadership and are prepared to perform managerial functions, occupy leadership positions in public institutions and influence the adoption of power decisions.

Contemporary elitist theories

In modern political theory, the approaches proposed by its founders have received a new development. Thus, the followers of V. Pareto P. Blau, J. Sorel, E. Fromm, A. Adler, R. Stogdill and other scientists compiled impressive descriptions of the specific properties of political leaders and elites, revealing and clarifying on this basis the relationship between the individual properties of the ruling class and the foundations of the dominant political order. In line with this direction, value concepts have acquired clearer outlines. Thus, the American scientist G. Lasswell put forward the idea that only those who have special abilities for the production and dissemination of certain political values ​​(for example, ensuring the individual security of a person or his public respect, income growth, etc.) can be classified as an elite. ), to mobilize the activity of the population and the formation of a certain political order.

Within the framework of value theories, a pluralistic interpretation of elites has also been developed, according to which several elite groups operate in power, and each of them has its own mechanisms and zone of power influence, expresses the specific interests of various groups of the population and has only its inherent authority.

Mosca's views also received a peculiar theoretical development. Thus, the French researcher G. Dorso turned to the doctrine of the "political class" and proposed to consider it as a "technical tool" of the "ruling class", which breaks up in the political process into "managing" and "opposition" segments. Because of this, according to the French scientist, the change in power of the ruling and opposition layers does not affect the interests and status of the ruling class at all.

The original concept was proposed by R. Mills, who studied the political elite on the example of American society as a set of representatives of the most important "institutionalized hierarchies", i.e. senior officials composed of corporate heads, political administrators and military leadership. At the same time, according to Mills, the persons (including part of the unelected, bureaucratic elite) who are in informal relations with each other and have the main influence on the entire decision-making process have the greatest influence in this triangle of power.

J. Galbraith also considered the functional foundations of political elites in a very original way, suggesting that the so-called technostructure, i.e. that anonymous group of people that controls the process of circulation of official information and thereby really predetermines the nature of the decisions made at the top. In this sense, public politicians only voice decisions prepared by their experts, analysts and other assistants. Thus, the role of the so-called gray cardinals, who often stand behind the scenes of power and determine its most important decisions, was theoretically legalized.

The ideas laid down by Moska were also significantly developed in the works of representatives of the structural-functional direction (D. Burnham, S. Keller), who focus on the analysis of the institutional and role features of the ruling circles. The so-called neo-elitarists (H. Ziegler) also contributed to the development of this direction, emphasizing political mechanisms that allow the elite strata to exercise their actual power, regardless of the results of the will of society in elections, plebiscites and referendums.

Conclusion

The rapid development of elitist concepts to this day has not led to the establishment of unified approaches to the interpretation of the independence of elites, the characteristics of their relations with the masses, to the determination of the relationship between the status and personal properties of elite circles when their composition changes, the role of managers in the development of democracy. In fact, each historical period seriously changed and updated such assessments and ideas. For example, in their original versions, elitist theories were very negatively disposed towards democracy. Subsequently, the situation changed radically, and elitism began to be seen as an element of politics, fully compatible with the mechanisms of representative democracy. According to a prominent political thinker of the XX century. I. Schumpeter, the elites can do much more to establish democracy than the broadest segments of the population interested in these values.

At the same time, the vast majority of representatives of modern elitism consider the activities of higher management structures in isolation from the social and social conditions that determine them. economic factors. In this case, the elites are often interpreted as self-sufficient groups that fully control all political processes. To a certain extent, this predetermines the expansion by some theorists (A. Stone) of the functional-role loads of the ruling groups, considering them as the only movers of the historical process, while the masses are assigned the role of its passive observers.

Posted to site

Similar Documents

Condemnation of nationalism, imperialism, racism, anti-Semitism in the "Treatise" of the Italian engineer, economist and sociologist Vilfredo Pareto. Theory social behavior. The theory of elites G. Mosca and V. Pareto. Characteristic features of the representatives of the ruling elite.

presentation, added 11/14/2014


The Doctrine of the "Political Class" G. Mosca. Psychological theory of the elite V. Pareto. The concept of the oligarchy R. Michels. Elitist approach and management theory of the elite. Institutional Approach and Elite Theory by R. Mills. Theories of the plurality of elites (A. Bentley).

test, added 03/14/2011


Bibliosociology as an independent scientific discipline. The history of the development of the social functions of libraries in a temporal context. Research of modern methods of bibliosocial work. Methods of bibliosociological research and their features.

term paper, added 02/06/2011


Sociology of religion as a branch of sociology and scientific discipline, subject and methods of its research, history of origin and development. Types of religious beliefs. The functions of religion in society. Characteristics and features of methods, methods of religious studies.

abstract, added 12/14/2010


Prerequisites for the formation and features of the development of the sociology of entrepreneurship. Object, subject area and tasks of the sociology of entrepreneurship. The sociology of entrepreneurship is a special sociological theory that is extremely relevant today.

abstract, added 12/29/2004


The main provisions of the theory of social work, the prerequisites for its emergence and development as a scientific discipline. Analysis of the state and problems of reforming social work in modern Russia. Interrelation of social policy and social work.

term paper, added 05/05/2010


The history of the formation of sociological methodology. The study of interpersonal relations and the relationship of the individual to various social phenomena. Modern theories of political elites. Changes in the social structure during the transition to the information society.

test, added 03/05/2010


Comparative analysis of instrumental, semantic, gender, cratic theories of the origin of society as systems of scientific knowledge about the genesis public relations. The concept of social progress, evolutionary and cyclical theories of the development of civilization.

presentation, added 04/15/2017


The concept of youth. Ways of development of domestic sociology of youth. Youth development trends. Cultural needs of youth. The system of spiritual needs as a product of historical development. Features of the youth of modern Russian society.

term paper, added 11/04/2011


Directions of demographic policy in the Russian Federation. Demographic situation in the Republic of Dagestan. The influence of general and specific patterns of development and reproduction of the population on the social development of the republic until the last General Population Census.