Elites (Sociology)

Introduction
Elites are those who have vastly disproportionate access to or control over a social resource. Such resources have transferable value—access or control in one arena of social life can result in advantages in other. This control over or access to transferable social resources provides elites with disproportionate social power and advantages; their decisions and actions influence and affect vast numbers of people. We can categorize elites by the kinds of resources they have access to or control. We might speak of “economic” elites, who have money or control over the economy; “political” elites, who influence or make decisions within the state; “social” elites, whose personal ties provide them with information and access to other resources; “cultural” elites, who influence social tastes, dispositions, and cultural development; and “knowledge” elites, who control or influence social knowledge. These arenas of social power are not exclusive—more-powerful elites have access to more resources. Scholars often focus on the social institutions that serve gatekeeping functions to these resources. These include the family, clubs, and, most importantly, schools. Most studies of elites understand this group relationally. The asymmetric advantages enjoyed by elites are understood relative to the disadvantages of the less powerful. As such, elites are understood less in relation to their particular properties and more in terms of the social structural conditions that allow for the emergence or seizure of particular advantages. Elite sociology is not a particular coherent realm of inquiry. It transcends a range of subject areas and overlaps with other social science disciplines, notably history, economics, and political science. After the rights movements of the late 1960s, interest in elites waned, with the notable exception of social science work in France. More recently, work on elites has become popular again.
Classic Works
Before the 1970s, the study of elites was somewhat fashionable, and the subject area was relatively more coherent. These studies tended to focus on the resilience of elites as democratic institutions become more prominent (Michels 1915). They asked how a small group of people could retain social power as such political institutions seemed to open to the masses (Domhoff 1967, Giddens 1973 [see Political section], Mills 1956, Mosca 1939), as economic opportunities expanded from the long-term control over lands to innovations within commerce and production. In short, as the world radically changed, how was it that a seemingly tiny group was able to retain the lion’s share of social power (Pareto 1935)? More recently, particularly through the influence of work in France (Bourdieu 1984), elite sociology has revived (Bottomore 1993), in part through expanding the analysis beyond economic and political power and ties, to some of the more cultural elements of the elite (Veblen 1994).
Bottomore, Tom B. 1993. Elites and society. 2d ed. London: Routledge.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Bottomore outlines the various theoretical approaches to elite theory. An indispensable text for its parsimonious yet judicious review of the varied theoretical approaches to elites and the ways in which they have been categorized by different social thinkers. Originally published in 1965.
Find this resource:
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1984. Distinction: A social critique of the judgement of taste. Translated by Richard Nice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Bourdieu presents a theory of “distinction” within a relational analysis. Elites are those within a “field of power” who have considerable social, economic, cultural, and/or symbolic capital. Bourdieu conceptualizes elites relative to the power they have over others (to define tastes through consumption, association, or disposition) and holds that among elites there is a constant struggle for the relative strength of the resource they most firmly control. Originally published in French in 1979.
Find this resource:
Dahrendorf, Ralf. 1959. Class and class conflict in industrial society. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Dahrendorf was critical of the turn made by Mills, seeing the ruling elites as an almost cabal-like group. He argued that it bordered on conspiracy theory. Instead, Dahrendorf argued that there was no “elite class.” Elites do not share common interests. Instead, they are a group who, because of their social power, share a degree of autonomy that allows them to influence state policy.
Find this resource:
Domhoff, William G. 1967. Who rules America? Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Domhoff argues that the upper class in the United States is both a social class and a governing class. Due to common socialization and network participation, people in higher levels of government and business tend to have similar backgrounds and social ties to one another. The power elite is the “operating arm” of the upper class.
Find this resource:
Mills, C. Wright 1956. The power elite. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
The American power structure is characterized by three levels: (1) the power elite, consisting of corporate, military, and executive leadership; (2) a middle stratum, consisting of labor, regional/local elites, members of Congress, and other organized groups; and (3) the unorganized masses. He explained the power structure of the United States as an integrated array of elites in different spheres.
Find this resource:
Michels, Robert. 1915. Political parties: A sociological study of the oligarchical tendencies of modern democracy. Translated by Eden Paul and Cedar Paul. New York: Free Press.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Famous for the term iron law of oligarchy. Michels argues that as organizations become more formally organized, they become less democratic. To meet organizational demands and stay in power, organizational leaders tend to act in antidemocratic ways. Michels sees the masses as disorganized and incapable of collective action unless led by an activist minority. Originally published in German in 1911.
Find this resource:
Mosca, Gaetano. 1939. The ruling class. London: McGraw-Hill.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Suggests that the “ruling class” is almost uniform in its interest, as such uniformity is required for a minority that rules a majority. Looking across a range of time periods, Mosca finds that there is nothing hereditary or natural about elite rule. Instead, Mosca identifies the superior organization of this minority as the key to explaining its elite position. Originally published in Italian in 1896.
Find this resource:
Pareto, Vilfredo. 1935. The mind and society: A treatise on general sociology. New York: Harcourt, Brace.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
English translation of Trattato di Sociologia Generale, first published in 1916. Pareto argues that people are unequal in their qualities. The group that is more gifted than others is the elite. From this Pareto developed the idea of the “circulation of elites.” In healthy societies, elite status is not inherited or protected through social institutions. Instead, new members join the elite because they are the most talented. Those elites who lack talents should lose their status.
Find this resource:
Veblen, Thornstein. 1994. The theory of the leisure class. New York: Penguin.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
In warring tribes, the winners would make the losers perform degrading, difficult tasks. Though these jobs were more socially productive than those performed by the rulers, higher-status groups began to be valued for their lack of social activity. Elites are a “leisure class.” Coining the term conspicuous consumption, Veblen argues that elites do little to advance the economy or the social welfare and instead define themselves by their leisure and consumption. Originally published in 1899.
Find this resource:
Resources
Resources provide power. It is the control over or access to such resources that helps make elites elites. The kinds of resources vary, with different elites being more closely allied with different kinds of resources. The “conversion rate” of resources (e.g., the capacity to convert economic power into political power) similarly varies. In general, the more resources that an elite controls or can access, the more powerful the elite is. The variety of resources that provides power points to the ways in which there is often not “an elite” but instead various elites within interests that are in increasingly relative power to the resources with which they are mostly closely aligned. The five resources most consistently addressed by elite theorists are Political, Economic, Cultural, Social (Networks), and Knowledge.
Political
Political studies of elites both reflect on the historical position (Barkey 2008, Moore 1966), interests (Adams 2003, Winters 2011), and actions (Lachmann 2009) of the politically powerful and think about how elites have been able to sustain their influence within more-democratic political institutions (Bartels 2008, Bendix 1980, Parenti 2002). The literature has also emphasized the possibility of a “governing class” without a “ruling class” (Giddens 1973).
Adams, Julia. 2003. Culture in rational-choice theories of state formation. In State/culture: State-formation after the cultural turn. Edited by George Steinmetz, 98–122. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Adams argues for the importance of culture when explaining elite activity. She finds that political elites, as male heads of the family, become lineally identified with intergenerational privilege and thereby invest those sentiments in particular political arrangements. This commitment to patrimonial practices is imbibed with a kind of emotional attachment and makes elites often resistant to change, even if it is advantageous.
Find this resource:
Barkey, Karen. 2008. Empire of difference: The Ottomans in comparative perspective. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.
DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511790645Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Barkey explores how the Ottoman Empire endured for centuries. Using the idea of a “negotiated empire,” she argues that, among other things, the cooperation of their diverse elites was responsible for the longevity of the Ottomans. This suggests that flexible, negotiating elites (rather than those fixed to enduring preferences) are far more robust and stable.
Find this resource:
Bartels, Larry. 2008. Unequal democracy: The political economy of the gilded age. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Bartels explores the political foundations of the increasing income gap. He emphasizes how political decisions help produce inequalities: increasing inequality is the result of political decisions. These decisions help produce inequality because elected officials tend to be keenly aware of and responsive to the interests of the wealthy and often ignore those of poorer citizens. Elite interests are overrepresented in political institutions, even within strong democracies.
Find this resource:
Bendix, Reinhard. 1980. Kings or people: Power and the mandate to rule. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Bendix explores modes of state authority and what political and cultural institutions allowed for the dominance of royal authority and the development of “the will of the people.” Pathways are contingent on the historical-cultural context of particular nations. With his emphasis on power, authority, and the mandate to rule, Bendix emphasizes how the few rule the many, even under “the will of the people.”
Find this resource:
Giddens, Anthony. 1973. The class structure of advanced societies. New York: Harper.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Giddens maintains that “there can exist a ‘governing class’ without . . . being a ‘ruling class,’ . . . a ‘power elite’ without there necessarily being . . . a ‘ruling’ or a ‘governing class,’ . . . and that all of these social formations are . . . compatible with the existence of a society which is ‘capitalist’ in its organization.” The analysis points to the flexibility of capitalism for bearing different kinds of power formations.
Find this resource:
Lachmann, Richard. 2009. Greed and contingency: State fiscal crises and imperial failure in early modern Europe. American Journal of Sociology 115.1: 39–73.
DOI: 10.1086/597793Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Explains how elite self-dealing weakened the European great powers and blocked reform (except in Britain), leading to the loss of colonies and of the ability to make investments necessary to retain economic leadership. This work emphasizes the negative impacts of internal elite conflicts. Available online for purchase or by subscription.
Find this resource:
Moore, Barrington. 1966. Social origins of dictatorship and democracy: Lord and peasant in the making of the modern world. Boston: Beacon.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Moore’s work argues that there were multiple “routes” to modernity: capitalist democracy, achieved by bourgeoisie revolution; fascism, achieved by “revolution from above”; and communism, achieved by peasant rebellion. Elites play a central role in the pathways to democracy and capitalism. He envisions a limited role of elites in the pathway to communism—something challenged by later thinkers.
Find this resource:
Parenti, Michael. 2002. Democracy for the few. Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
In this textbook, Parenti challenges the pluralist school by outlining the tensions between political and economic systems. Parenti argues that democracy is incongruous with capitalism and that capitalism consistently violates the principles of democracy. Elites seem to rule consistently. However, Parenti argues that democracy is an incredibly robust social form and that democracy consistently fights back and makes gains against the dominant elite.
Find this resource:
Winters, Jeffrey A. 2011. Oligarchy. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Winters argues that oligarchy and democracy can and do coexist. Oligarchy should not be seen as a form of the polity but rather as different modes of wealth defense by oligarchs. For this reason, oligarchy is not displaced by democracy but rather is fused with it. Moreover, the rule-of-law problem in many societies is a matter of taming oligarchs.
Find this resource:
Economic
The study of economic elites is part of the study of stratification. This literature sits at the intersection of economics and sociology. Increasingly, the focus of this literature is on how increases in inequality are explained not by the declining incomes of the poor but instead by the increasing wealth (Spilerman 2000, Wolff 1998) and incomes of the rich (Piketty and Saez 2006). The income and wealth share of the top 0.1 percent increased dramatically from 1972 to 2010 (Keister 2000). In addition to the distribution of wealth, scholars have also focused on the overall levels of mobility—both inter- and intragenerationally (Conley 1999, Mazumder 2005). This work has shown that as inequality increases, mobility tends to decrease. In short, this literature shows that elites have become relatively better off and somewhat more static since the early 1970s.
Conley, Dalton. 1999. Being Black, living in the red: Race, wealth,and social policy in America. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Conley argues for the importance of property accumulation to social well-being. While scholars have often focused on income, schooling, and family structure when making sense of racial disparities, Conley points to a longer legacy of different wealth assets resulting in differential accumulation of economic inequalities over time.
Find this resource:
Keister, Lisa. 2000. Wealth in America: Trends in wealth inequality. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.
DOI: 10.1017/CBO9780511625503Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Keister argues that social scientists have been too concerned with income and mobility and have ignored one of the most central factors of inequality: wealth. Expanding on Wolff’s analysis, Keister draws on data from 1962 to 1995 to show an increasing concentration of wealth. She documents an increasing polarization, with the few controlling the lion’s share of the national wealth, while most Americans have almost none.
Find this resource:
Mazumder, Bhashkar. 2005. Fortunate sons: New estimates of intergenerational mobility in the United States using Social Security data. The Review of Economics and Statistics 87.2: 235–255.
DOI: 10.1162/0034653053970249Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Using Social Security earnings data, Mazumder finds that previous estimates of intergenerational mobility have been biased down. He argues that the intergenerational elasticity of earnings is around 0.6 (60%). This means that children strongly inherit the economic situation of their parents, and that wealth and poverty are highly heritable. This also suggests a relative stagnation among the elite. Available online for purchase or by subscription.
Find this resource:
Piketty, Thomas, and Emmanuel Saez. 2006. The evolution of top incomes: A historical and international perspective. The American Economic Review 96.2: 200–205.
DOI: 10.1257/000282806777212116Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Piketty and Saez demonstrate that increases in income have become increasingly concentrated in the United States. They show that levels of income inequality are returning to the levels last seen around 1913 to 1937. The tremendous concentration of income increases among the top 1 percent and 0.1 percent marks the ways in which the economic elite have seized a greater share of the national wealth. Available online for purchase or by subscription.
Find this resource:
Spilerman, Seymour. 2000. Wealth and stratification processes. Annual Review of Sociology 26:497–524.
DOI: 10.1146/annurev.soc.26.1.497Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Spilerman reviews the wealth literature and argues for the importance of considering wealth when making sense of stratification processes. Arguing that stratification research has often focused on the individual instead of the family, Spilerman demonstrates the importance of wealth and unearned income to stratification processes. Spilerman notes the increasing polarization of wealth and the large impact such family assets have on life chances. Available online for purchase or by subscription.
Find this resource:
Wolff, Edward. 1998. Recent trends in the size distribution of household wealth. The Journal of Economic Perspectives 12.3: 131–150.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Wolff chronicles the concentration of household wealth in the United States. He finds that the distribution of wealth became much more unequal through the 1980s and continued through the 1990s, albeit at a lesser rate. In an international context, Wolff further notes that the United States is an outlier in just how concentrated wealth is. Wolff’s findings show how elites have concentrated their economic advantages.
Find this resource:
Cultural
Particularly inspired by French social thought, scholars have emphasized the ways in which cultural dispositions serve as markers of elite status (Daloz 2009) and thereby mechanisms that signal belonging within a social group. Culture does not just reflect but helps produce inequalities (DiMaggio and Mohr 1985), and elites have been shown to use culture both to help constitute their own identities (Fleming and Roses 2007) and, through such boundary drawing (Lamont 1994), to exclude others (Levine 1990). In particular, cultural studies of elites have emphasized a shift in elite cultural tastes from “snob” to “omnivore” (Bryson 1996, Peterson and Kern 1996). This shift still serves to mark elites as distinct in their tastes but does so in a way that suggests that they are not as exclusive (or exclusionary) as they once were. As such, cultural distinctions are seen as being adaptive to transformations in social climates (Ostrower 2004).
Bryson, Bethany. 1996. “Anything but heavy metal”: Symbolic exclusion and musical dislikes. American Sociological Review 61.5: 884–899.
DOI: 10.2307/2096459Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Bryson argues, contra Bourdieu, that in the United States, musical exclusiveness decreases with education. Drawing on Peterson and Kern’s “omnivorousness” thesis and Lamont’s work on symbolic boundaries, Bryson argues that people use cultural taste to reinforce symbolic boundaries between themselves and categories of people they dislike.
Find this resource:
Daloz, Jean-Pascal. 2009. The sociology of elite distinction: From theoretical to comparative perspectives. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
DOI: 10.1057/9780230246836Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Daloz examines how dominant groups express and display their sense of superiority through material and aesthetic attributes. Rather than a particular argument, Daloz outlines the variety of theoretical approaches to distinction, suggests their strengths and weaknesses, and evaluates them in a comparative context (both transnational and historical).
Find this resource:
DiMaggio, Paul, and John Mohr. 1985. Cultural capital, educational attainment, and marital selection. American Journal of Sociology 90.6: 1231–1261.
DOI: 10.1086/228209Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
DiMaggio and Mohr add the importance of cultural capital to life chances (in addition to “class” and “status”). They find that cultural capital has significant effects on educational attainment, college attendance, college completion, graduate attendance, and marital selection. Their work helps establish the importance of cultural factors as not just an outcome of elite status but as an explanation for it. Available online for purchase or by subscription.
Find this resource:
Fleming, Crystal M., and Lorraine E. Roses. 2007. Black cultural capitalists: African-American elites and the organization of the arts in early twentieth century Boston. Poetics 35.6: 368–387.
DOI: 10.1016/j.poetic.2007.09.003Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Using archival data, Fleming and Roses argue that Boston’s black Brahmins often mirrored the organizational practices and aesthetic sensibilities of Boston’s Anglo-American cultural leaders. During a period of widespread and explicit discrimination, Fleming and Roses argue that Black elites’ mirroring of White elites’ tastes helped them with their project of “cultural uplift” while nonetheless reifying racial divisions. Available online for purchase.
Find this resource:
Lamont, Michele. 1994. Money, morals, manners: Culture of the French and the American upper-middle class. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Through interviews with upper-middle-class professionals, managers, and experts, Lamont shows how elites create symbolic distinctions between themselves and others in society. A cross-national comparison of France and the United States, Lamont demonstrates the importance of symbolic boundaries to elites.
Find this resource:
Levine, Lawrence. 1990. Highbrow / lowbrow: The emergence of cultural hierarchy in America. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Levine argues that, through much of the 19th century, there were few differences in the cultural tastes of elites and the masses. However, during the gilded age the rise of class and ethnic anxiety led elites to make greater cultural distinctions between themselves and others. They began to claim opera, classical music, art, and certain kinds of theater and literature.
Find this resource:
Ostrower, Francie. 2004. Trustees of culture: Power, wealth, and status on elite arts boards. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Ostrower interviews the trustees of four major cultural institutions to better understand the relationship between culture and power. Ostrower shows the ways in which elites seek to maintain the exclusive character of their board and thereby help maintain their status, all the while negotiating the demands of artistic institutions that are supposed to be increasingly diverse and open.
Find this resource:
Peterson, Richard A., and Roger M. Kern. 1996. Changing highbrow taste: From snob to omnivore. American Sociological Review 61.5: 900–907.
DOI: 10.2307/2096460Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Peterson and Kern use surveys to explore the cultural (musical) tastes of wealthy individuals. They find that there has been a qualitative shift in elite status. Rather than being “snobs” who like only particular kinds of music and thereby seek to exclude others, Peterson and Kern argue that elites are increasingly omnivorous, appropriating culture from lower-status groups.
Find this resource:
Social (Networks)
The study of social capital emphasizes two basic points: (a) connections matter and (b) the structure of network ties is important for understanding elites. The first observation builds on the basic sociological insight that others serve as resources, which can be either an advantage or a disadvantage to others (Lindsay 2007). Such ties help provide access, can create information asymmetries, and work to limit the mobility of others (Brandeis 1914, Lenin 2010). The structure of networks builds on these micro-level insights, drawing out a more macro-level set of observations and thereby arguing for the importance of elite networks to understanding major macro-developments such as capitalism (Padgett and McLean 2006). Looking at contemporary cases, elite scholars have emphasized the importance of interlocking networks of corporate boards (Mizruchi 1982), though this position has been subject to critiques (Fligstein and Brantley 1992). The basic insight of these literatures is that ties and network structure often work to solidify or codify the elite (Burris 2005, Padgett and Ansell 1993, Useem 1984), creating moats and fences around resources through interpersonal networks.
Brandeis, Louis. 1914. Other people’s money and how the bankers use it. New York: Stokes.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Brandeis found that bankers would most often invest in companies and manufacturers whose boards they sat on. These large companies then used this investment to stifle competition (small business), thereby limiting innovation, competition, and growth. This was possible because a small group of elites sat on boards together, and, cabal like, acted on their coordinated interests.
Find this resource:
Burris, Val. 2005. Interlocking directorates and political cohesion among corporate elites. American Journal of Sociology 111.1: 249–283.
DOI: 10.1086/428817Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Using campaign contribution data, Burris evaluates how political cohesion emerges. He argues that instead of emerging around shared industry or geographic interest, such cohesion seems to be best explained by the social ties formed through common membership on corporate boards. This suggests that social networks are central to political cohesion among business elites. Available online for purchase or by subscription.
Find this resource:
Fligstein, Neil, and Peter Brantley. 1992. Bank control, owner control, or organizational dynamics: Who controls the modern corporation? American Journal of Sociology 98.2: 280–307.
DOI: 10.1086/230009Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Challenges the view that the interests of bankers, owners, or interlocking boards determine the actions of the American corporation. Instead, power relations in the firm, conceptualizations of control, organizational structure, and the action of competitors determine the actions of firms. This work challenges elite theories of corporate interlocks and “power elite” and instead suggests the comparative strength of economic sociology. Available online for purchase or by subscription.
Find this resource:
Lenin, V. I. 2010. Imperialism: The highest stage of capitalism. New York: Penguin.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Lenin argues that intertwining banks and industrial cartels led to the development of the most advanced form of capitalism: finance. This created interlocked elites (banks and industry), who used monopolies to consolidate their power. As the limits of consumption are soon reached, capital is expanded and exported, leading to a kind of imperialist colonialism. Originally published in 1917.
Find this resource:
Lindsay, Michael D. 2007. Faith in the halls of power. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Lindsay interviews hundreds of evangelical elites to explore the relationship between moral vision and public action. Lindsay outlines how American evangelicals rose to prominence and how they seek to achieve their goals—to bring Christian principles to bear on virtually every aspect of American life. Lindsay emphasizes the importance of interpersonal relationships among this group, to both their power and their decision making.
Find this resource:
Mizruchi, Mark. 1982. The American corporate network: 1904–1974. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Mizruchi provides a portrait of the interlocking directorates of corporations in the United States. This work expands on and amends the arguments found in Brandeis and Lenin. For a broader review of the literature on such interlocking boards of directors, see Mizruchi’s “What Do Interlocks Do?” (Annual Review of Sociology 22 [1996]:271–298).
Find this resource:
Padgett, John F., and Christopher K. Ansell. 1993. Robust action and the rise of the Medici, 1400–1434. American Journal of Sociology 98.6: 1259–1319.
DOI: 10.1086/230190Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Asks what explains the birth of the “Renaissance state” in Florence and the elite consolidation of the Medicis. The authors argue that Medicean political control was ultimately produced by network structure. They outline a largely nonintentional but highly consequential network structure (emerging out of the practical relations of people’s everyday lives) that was essential to early modern state formation. Available online for purchase or by subscription.
Find this resource:
Padgett, John F., and Paul McLean. 2006. Organizational invention and elite transformation: The birth of partnership systems in Renaissance Florence. American Journal of Sociology 111.5: 1463–1568.
DOI: 10.1086/498470Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Padgett and McLean argue for the importance of elite social-network responses to class revolts to understand invention and innovation. As cambio bankers transformed their purpose and reach, these bankers were “absorbed” into political winners through marriage, thus creating partnerships (based in money and dowries). Elite networks are central to the development of finance capitalism. Available online for purchase or by subscription.
Find this resource:
Useem, Michael. 1984. The inner circle: Large corporations and the rise of business political activity in the U.S. and U.K. New York: Oxford Univ. Press.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Useem argues that as profits declined and regulation increased, business leaders adapted a new network form. Creating solidaristic ties with one another, business elites began not simply competing with one another but coordinating their activity. Useem describes an “inner circle” of business leaders who use this network to advise the U.S. and U.K. governments and guide them toward decisions that are favorable to the interests of large corporations.
Find this resource:
Knowledge
Ideas, knowledge, and ideology are seen as central to the maintenance of the elite. In some instances, these are presented as “tricking” non-elite classes into supporting elite interests (Gramsci 1971, Sartori 1969). In others, the construction of a shared point of view (and thereby, a coordination of interests) is shown to be central to helping constitute an elite class and consolidating their interests in ways that limit internal contention. Building on the more reflexive turn in French scholarship, some work has also increasingly emphasized the role of intellectuals in helping support the elite and even becoming members of the elite themselves (Eyal, et al. 2000; Gouldner 1979; Putnam 1976). Some scholarship has also focused on how knowledge elites are produced (Zuckerman 1977) and the logics they employ in their decisions (Lamont 2009).
Eyal, Gil, Iván Szelényi, and Eleanor Townsley. 2000. Making capitalism without capitalists: The new ruling elites in Eastern Europe. London: Verso.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Exploring a transition to capitalism from socialism, Eyal, et al. identify how the breakdown in 1989 was led by the former technocratic faction of the communist rulers. These technocrats were successful only after they made considerable concessions to dissident intellectuals. Both these elite groups built the foundation of capitalism out of socialism: one using organizational capacity and the other serving as the basis of new knowledge.
Find this resource:
Gouldner, Alvin. 1979. Future of intellectuals and the rise of a new class. New York: Continuum.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Gouldner argues that intellectuals are emerging as a distinct “new class.” He argues that the bourgeoisie are declining and the proletariat are unlikely to be the inheritors of social power. Instead, intellectuals are taking power through ideology, social knowledge, the favoring of cultural capital, and professionalism. Through institutions such as schools and through professions, intellectuals are making their interests more central and consolidating their social power.
Find this resource:
Gramsci, Antonio. 1971. Selections from the prison notebooks. New York: International.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Rather than rule by force, the dominant classes often use cultural knowledge. Hegemonic elites subsume the interests of the dominated under their own interests or persuade the dominated to share or adopt the values of the dominant. The many are ruled by the few through consent insofar as their interests and values are aligned with bourgeois values.
Find this resource:
Lamont, Michéle. 2009. How professors think: Inside the curious world of academic judgment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Through ethnographic and interview work on academic boards, Lamont explores the epistemic culture of the academic elite. She outlines the processes of academic decision making and evaluation. Lamont argues that elite academics do not simply rely on their interests but also what they view as culturally valuable when making judgments. She points to the emotional, social, and cultural bases of knowledge and judgment.
Find this resource:
Putnam, Robert. 1976. The comparative study of political elites. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
The development of technical and administrative knowledge by specialist groups can usurp the democratic process. Knowledge specialists understand a complicated system and can thereby influence decisions. Putnam argues, “If the dominant figures of the past hundred years have been the entrepreneur, the businessman, and the industrial executive, the ‘new men’ are the scientists, the mathematicians, the economists, and the engineers of the new intellectual technology.”
Find this resource:
Sartori, Giovani. 1969. Politics, ideology and belief systems. American Political Science Review 63.2: 398–411.
DOI: 10.2307/1954696Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Elites use ideology to manipulate the masses into particular political mobilizations. Sartori argues that “ideologies are the crucial lever at the disposal of elites for obtaining political mobilization and for maximizing the possibilities of mass manipulation” (p. 411). Ideology is the key tool of elites for doing mass politics.
Find this resource:
Zuckerman, Harriet. 1977. Scientific elite: Nobel laureates in the United States. New York: Free Press.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Zuckerman studies every American Nobel laureate from 1907 to 1972. She traces their career trajectories from their earliest work to their lives after winning the Nobel. Zuckerman finds that laureates are increasingly and disproportionately rewarded, resulting in growing disparities between elite and other scientists. The result is a sharply articulated stratification system, wherein award-winning knowledge producers enjoy disproportionate power and rewards.
Find this resource:
Interlocking Resources and the Power Elite
This area of research builds on the classic statement by Mills and builds on the idea of elites as an interlocking social network. At its core, theories of the power elite combine class theory with organizational theory (Domhoff 1979). The view of the power elite is that a small group of people serve as an almost ruling cabal—that their power extends beyond one particular resource into others. In some instances this power elite is seen as a heavily overlapping group; in others, scholars have argued that this elite need not be the same people—they simply share a set of interests and thereby act in fairly consistent ways (Domhoff 1978, Schwartz 1987). The notion of a power elite has been subject to some significant challenges, particularly in the political science literature, which has emphasized pluralism over power (Dahl 1961; Lerner, et al. 1996).
Dahl, Robert. 1961. Who governs? Democracy and power in an American city. Yale studies in political science 4. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
A classic challenge to the idea of the power elite, suggesting that there isn’t a ruling power elite but a governing body that adjudicates between competing interests. Using data on political power and representation from New Haven, Connecticut, Dahl argues for “pluralism,” whereby many interest groups compete in the political sphere and the government mediates between them.
Find this resource:
Domhoff, William G. 1978. Who really rules? New Haven and community power reexamined. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Domhoff, skeptical of Dahl’s observations, uses Dahl’s own notes and interview data (which Dahl provided). Domhoff argues that Dahl missed many of the critical ways in which businessmen achieve their power. Rather than a story of urban renewal in New Haven (which Dahl tells), Domhoff argues that businesses used such processes to expel the poor and make room for business.
Find this resource:
Domhoff, William G. 1979. The powers that be: Processes of ruling-class domination in America. New York: Random.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
The “upper class” has distinct institutions, lifestyles, and outlooks. They are mostly businessmen and lawyers. Yet, as a class they are not limited to the economic realm. Instead, they use their wealth and their shared interests (developed in exclusive clubs and schools) to control the polity and construct institutional logics that will favor them, even when they do not exert their power.
Find this resource:
Lerner, Robert, Althea Nagai, and Stanley Rothman. 1996. American elites. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Lerner, et al. use survey data to evaluate and challenge the findings of theories of a power elite. They provide a portrait of American leaders—judges, executives, generals, cultural producers—to argue that rather than having overlapping interests, elites are marked by competing interests. Elites do not have a single point of view but often hold complex and contradictory world views.
Find this resource:
Schwartz, Michael, ed. 1987. The structure of power in America: The corporate elite as a ruling class. London: Holmes & Meier.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
A collection of essays examines interlocking boards, business control of banks, the government as an agent of the ruling class, the “capture” of regulatory agencies by those they were supposed to regulate, and deep power of a corporate “inner group.” The volume also focuses on the expression of business interest in educational systems, transportation policy, urban investment, and academic political theory.
Find this resource:
Institutions
The study of elites often emphasizes how social institutions play a central role in the (re)production of elites. Rather than the inheritance of titles, today elites often navigate social institutions that help give them credential. This is not to say that family inheritance is no longer important. Indeed, many scholars have focused on the family as a social institution that has adapted to the changing character of elites. Similarly, building on the literature emphasizing the importance of social networks, scholars have focused on how social clubs have helped consolidate the ruling class. Finally, and most importantly, the educational system is seen as one of the central mechanisms for training the future elite.
Clubs
Building on the observations of the social capital literature, scholars have noted how social institutions such as clubs have served both to constitute an elite and exclude people from social power (Domhoff 1974). Such clubs typically emerge during moments of threat. When economic mobility increases, or when “new men” seem increasingly able to join or even surpass the richer families of the age, social institutions such as clubs emerge or gain prominence, thereby helping to create forms of protection from the rising, threatening mobility of the new rich (Beckert 2003). Through clubs the new rich can be sanctioned, excluded from opportunities, or manipulated into coordinating their interests within an older elite (Baltzell 1989).
Baltzell, Digby E. 1989. Philadelphia gentlemen: The making of a national upper class. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Baltzell argues that the United States is marked by a “business aristorcracy,” wherein colonial Protestants expanded beyond their personal family ties to create institutions such as boarding schools, Ivy League colleges, and clubs. This created an upper class founded in family, mediated through institutions, and ruled by a shared culture. Originally published in 1958.
Find this resource:
Beckert, Sven. 2003. Monied metropolis: New York City and the consolidation of the American bourgeoisie, 1850–1896. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
The consolidation of New York’s economic elites helped create a class with shared interests. These elites were from two groups with different interests—the older families of aristocrats and the new merchants. Yet, through the foundation of clubs, cultural institutions, and intermarriages, these two groups developed shared interests (allying themselves against the lower classes) and consolidated their economic power.
Find this resource:
Domhoff, William G. 1974. Bohemian Grove and other retreats: A study in ruling-class cohesiveness. New York: Harper & Row.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Domhoff studies Bohemian Grove and other retreats that the upper-class elite attend. Domhoff largely ignores the bizarre rituals undertaken at such retreats and instead focuses on how such retreats work to create a more cohesive upper class. This unification of the upper class leads Domhoff to argue that social retreats and clubs such as Bohemian Grove help make the upper class a ruling class (thereby arguing against Dahl).
Find this resource:
Families
Some of the research on corporate interlocks has extended beyond the boardroom into the bedroom. Beginning with the work of Baltzell 1987, scholars have noted some of the more aristocratic features of the American elite (Aldrich 1997, Marcus and Hall 1992), particularly how patterns of intermarriage have allowed for degrees of social closure. Scholars of the minority elite population have noted how these elites (Black and Jewish, in particular) have mirrored this familial consolidation (Birmingham 1967, Graham 1999). Further, building on the cultural literature, scholars have noted the ways in which the family is a key institution not simply for the consolidation of social ties but also for the transfer of cultural traits (Beisel 1998, Lareau 2003). In the historical aspect, scholars have emphasized how elite family structure has been central to state building (Adams 2007) and mobility (Padgett 2010).
Adams, Julia. 2007. The familial state: Ruling families and merchant capitalism in early modern Europe. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
“I expect patrimonial elites to struggle to maintain family footholds, even if alternative, more resource-rich opportunities presented themselves” (Adams 2003, p. 114; see Political). Adams argues that patrimonial practices are not always inefficient and that they can serve the purposes of state building. They did this by creating organizational nodes that have the capacity for institution building through the generating robust interpersonal ties from within these nodes.
Find this resource:
Aldrich, Nelson W. Jr. 1997. Old money: The mythology of America’s upper class. New York: Allworth.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Aldrich, scion of the Rockefeller family, interviews his family and other families like the Vanderbilts, Roosevelts, and Kennedys to understand the culture, values, and meaning of inherited wealth. Providing a glimpse into lives that few have access to, Aldrich explores views on family, education, gender, culture, aesthetics, and the meaning of wealth and success.
Find this resource:
Baltzell, Edward Digby. 1987. The Protestant establishment: Aristocracy and caste in America. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Baltzell argues that the upper class is decreasingly an aristocracy that rules and increasingly a caste. As a caste they are closed, privileged, and losing their influence over national life. Baltzell asks what the purpose and fate of an Anglo-Saxon upper class is in an increasingly diverse democracy. Baltzell does not lament the loss of an aristocratic class but asks about the future of American leadership.
Find this resource:
Beisel, Nicola. 1998. Imperiled innocents: Anthony Comstock and family reproduction in Victorian America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
The aim of the capitalist in the late 19th century was not to accumulate as much capital as possible but to establish a family embraced by the socially elect. To make it into high society, one had to be rich, but a family maintained its position by participating in social activities that further cemented ties within the social circle.
Find this resource:
Birmingham, Stephen. 1967. Our crowd: The great Jewish families of New York. New York: Harper & Row.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Birmingham traces the experiences of wealthy German-Jewish families in New York. Not all came from banking, and not all began in New York. Birmingham gives accounts of how this marginalized population often embraced its “German-ness” over its Jewishness and how a group of families were able to quickly join New York’s growing financial elite.
Find this resource:
Graham, Lawrence Otis. 1999. Our kind of people: Inside America’s Black upper class. New York: HarperCollins.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Graham focuses on the often-neglected Black upper class, tracing this group back to some of the first Black millionaires in the 1870s. Rather than focus on Black celebrities, Graham focuses on elite families and the institutions (school, fraternities, and other social clubs) they belong to, the places they summer (Martha’s Vineyard), and the many ways in which they mirror the White elite.
Find this resource:
Lareau, Annette. 2003. Unequal childhoods: Class, race, and family life. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Lareau demonstrates the importance of families to the development of cultural traits, emphasizing how different forms of upbringing produce different sensibilities that favor some children over others. It represents a relational approach.
Find this resource:
Marcus, George, and Peter Hall. 1992. Lives in trust: The fortunes of dynastic families in late twentieth-century America. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
A collected volume tells the lives—often salacious—of tremendously wealthy families such as the Gettys, Rockefellers, and Guggenheims. The focus of these family histories is a cultural approach that explores the impact and implication of wealth concentration in a few families on late-20th-century democracy.
Find this resource:
Padgett, John F. 2010. Open elite? Social mobility, marriage, and family in Florence, 1282–1494. Renaissance Quarterly 63:1–55.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
This historical study documents the coexistence of three distinct status systems in Florence, Italy, during the period from 1282 to 1494. The ambiguity created by the simultaneously operating status systems—based on wealth, political office, and family age—created opportunities for upward mobility for those previously outside of the elite.
Find this resource:
Schools
Schools are both the greatest source of mobility and the greatest gatekeeping institutions in industrialized societies. It does not matter if schools are free (as in France) or costly (as in the United States)—schooling is one of the best predictors of wages. The growth of and changes in national schooling have created some of the most fertile ground for the study of elites. On the one hand, gatekeeping schools have increased the levels of access to those who have previously been excluded (Espenshade and Radford 2009, Karabel 2005, Stevens 2007). On the other hand, schools are massive engines of inequality, often helping convert birthright into credentials and thereby obscuring some of the ways in which elites are reproduced (Bourdieu 1998, Useem and Karabel 1986). Given their “club-like” atmosphere and their strong ties to particular families, boarding schools have been central to the study of the elite formation in the United States (Cookson and Persell 1987, Khan 2011, Levine 1980, Zweigenhaft 1993).
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1998. The state nobility: Elite schools in the field of power. Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Bourdieu asks how, as society seems to be more meritocratic, the elite seem to be from the same families. Looking at French education (which is free and open to applications from all), Bourdieu notes how the logic of educational institutions corresponds to the orientations of the elite. Therefore a system that appears “fair” or meritocratic can systematically favor the elite.
Find this resource:
Cookson, Peter, and Caroline Hodges Persell. 1987. Preparing for power: America’s elite boarding schools. New York: Basic Books.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
An exploration of boarding schools using surveys, site visits, and interviews, Cookson and Persell argue that such schools are Goffmanian “total institutions,” heavily regulating their members. This serves to create “warriors for the elite class.” They emphasize the formation and consolidation of elite interests at schools.
Find this resource:
Espenshade, Thomas, and Alexandria Walton Radford. 2009. No longer separate, not yet equal: Race and class in elite college admission and campus life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
An analysis of the class, race, and gender backgrounds of elite college students. Espenshade and Radford argue that elite colleges have experienced significant demographic changes since the 1970s, but that the class composition of elite colleges is still very biased toward the already wealthy.
Find this resource:
Karabel, Jerome. 2005. The chosen: The hidden history of admission and exclusion at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Karabel provides a historical study of the admissions processes at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton. Finding that their constituent student body was changing during the early part of the 20th century—accepting more Jewish students and fewer White Anglo-Saxon Protestants (WASPs)—Karabel argues that schools developed new admissions criteria (the well-rounded individual) to help continue the advantages of the traditional White Protestant elite.
Find this resource:
Khan, Shamus Rahman. 2011. Privilege: The making of an adolescent elite at St. Paul’s School. Princeton Studies in Cultural Sociology. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
An analysis of an elite boarding school, Khan draws on Bourdieu to argue that elites have transformed from an ethic of enlightenment to an ethic of privilege. This means developing an embodied ease, where students learn to navigate hierarchies by treating them like ladders rather than ceilings.
Find this resource:
Levine, Steven. 1980. The rise of American boarding schools and the development of a national upper class. Social Problems 28.1: 63–94.
DOI: 10.1525/sp.1980.28.1.03a00050Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Boarding schools became popular because old, established families wanted institutions to define their own cultural identity and to isolate themselves from nouveaux riches industrialists and lower-class immigrants. These schools soon became places where the children of new wealth were brought together with those of the old families. The integration of both groups helped a small group retain control over America’s economy and state. Available online for purchase or by subscription.
Find this resource:
Stevens, Mitchell. 2007. Creating a class: College admissions and the education of elites. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
An ethnographic exploration of admissions processes at an elite liberal arts college. States that admissions offices must bring each class in on budget, heed the statistics crucial to college rankings, and take care of the athletic department and development office. Students have an edge if they pay full tuition, attend high schools with exotic zip codes, are athletes, and are popular.
Find this resource:
Useem, Michael, and Jerome Karabel. 1986. Pathways to top corporate management. American Sociological Review 51.2: 184–200.
DOI: 10.2307/2095515Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Argues that corporate ascent is strongly tied to a degree from an elite school, an upper-class background increases the likelihood of reaching the top of the corporate ladder, and the best predictors of top corporate status are a law degree from an elite school and being born to the upper class.
Find this resource:
Zweigenhaft, Richard. 1993. Prep school and public school graduates of Harvard: A longitudinal study of the accumulation of social and cultural capital. Journal of Higher Education 64.2: 211–225.
DOI: 10.2307/2960030Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Elite prep school students are among the least academically qualified upon entering school, they continue to underperform, and they are less likely to earn any professional degree except a law degree. They are also more likely to join social clubs. Elites are interested not in what schools might teach them but instead in the networking opportunities such schooling might afford. Available online for purchase or by subscription.
Find this resource:
Changes and the New Elite
As social institutions have opened and inequality has increased, many scholars have pointed to the ways in which a “new elite” has emerged. This idea of a new elite has two currents. First, scholars look within nations, emphasizing how national transformations have changed the conditions of possibility for the elite (Frank 2007). Some social commentators think of the new elite as bourgeois bohemians, emerging out of the rights movements of the 1960s (Brooks 2001), whereas others have reflected on an increasing diversity among the elite (Domhoff and Zweigenhaft 1999, Zweigenhaft and Domhoff 1991). The second current considers elites on a more international scale. Here the elite are thought of as a new “superclass.” As the economy globalizes, and as elites are increasingly distributed in the “rising” economies, scholars’ attention has moved away from the national boundaries of elites and has been drawn toward how elites are made in a more globalized world. These new elites are thought to have different properties and sensibilities than those in the more nationally focused context (Rothkopf 2009).
Brooks, David. 2001. Bobos in paradise: The new upper class and how they got there. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Rather than “well-bred” elites, we have, according to Brooks, an “elite based on brainpower.” Brooks argues that such an elite has transformed our lives not through politics and economics but through culture. The consumptive practices, lifestyle choices, education, and religious attitudes of this new group are a blend of popular culture and 1960s counterculture.
Find this resource:
Domhoff, William G., and Richard Zweigenhaft. 1999. Diversity in the power elite: Have women and minorities reached the top? New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
There has been a considerable opening up of corporations, the military, and the government to those previously excluded—women, Jews, Blacks, Latinos, Asians, and gays and lesbians. The authors critically evaluate how successful these new members of the power elite have been and find that trajectories into and within the power elite are still highly conditioned on fitting the mold of White men.
Find this resource:
Frank, Robert. 2007. Richistan: A journey through the American wealth boom and the lives of the new rich. New York: Crown.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Similar to Brooks 2001 but slightly more empirical, Frank provides a portrait of the growing rich in America. This group is growing in two ways: there are more of them, and they have much more money. Frank explores their world-views on topics such as consumption, philanthropy, work, politics, and emotions.
Find this resource:
Rothkopf, David. 2009. Superclass: The global power elite and the world they are making. New York: Farrar, Straus, and Giroux.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Argues that national-political power is on the decline. Though the “superclass” used to be made up of national leaders, international leaders (the pope), and a few families (Rothschilds and Rockefellers), today the super-rich are the new superclass. The nation-state is increasingly insignificant as these super-rich freely move their industries and influence across borders. This group is concentrating its power and influence.
Find this resource:
Zweigenhaft, Richard, and G. William Domhoff. 1991. Black in the White establishment? A study of race and class in America. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press.
Save Citation »Export Citation »E-mail Citation »
Interviews graduates of “A Better Chance,” a program initiated by elite boarding schools to help poor, minority urban children attend their schools. Provides a psychological portrait of these graduates and traces their careers through prep schools, prestigious colleges, and elite jobs. Notes the successes and reflects on the psychological impacts of elite institutions and the problems from what they identify as institutional racism.