Suchergebnisse

This HSR Special Issue assembles contributions on current topics of elite research. They deal in particular with the challenges globalization poses for the traditional linkages between citizens and their representatives and their impact on political legitimacy. We argue that these developments upset the balance between a broad elite consensus embracing universal values and citizens' fears that their representatives pay too little attention to their demands to fight the negative effects of globalization on the country. We develop a unified theory of representative elites by combining three theorems: The theorem of antagonistic cooperation, the principal-agent theorem and the challenge-response theorem. While the first explains how elite consensus ensures effective policy making, the second demands responsiveness to citizen demands, and the third implies that fundamental social and political changes produce strains for established intra-elite and elite-citizen relations.

This article argues that recent political changes in Bolivia, leading to the first indigenous president in the country's history being inaugurated in 2006, unsettled the traditional schemes of societal stratification, as well as the traditionally accepted markers of elite-hood. As a consequence, not only have new elites come to the fore, but they also modified the material, symbolic and political parameters with which elites demonstrate and affirm their position, leading to new searches for self-positioning as elites. Some sectors of the old elites developed an egoistic, revengeful subjectivity bringing bloodshed to the country. The new elite, on the contrary, is fragmented, confused and in part reluctant to perform as elite. © 2011 Brill.

Who are the members of the most powerful group in the Danish society? To answer this question, we explored the elite through two different methodological approaches. Using correspondence analysis, we charted the oppositions structuring two exclusive groups, the 100 most important Danish CEOs and the 1,527 elite individuals identified in the Danish Power and Democracy Study in 1999. Through social network analysis, we identified and explored the integration of a core of the power network in Denmark – the power elite - and the inner circle of the corporate elite. The importance of how the elite is defined or identified is discussed in relation with the most widely used method for the study of national elites. With the positional method the size and composition is defined as the data is constructed. We propose a new data sensitive method that identifies a cohesive elite with social network analysis. This lets us analyse the composition and like C.W. Mills identify the key institutional orders in Denmark.

Some people are used to saying something without understanding the meanings of a word or term. The term of "politik" is an example. People often read or hear or pronounce the word. However, how many of them are aware of its meaning? As a primitive term, such a world is in the scientific realm. Therefore, this article is designed to reflect and constantly invites us back to basics before we involve ourselves in the play that will be a public watch of the world. Keywords: term, meaning, back to basics

Community-based development has been criticized for its inadequate understanding of power relationships at the local level, which thus leaves room for elite capture. This paper compares and contrasts two case studies, both of which take power seriously in their institutional designs. The solar home system in Bangladesh, represents the 'counter-elite' approach and explicitly excludes local elites from the decision-making process. The trans-boundary water governance project in Ghana, in contrast, adopts the 'co-opt-elite' approach and deliberately absorbs local elites into the water committee. This paper suggests that, while the - counter-elite - approach is not necessarily effective in challenging elite domination, because of the structural asset dependence of poor people on the elites, the 'co-opt-elite' approach risks legitimizing the authority of the elites and worsening poverty by implementing 'anti-poor' policies. This paper concludes that the success of dealing with elite capture lies in the flexible use of the 'counter-elite' and 'co-opt-elite' approaches together with the need to secure alternative livelihoods and to achieve empowerment with the poor.

This article compares digital arenas such as Twitter with the principles prescribed by the bourgeois public sphere, to examine how close or far these arenas are from Habermas' original concept. By focusing on one of the criteria, the current influence of elites on political debate, it discusses the Habermasian principles of general accessibility and non-dominance of the elites as prerequisites for a functioning public sphere. This study finds that even though there are few access restrictions on Twitter and despite the fact that no one, in principle, is excluded from the platform, there is no apparent elimination of privileges and the elites maintain their elite status within its borders. Methodologically, the article relies on empirical research of hashtagged exchanges on Twitter during the General Elections in the United Kingdom in 2015. Through the mapping of Twitter as a synthesis of dialogic arenas, it explores the elite-focused discourse and the vocal actors in the stream, underscoring that the presence of the elites, even in an indirect way. Drawing on these elements, the article argues for a reconceptualization of the normative perception of the public sphere, suggesting the notion of exclusion is a complex issue that includes expanding notions of publics to also include those topics being discussed. Finally, it focuses on the significance of journalism in relation to political dialogue and argues that the move towards less elite-centered arenas largely depends on journalism.

Der Beitrag geht von der modernisierungstheoretischen Annahme aus, dass die Konzepte der funktionalen Differenzierung und der sozialen Ungleichheit die beiden grundlegenden Perspektiven darstellen, unter denen die Strukturen moderner Gesellschaften analysiert werden können. Ein Systemvergleich zeigt für die Umbruchsphase 1989-1992, dass im Falle der Gesellschaften sowjetischen Typs für beide Strukturdimensionen keine eindeutige Diskussionslage zu registrieren ist. Die vorliegende Analyse der herrschenden Eliten zeigt weiterhin, dass die Zusammenbruchsdynamik staatssozialistischer Gesellschaften herrschaftssoziologisch zwei grundlegende Wandlungsprozesse beinhaltet: Den wachsenden Verlust der Fähigkeit des Parteistaates, bei den eigenen Funktionären Legitimitätsglauben, Gehorsam und Disziplin durchsetzen zu können. Und den Niedergang der Fähigkeit der Funktionäre des Parteistaates, von den machtunterworfenen Bevölkerungen in allen Bereichen des gesellschaftlichen Lebens Motivation und Disziplin beim lange zur Phrase degenerierten 'sozialistischen Aufbau' zu verlangen. Weiterhin wird deutlich, warum die Ereignisse 1989-91 nicht das Schicksal der Ereignisse von 1953 (DDR), 1956 (Ungarn, Polen), 1968 (Tschechoslowakei) oder 1980 (Polen) teilten. Erst wenn sich die herrschenden Strukturen einer Gesellschaft in einem klaren Stadium des Niedergangs oder Zerfalls befinden, können politische Mobilisierungsprozesse wie die von 1989 in den Zusammenbruch ganzer gesellschaftlicher Systeme einmünden. ; This article draws on some central theoretical aspects of contemporary historical and sociological research on the elite structures of Sowjet type societies. Firstly, specific features of the constitution and the recruitment of political and functionary elites in the political and civil system of the collapsed state socialist societies are investigated. In this context the concept of organisations elites will be emphasized. Secondly, the problem of the relationship between differentiation processes in society and social inequality is discussed by means of focussing on the 'elite problem'. Finally, this article reconstructs in broad contours the debates concerning processes of informalization and hybridization in state socialist societies in the light of the elite aspect.

Scholarly studies of elites and political elites have a vibrant recent history. My aim here is to provide a selective summary of that history, focusing on the importance of social distinction and the theories of power structure as a theoretical background for understanding the influence of political elites in social change. Since new insights and concerns have emerged in this field, the organization of this essay is not entirely chronological. Even though I may have ignored many relevant contributions, my hope here is to provide some sense of the richness and significance of what have been accomplished by scholars regarding the relationship among elites and representation, the links between elites, democracy and social change and the theories of power structure. In this paper I also study the extent to which the introduction of a new research method by Domhoffian class domination theory opened a new insight in élite studies. Finally, an élite research strategy and two main conclusions are presented subsequently. ; Los estudios académicos acerca de las élites políticas poseen una vibrante historia reciente. El objetivo aquí es proveer un resumen selectivo de esa historia, enfocándose en la importancia de la distinción social y en las teorías de la estructura de poder como el marco teórico para comprender la influencia de las élites políticas en el cambio social. Dado que nuevas perspectivas y preocupaciones han surgido en este campo, la organización de este artículo no es completamente cronológica. Aunque puedan haberse ignorado muchas contribuciones relevantes, la intención aquí es brindar algún sentido de la riqueza e importancia de lo que han logrado los académicos acerca de la relación entre élites y representación, los vínculos entre élites, democracia y cambio social y las teorías de la estructura de poder. En este artículo también se estudia hasta qué grado la introducción de una nueva metodología de investigación por parte de la teoría de la dominación de clase de Domhoff abrió una nueva perspectiva en ...

Las elites están presentes en todas las sociedades. Es discutible que sean indispensables pero es seguro que son inevitables. Vivamos donde vivamos, hay elites. Personas no necesariamente con habilidades superiores, pero sí en una posición que les otorga influencia sobre lo que valemos, sabemos, pensamos y hasta deseamos. El estudio de las elites es el estudio del poder, influencia, dominación, superioridad, clase alta y privilegio. Se las puede denominar elites, clase dirigente, clase gobernante, aristocracia, clase selecta, privilegiados o minoría selecta. Sea como fuere, el concepto de elite es usado para referirse a un reducido grupo de personas que ostentan un poder por encima del resto, y estos "seleccionados o elegidos" poseen virtudes, capacidades, méritos, recursos o formas de organización superior al resto. Puede que las elites de una sociedad no sean los mejores, ni hayan sido elegidos, que no sepan que mandan o no sean los más ricos, pero sus decisiones y acciones tienen repercusiones en varias órdenes de la vida. En el presente libro se entiende por elites a aquellas personas y organizaciones que tienen poder e influencia más allá de su sector directo de actuación, y cuyas acciones condicionan las orientaciones de la sociedad.

"Uns wurde immer gesagt, der Grund, warum unsere Demokratie nicht funktionieren und unser Land nicht vorankommen würde, sei darin zu suchen, dass die Armen nicht die richtigen Kandidaten wählen würden."Dauernd gibt es Beschwerden über die unteren Schichten in unserer Gesellschaft, die Filmstars, Prominente aus Radio und Fernsehen sowie traditionelle Politiker/innen wählen anstatt ehrliche und hochqualifizierte Kandidaten. Wenn wir diese Aussagen einmal genauer betrachten, stellen wir fest, dass sie alle aus den Reihen der Besserverdienenden kommen. Es sind entweder die Reichen selbst oder ihre Stellvertreter in den Medien, der Wirtschaft, den Schulen oder der Kirche.

This paper analyses the links of military elites to Freemasonry in El Salvador from 1931 to 1953. Military-led governments in the country were continuously in power for nearly 50 years of the 20th century. There is evidence showing that certain members of the military were active Freemasons. Some of them even became presidents of the Republic. In this paper, it will be possible to briefly observe the vision that some military Masons had of the events of their time, among them, the Second World War or the Spanish Civil War. ; El presente texto abordará de manera sucinta la vinculación de las élites militares y la masonería en El Salvador durante el período comprendido entre 1931 a 1953. Los gobiernos militares en el país fueron continuos durante casi 50 años en el siglo XX. Hay evidencias mostrando que ciertos militares fueron miembros activos de la masonería. Incluso, algunos de ellos llegaron a la presidencia de la República. En este trabajo también podrá observarse brevemente la visión que tenían algunos militares masones de los acontecimientos contemporáneos, entre ellos, la segunda guerra mundial o la guerra civil española.

I compare ancient with modern empires and show why hegemony beyond the militaryrealm is possible only in the modern capitalist world. I examine Germany, Spain and France, whichfailed to achieve hegemony, along with the three successive hegemons: the Netherlands, Britain,and the United States. I identify the elites that were created and strengthened by their homepolity's empire or hegemony, and enumerate the factors that allowed some colonial elites to achievehigh levels of autonomy. Colonial elite autonomy or high levels of elite unity in the metropoleprevented or undermined hegemony. ; Comparo imperios antiguos y modernos y muestro de qué forma la hegemonía además de la esfera militar es posible solamente en el mundo capitalista moderno. Analizo a Alemania, a España y a Francia, que fallaron en el alcance de la hegemonía, en comparación con tres poderes hegemónicos sucesivos: Holanda, Gran Bretaña y Estados Unidos. Identifico las elites que fueron creadas y reforzadas por regímenes imperiales o hegemónicos de sus países, y enumero factores que permitirán a algunas elites coloniales alcanzar elevados niveles de autonomía. La autonomía de ciertas elites coloniales o los niveles de elevados de unidad de las elites de las metrópolis impedirán o debilitarán la hegemonía. ; Cet article compare des empires anciens et modernes afin de montrer comment l'hégémonie au-delà de la sphère militaire n'est possible que dans un monde capitaliste moderne. Il analyse l'Allemagne, l'Espagne et la France qui ont échoué dans leur quête d'hégémonie, face à trois pouvoirs hégémoniques successifs : Hollande, Grande-Bretagne et États-Unis. Il identifie les élites qui ont été créées et renforcées par les régimes impériaux ou hégémoniques de leurs pays, tout en énumérant les facteurs qui ont permis à certaines élites coloniales d'atteindre des niveaux élevés d'autonomie. L'autonomie de certaines élites coloniales ou les niveaux élevés d'unité des élites des métropoles ont empêché ou affaibli l'hégémonie. ; Comparo impérios antigos e ...

Critiques of elites define populism, which conceives of power relations as a unified, conspiring elite exploiting the good people. Yet, populism itself is inherently elitist, calling for a strong leader to take power and channel the will of the people. Elite theory, surprisingly overlooked in scholarship on populism, can clarify this apparent paradox and elucidate the dimensions of populism and its risk of authoritarianism in new ways. In contrast to populist ideological conceptions of power relations in society, elite theory points to the possibility that several elites with diverging voices and interests exist. Furthermore, elite theorists argue that such elite pluralism is a necessary component of a well-functioning democracy. Much scholarship on populism, often aiming to understand its causes and focussing on Western Europe and North America, points to the similarities of populist movements. The focus on similarities strengthens the understanding of populism as a uniform phenomenon and populist elite critiques as homogeneous. However, broader comparative studies show that different populist movements target a range of various elite groups. Indeed, the empirical reality of populist elite critiques targeting diverse elite groups is more in line with elite theory than populist ideological conceptions of power relations in society. A key to grasping the democratic challenges posed by the power relations between elites and masses in both populist critiques and populist solutions is an understanding of the institutional conditions for elite integration versus elite pluralism. This central discussion in both classical and modern elite theory is applied to analyse populism in this contribution. ; Open Access Funded by Centre for the Study of Professions, Oslo Metropolitan University. ; publishedVersion

Critiques of elites define populism, which conceives of power relations as a unified, conspiring elite exploiting the good people. Yet, populism itself is inherently elitist, calling for a strong leader to take power and channel the will of the people. Elite theory, surprisingly overlooked in scholarship on populism, can clarify this apparent paradox and elucidate the dimensions of populism and its risk of authoritarianism in new ways. In contrast to populist ideological conceptions of power relations in society, elite theory points to the possibility that several elites with diverging voices and interests exist. Furthermore, elite theorists argue that such elite pluralism is a necessary component of a well-functioning democracy. Much scholarship on populism, often aiming to understand its causes and focussing on Western Europe and North America, points to the similarities of populist movements. The focus on similarities strengthens the understanding of populism as a uniform phenomenon and populist elite critiques as homogeneous. However, broader comparative studies show that different populist movements target a range of various elite groups. Indeed, the empirical reality of populist elite critiques targeting diverse elite groups is more in line with elite theory than populist ideological conceptions of power relations in society. A key to grasping the democratic challenges posed by the power relations between elites and masses in both populist critiques and populist solutions is an understanding of the institutional conditions for elite integration versus elite pluralism. This central discussion in both classical and modern elite theory is applied to analyse populism in this contribution. ; Open Access Funded by Centre for the Study of Professions, Oslo Metropolitan University. ; publishedVersion

Der Autor betrachtet kritisch die bildungspolitischen Debatten zu den Themen: Gesamtschule, Gegliedertes Schulsystem, Schülerauslese und Elite. (DIPF/Orig.)