5

Vilfredo Pareto (1848–1923)

Vilfredo Federico Damaso Pareto, the distinguished Italian sociologist, was influential during in the American sociological circle in his time, especially the 1930s. As the leading proponent of functional sociology in the USA, Talcott Parsons took a lot of interest in his works. Pareto's sociology subsequently has lost the importance, while only his theory of elites and circulation of elites has retained its relevance in contemporary thinking on society. Primarily, his sociological theories were formulated in reaction to Marx's social theory. He not only refuted Marx, but along with that he also questioned the very foundation of the Enlightenment philosophy. He critiqued the rationality principle of the Enlightenment and contended that human society is as much a result of non-rational factors such as human instincts. Nevertheless, he insisted on the logico-experimental method, thereby holding the scientific nature of sociology aloft.

A BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Vilfredo Pareto was born in Paris in 1848. His mother was French while his father was an Italian nobleman. Pareto's family had been active in Italian polities and had to live in exile for a while because of his father's support for an independent and united Italian republic. In the late 1850s, the family could return to Italy. He received a degree in mathematics and physics and enrolled himself in the School of Engineering in 1867. He even served a railroad company in Rome as a consulting engineer. However, he left the job shortly and returned to Florence and even contested for the Italian parliament in 1881. As a strong proponent of free market trade, he campaigned hard but lost the election.

The defeat made him more bitter about the Italian government and its protectionist economic policies. He retreated to his villa in Fiesole and inherited a substantial asset which allowed him to engage in study and research. As an ardent supporter of free-market capitalism Pareto joined the Adam Smith Society in Florence and wrote profusely on free-market economics. Subsequently, he was offered the chair of political economy at the University of Lausanne in Switzerland in 1893. As a political economist, he is best known for his analysis of equilibrium models of demand and supply. His principal focus was on the instrumental rationality of an economic system of production and exchange. Be it socialist or capitalist, he believed that any system of production and distribution basically favours one group against another.

Pareto's first major work was published at the turn of the twentieth century. This major contribution to sociological theory was published in 1916 as Treatise on General Sociology, which was not noticed until the turbulent years of World War I finally got over. The book carried some of Pareto's scathing criticisms of the democratic principles. As a result, the Italian dictator Benito Mussolini appreciated his arguments and even offered him a seat in the Italian senate, which he declined. This work is best known in the world of sociology in the translated English version as The Mind and Society: A Treatise on General Sociology (1963).

Pareto lived a troubled personal life too. Although he stressed the functional importance of religion and authority in his sociological writings, in his private life he led a careless life. With the growing years he became more and more isolated from his fellow intellectuals. As a lonely figure he dispensed with his earlier liberal social philosophy and sided more with authoritarian principles. He had less respect for social reformism which he thought would do more harm than good for the common man. Often for valid reasons, Pareto is thought of as the theorist who prepared the theoretical ground for Italian Fascism. He died in 1923, but prior to that he appealed to the Fascist regime to moderate the use of force and to acknowledge the citizenship rights of every individual. He did not live to see the ultimate consequence of the Fascist rule in Italy.

SOCIAL AND INTELLECTUAL INFLUENCE

Pareto lived, right from his birth, through a period of acute political crisis that characterized the Italian society of the nineteenth-century and beyond. Italy as a nation did not emerge as a sovereign state when he was born in 1848 as it was still a patch work of many states. The period was marked by strong nationalist movements which were also internally split. After 1861, Italy was ruled by the bourgeoisie who came from the commercial and the industrial cities of the north. Southern Italy was mainly populated by superstitious and backward landlords and peasants who strongly opposed the bourgeois reforms. To make matters worse, the governing classes were corrupt and all the elections were fixed and forged. In World War I, too, Italy heavily suffered and as a consequence faced acute economic crisis. The socialist force gained more support after the war and a rapid polarization between the rightist and the leftists took place.

After the 1920s, Benito Mussolini gradually emerged as the rightist leader. He broke away from his earlier socialist policies to form the Italian Fascist Party. The party initially lost the election and became more pro-capitalist and hostile to the socialists. With a strong emphasis on enforcing discipline it gradually demolished all oppositions to seize power.

In such a social scenario, Pareto justified the coming to power of the Fascists. According to him, the failure of the Italian government in the post-war years to serve its people was the main reason for Mussolini to come to power. He considered Mussolini as the most competent politician to seize the opportunity. Essentially, he lauded the Fascists’ skill and their lofty ideals. Pareto did not live long to see the final consequence of the fascist rule. The erratic and brutal rule of Mussolini, the displacement of private enterprise by state-run capitalism and all such subsequent development in Italy were not foreseen by Pareto.

Although Pareto was a firm believer in classical free-market economy he could see that the social and political philosophies of the American federalists could not come good for Italy. Initially, given the weak development of parliamentary democracy in Italy and its debilitating status as a nation-state, influenced Pareto to side with the ideals of bourgeois republicanism. The failure to secure an independent and united Italian republic by the idealist humanitarian nationalist leader Guiseppe Mazzini made Pareto sceptical. Politically, he was disenchanted with the possibilities of the French Republican philosophies and the German nationalist ideals for bearing a root in the Italian soil. Moved more and more towards an authoritarian philosophy.

The thoughts of the Italian political theorist Niccolo Machiavelli (1469–1527) appears to have impacted upon Pareto in a significant way. The political manual for how to rule, The Prince was Machiavelli's principal work, written in 1513 for the ruler of Florence. He made a political statement on the art of government. It stated that a successful rule is basically a technical art, which should be free from any moral sentiments. The technique is to consider the subject as perpetually governed by superstitions, non-rational petty ambition, while the ruler is equipped with rational expertise. The rulers should be cunning and intelligent to use fraud and deception to allow the subject to remain non-rational and superstitions; this way political authority could be established and made fault-free. The art of governance is the technique of rising above the confused beliefs of common people. The ruler needs to pay least attention to whether s/he is considered as honest. There is one moral obligation in the art of ruling. As the objective of any government is fixed and taken for granted, political theory is not a moral question but is full of technical expertise. Such an astute political cunningness in Machiavelli's theory appealed to Pareto.

Machiavelli's image of The Prince as one who would actually be successful in building a strong Italy never succeeded historically. Italy, since the days of Machiavelli, could never catch up with Britain, France or Germany in terms of political power. The Reformation had skipped Italy, while the Enlightenment ideals could hardly inspire the intellectual life of Italy. Pareto's inklings for Machiavellian thought were due to his disdain for the Enlightenment promises. He never believed that intellectuals could guide their lives and society with reflective self-enlightenment. The social milieu around him compelled Pareto to ponder that there is an intractable non-rational core to human nature — the inner-force of any society, so to say. Given the absolute disarray of the Italian society around him, with the church being still strong and widespread ignorance looming large, Pareto looked up for a strong ruler of discipline and authority.

Among the classical thinkers, Pareto admired Herbert Spencer, but considered him, as well as Auguste Comte, as insufficiently positivist. In Karl Marx he admired the idea of continuous struggle for domination among competing groups. Pareto infused such a concept of history in his classical elite theory but differed strongly with the Marxist proposition of the possibility of a classless society. Two of his contemporaries, Georges Sorel and Gaetano Mosca impressed him. Although Sorel, who was an anti-nationalist, agreed with Marx about the final and pivotal role of the proletariat, he argued that the working class could be organized only by some non-rational myths so essential to wage a revolutionary struggle. Pareto shared the view that human behaviour is governed largely by non-rational impulse. With Mosca, Pareto shared the view that it is only through manipulation that at any time in history, rulers are able to dominate a subordinate majority. Quite interestingly, although the very concept of ‘circulation of elites’ was used by Mosca first, Pareto used it extensively in his works without ever acknowledging the debt. Pareto, to a large extent was a product of his time which was marked by failures of rational principles of life. From a thinker of political economy Pareto drifted towards sociology, as he thought it was that subject area where he could trace the non-rational impulse of human behaviour.

SOCIETY IN EQUILIBRIUM

Pareto's conception of society carries an interesting feature, while he considers society in terms of an equilibrium state but the ‘inner forces’ of society is thought to be an amalgamation of imprecise sentimental factors. It is a sort of a Janus-faced image that he promoted for a society. The equilibrium state is a rational act while the forces which maintain such a state are thought to be largely irrational. This possibly was a result of Pareto's twin identity of a political economist and a sociologist rolled into one. Initially, he theorized the rationality of free market enterprise to account for the equilibrium state of society. Society as a system in equilibrium consists of interdependent parts and any change in any part affects the other parts and the whole as well.

As an economist Pareto held that the goals of economic activity are beyond dispute. They are rationally arrived at on the principle of ‘utility maximization’. In general people adopt the policy of maximization of utility to achieve the desired economic goal. Hence, economics study logical, rational action — action which uses the most effective means to achieve objectively known goals. Therefore, concrete logical rational action uses the ‘logico-experimental method’. Here, individuals test the truth content of any objective goal in terms of means–ends assertions and tries to build logical deductive links between those assertions. Such actions mark only the economic realm of society. Economic man uses observation and rational calculation to achieve the goal of maximizing his utility. The goal of such action is indisputable and not to be evaluated. It is a goal in itself. Only when the goal of action is set, a concrete logical action takes place which involves utilizing the means effectively to achieve that goal. Logically, it is not possible to evaluate such goal, except as means to other goals.

An economic model of equilibrium that Pareto proposed does not take into account human behaviour that one finds in the other spheres of society, such as cultural, legal, religious, political or art-related. Pareto switched to sociology to examine such aspects of society which he thought are governed by non-rational actions. For a society as a whole system cannot adapt to external natural environment without taking such non-rational actions into account. As ironically, it is these non-logical, thereby, non-rational sentiments that acts to maintain the system in a state of equilibrium. Economics can only deal with the types of logical action, but sociology can take care of the totality of all the logical and non-logical forces that govern human behaviour. These non-logical actions play a crucial part in maintaining social systems. The forces within society are non-logical which are accounted for by Pareto. Economics can study the static equilibrium of a society, whereas sociology can explain the dynamic aspect of equilibrium. Since sociology analyses the uniformities in patterns of non-logical action, it explains change as well, as the non-logical actions made up of sentiments and subjectivities are always in a state of flux.

The importance of the inner forces of society in maintaining the system in equilibrium was underscored by Pareto. Whenever a society is threatened by external forces, the inner forces come into play to push the system towards the point of equilibrium. Anything that disturbs the inner equilibrium, the sentiments of revulsion against that restores the system back. According to Pareto, there are two major kinds of non-logical action. Impulses result from a commitment to goals and values whose utility cannot be evaluated or disputed — they are good in themselves. And, the second type is such actions which employ means that are not effectively connected to the stated ends of action.

Extending this distinction between logical and non-logical action Pareto opined that there is nothing logical about human wishes and sentiments. Hence, if a ruler desires to make his subjects happy, that is also a non-logical thinking because logically one cannot derive the effectiveness of such desires or actions either. Only economists could apply the logical mode of thinking to develop anticipatory models of logical economic action-because in that sphere individuals employ rationality to maximize self-interests.

NON-LOGICAL ACTION

Pareto discussed more of non-logical action than logical action, as presumably logical actions are rare. He could cite only a few such actions in his treatise to exemplify non-logical action. These are formulation of scientific theory, economic action and the practice of trial in judiciary. Even then, he said that the sentiments of the judges, which are also shared with members of the group, to a perceptible extent determine the judicial decisions. The reference to an objective and logical legal provisions and acts is a mere post-facto reference. The contention of Pareto is that, judicial decisions, too, are arrived at through actions which are a product of sentiments, whereby, non-logical action predominates social life in general. As he explains in his treatise, ‘court decisions depend largely on the interests and sentiments operative in a society at a given moment, and also upon individual whims and chance events, and but slightly, and sometimes not at all, upon codes or written law’ (Pareto 1963: 466).

While making a distinction between logical and non-logical action, Pareto held that the behaviour of an individual in case of logical action may be observed and there is also a substantive rational theory, as well as its application in such action. On the contrary, in case of non-logical action, a behaviour is a mere expression of a sentiment. The psychic state of an individual is actually the foundation of such actions, although an individual tries to pass off such non-logical action as a logical one. More precisely the manifestations of sentiments are an expression of biopsychic/somatic basic states. The concepts of residues and derivations in Pareto's sociology try to account for these biopsychic states, that is, biologically inherited psychic states drive individuals to act in a non-logical manner. There are sentiments which cannot be logically explained and they may change over time only very slowly. Essentially they are fixed, and the effects of sentiments are actually the residues in social action. These fixed and constant residues constitute the psychological substratum of social action. Pareto, however, did not offer any definition of such residues. ‘Residues correspond to certain instincts in human beings and for that reason they are usually wanting in definiteness, in exact delimitation’ (Pareto 1963: 213). Only rational or logical matters can be observed and described definitely; the rest, whatever is left undescribed, is residual. Such is Pareto's contention about residues without giving it any precise definition. Residues are fundamental for the maintenance of equilibrium of a society.

Although the residues cannot be precisely defined, they can be classified into six classes:

1. Residues for Instinct for Combination: They are to be found in inventors, speculators and most importantly in politicians. Here, the instinct is to combine things and synthesize information. This instinct of associating things or events with striking happenings, or phenomena result in terrorizing or inspiring awe and even which are associated with good fortune
2. Residues of Persistence of Aggregates: These are to be found in churchmen, family men and ‘good subordinates’. This instinct is the cause behind persistence of social groups and allows the designated group to gain inertia necessary to remain together
3. Residues for the Need of Expressing Sentiments: These instincts are to be found in festivals, religious rituals, ceremonies. They allow expressions of sentiments by means of external acts
4. Residues Related to Sociality: These instincts are realized in ancient college and medieval guides as well as in modern trade unions. They give rise to the persistence of fashion, feelings of pity and cruelty, and acts of self-sacrifice. These residues explain the uniformities and imitations which are noticeable in disciplined social life
5. Residues of Individual Integrity: These instincts are instrumental for maintaining the equilibrium of a society. As a complement of residues connected with sociality, these residues promote along with individual integrity, the development of personality. Pareto places these instructs as the only ones for which individuals specify a logical derivation which involves pure economic activity, and
6. The Sex Residue: These instincts are responsible for shaping the legitimacy, adultery, celibacy and many other sentiments which are associated with the phenomenon of sexual activity.

Of all the six classes of residues, Pareto focused more on the first two classes, i.e., the residues for combinations and the residues of persistence of aggregates. The focus ensued from the fact that these two residues cover the major aspects of social life and they essentially govern human behaviour in Pareto's sociological scheme.

For Pareto, individual beings while engaging in non-logical actions tend to give an impression that they are performing the most preferred action to achieve the goal. As surface manifestations, derivations are explanations provided by incumbents indulged in non-logical action which constitute the underlying forces in social life. They are like justifications that individuals offer for the sentiments they manifest. Such derivations allow individuals to move toward the preferred goal states that basically arise out of the residues only. Pareto's treatment of derivations is then more detailed than his analysis of the residues. He had listed four classes of such derivations. They are as follows:

1. Assertion: It constitutes a dogmatic or axiomatic assertion of fact. This derivation is mostly associated with the residue of instinct for combination. The assertion of fact is an indirect way of expressing certain sentiments which are non-logical in character.
2. Authority: It constitutes a single or multiple individuals in one sphere, but engulfs other people who are gullible enough to consider themselves as experts in other spheres. This derivation is associated mainly with the residues of persistence of aggregates. Pareto exemplified this on the claims of successful political leaders, whose authority actually stems from traditional or customary sentiments but are externally manifested as something arrived at ‘logically’.
3. Accords with sentiments or principles: These derivations are manifested as serving and maintaining common sentiments and principles. They are used with different kinds of residues. The best instance for such derivations is one where a person justifies his/her individual desires by arguing that s/he wants it for the interest of the common people; that is, essentially when personal sentiments are passed of as sentiments of the generality of mankind, it is a case of derivations of accords with sentiments or principles.
4. Verbal proofs: These are derivations which indulge in using indefinite terms and vocabularies of doubtful or equivocal meaning. Pareto gave the examples of logical sophistries, ambiguous syllogism, a pun and all such verbal usages which rest on vagueness. Basically, such derivations are operated through sheer force of rhetoric.

However, given Pareto's examples to explicate different kinds of verbal explanations of conduct, it becomes obvious that there is no close connection between the classes of residues and of derivations, each cross-cutting the other. More specifically, although he attempted to treat the classes of residues and derivations as definitive, his illustrations of derivations as the expression of specified underlying residues are not always clear-cut.

Apparently Pareto's understanding of social equilibrium is a result of his early stints in engineering. He understood equilibrium in terms of social utility which demands a correct balance between logical and non-logical action, that is, a balance between the economic interests as manifested in logical actions of utility maximization and the rest of the society marked by non-logical action. The demarcation that he created between logical and new logical aspects of society catches human beings in a dilemma. The fixed nature of psychological substratum that he assigned to social life condemns human beings to the control of forces which they are unable to take charge of. Thus, in his sociology, Pareto sees the state of the modern individual as one lacking liberating agency.

ELITE THEORY: CIRCULATION OF ELITES

The view of society proposed by Pareto rests primarily on his focus on residues and their classification as providing the psychological substratum of human nature. A society achieves its social equilibrium on the dead weight of the residues. Derivations can change across society and time. However, throughout history the residues are constant and in preferred goal states. Different periods of history make social change appear as undulating.

Every society is marked by individuals with different abilities and interests, and of course with different classes or groups of such individuals. Since all human societies are heterogeneous, there are competitions among groups who are differentially competent as governed by their residues. Heterogeneity of society makes for change in the content of the derivations. The undulating movement of history is all the social change that one can expect which is observable in the conflict and struggle between different groups or classes.

Pareto's elite theory and his conceptualization of ‘circulation of elites’ constitute his major contribution to sociology. Elites are individuals of highest performance in their respective fields. There are two main strata in any human society: the elite and the non-elite. Additionally, there are two principal classes of elites: the governing elite and the non-governing elite. Governing elite consists of individuals who directly or indirectly play an important role in the manipulation of political power. On the other hand, the non-governing elite consist of capable men not in power positions. The governing elite comprises of people who actually rule but are always in a precarious position. The elite rule is characterized by a state of slow and continuous transformation. Pareto explains such social change through the concept of ‘circulation of elites’.

The differential distribution of residues among the members of elites decides the character of the group. Pareto mainly concentrated on the residues of instinct for combination and persistence of aggregates to designate the two types of elite and their relative positions of strength. A correct combination of instinct for combination and persistence of aggregates allows a governing elite to stay in power. After a period of rule a ruling elite tends to show decadence as the members tend to lose the sense of cohesiveness they possessed at an earlier time. As the rule of the elite group prolongs, superior elements accumulate in the governed (non-governing elite) classes. When the residues of instinct for combinations are on the wane among the members of the governing elite, leaders from the lower order with the appropriate attributes of cunning and imagination will constitute an aspiring non-governing elite group. They move in to challenge and displace the older entrenched elite group. Basically a circulation of elites takes place, as always the majority of the populace in any society is always ruled by a minority elite group. Historically, the elites of the two types rotate in positions of political power. Pareto suggested that for ensuring social equilibrium a ruling elite should be dominated by the residues for instinct of combinations, and the non-governing elites be constituted mainly by individuals who have a greater share of the residues of persistence of aggregates.

For Pareto, it is desirable that the ruling elite possesses more of intelligence and cunning than be constituted of individuals who promote only group solidarity. Actually, he imagined two groups of contending elites as one dominated by instincts of cunning and the other by instincts of force. Those dominated by the instincts for combinations (cunning, intelligence etc.) are metaphorically seen as the ‘lions’, while the ones dominated by the residues of persistence of aggregates are seen as the ‘foxes’. Hence, the circulation of elites is a political process of change of one by another, between the ‘foxes’ and the ‘lions’ and is cyclical by nature and definition. The theory of social change which actually is expressed by the concept of circulation of elites posits an uneasy oscillation of individuals around the overlapping, and sometimes antithetical, extremes of human sentiments. But history reveals no significant change in terms of the way through which social equilibrium is maintained. Social equilibrium in Pareto's model of society is not static but one which constantly regains its position in a process of dynamic change. Such change is only a matter of a change in the content of non-rational belief.

Revolutions come about through accumulations in the higher strata of society — either because of a slowing-down in class circulation, or from other causes — of decadent elements no longer possessing the residues suitable for keeping them in power, and shrinking from the use of force; while meantime in the lower strata of society elements of superior quality are coming to the fore, possessing residues suitable for exercising the functions of government and wiling enough to use force. (Pareto 1963: 1431).

SUMMARY

Primarily Pareto depicted society as a system in equilibrium. Such equilibrium is a result of some inner forces of the society which cannot be logically observed or explained because of the very fact that they themselves are non logical actions constituted of sentiments. Individual members of the society are exposed to these forces which determine the point of equilibrium in the society. The domain of logical action is that of economics only, beyond which all the other spheres of society are based on sentiment. As such, he did not contend that sociology could entail monism. He rejects explanations of social life to single factors or causes. He treated residues and derivations as the most important forces in the social system. However no such precise model of equilibrium did he present depicting the actual operation and balance of the inner forces of sentiment and residues.

Key Words

• Derivations
• Elites
• Equilibrium
• Logico-experimental Method
• Non-logical Action
• Residues

Glossary

Derivations: Non-logical explanations that allow people to behave what they want to believe, and which differ and signify different societies and group orientations.

Induction: The method of arriving at scientific truth through observation of, and generalization from, collected empirical data.

Logical Action: An instance of instrumental action which ensures that effective means are employed to secure stated goals.

Non-logical Action: Action that is not instrumental, but impulsive or irrational. It involves the adoption of ineffective means to secure stated goals.

Residues: Sentiments conceptualized in psychic terms.

Sentiments: The premise of non-logical actions, the fixed orientations of people.

Utility Maximization: The logic of instrumental action which is premised on the most effective means of securing the goals set.

Discussion Points

• Social background of Pareto's theory.
• Logical and non-logical actions.
• Theory of Circulation of Elites.