Pa
Pare
reto
to’’s
s Fo
Form
rmul
ulat
atio
ion
n of
of Lo
Logi
gica
cal
l an
and
d No
Non-
n-Logical Actions of Human
Logical Actions of Human
Vilfredo Pareto summarized his aim in writing his major sociological work, “The treatise on Vilfredo Pareto summarized his aim in writing his major sociological work, “The treatise on General Sociology.” is am!ition was to construct a system of sociology analogous in its General Sociology.” is am!ition was to construct a system of sociology analogous in its essential features of the generalized "hysicochemical system. The treatise attem"ts to study only essential features of the generalized "hysicochemical system. The treatise attem"ts to study only non#rational as"ects of action.
non#rational as"ects of action.
e suggested that the field of economics had limited itself to the single as"ect of human action$ e suggested that the field of economics had limited itself to the single as"ect of human action$ rational and logical action in "ursuit of the ac%uisition of scarce resources. Pareto turned to rational and logical action in "ursuit of the ac%uisition of scarce resources. Pareto turned to sociology when he !ecame con&inced that human affairs were largely guided !y non#logical, sociology when he !ecame con&inced that human affairs were largely guided !y non#logical, non#rational actions which were e'cluded from consideration !y the economists.
non#rational actions which were e'cluded from consideration !y the economists.
(t is this analytical distinction !etween rational and non#rational elements of actions and not a (t is this analytical distinction !etween rational and non#rational elements of actions and not a classification of concrete !eha&iour that Pareto aimed, “(t is not actions, as we find them in the classification of concrete !eha&iour that Pareto aimed, “(t is not actions, as we find them in the concrete that we are called u"on to classify, !ut the elements constituting them.”
concrete that we are called u"on to classify, !ut the elements constituting them.”
All the actions are divided into two broad categories: All the actions are divided into two broad categories:
)*+ Personal )*+ Personal )!+ Social )!+ Social
Every action or social henomenon has two asects: Every action or social henomenon has two asects:
)i+ orm )i+ orm )ii+ -eality )ii+ -eality
orm is the way in which the
orm is the way in which the "henomenon "resents itself to the human mind."henomenon "resents itself to the human mind. )(t is something su!jecti&e+.
)(t is something su!jecti&e+.
-eality in&ol&es the actual e'istence of the things. )(t is something o!jecti&e+. -eality in&ol&es the actual e'istence of the things. )(t is something o!jecti&e+. ikewise all the actions of indi&idual whether it is "ersonal or
ikewise all the actions of indi&idual whether it is "ersonal or social, it has two "arts.social, it has two "arts. )i+ /nds
)i+ /nds )ii+ 0eans )ii+ 0eans
Logical Actions:
So e&ery action is !ased on either logical action or non#logical action. (f the actions are !ased on logic and e'"eriment and if the means and ends are connected with each other, those actions are known as logical action. 1eha&iour, Pareto !elie&ed is logical !oth su!jecti&ely and o!jecti&ely. Pareto defines logical actions are those if the end is o!jecti&ely attaina!le and if the means em"loyed are o!jecti&ely united with the end within the framework of !est knowledge a&aila!le. or an action to !e logical, the logical connection !etween the means and ends must e'ist !oth in the mind of the actor who "erforms the act and in o!jecti&e reality. ogical action is the "ure rational action as 2e!er calls it. (n the calculation of means# end relationshi"3 with the addition of the fact that it rested u"on knowledge which was o!jecti&ely true. ogical !eha&iour, wrote Pareto, consists of$
“4.those actions which are logically linked to an end, not only in res"ect to the "ersons "erforming them, !ut also to those other "eo"le who ha&e more e'tensi&e knowledge $ that is to
say, !eha&iour which is su!jecti&ely and o!jecti&ely logical4”
Pareto defines “logical action are those actions which use means a""ro"riate to ends and which logically connects means with ends. This logical connection of means with ends must hold not only the su!ject "erforming them !ut also from the stand "oint of other "ersons who ha&e a more e'tensi&e knowledge.”
!o the logical co-relation between means and ends must be aroved by:
)i+ The actor or the self )ii+ The other "ersons
)These other "ersons must ha&e e'tensi&e knowledge.+
So logical actions are those actions that are !oth su!jecti&ely and o!jecti&ely logical. 2hile, discussing su!jecti&e and o!jecti&e end Pareto says that su!jecti&e ends are those which are liked !y certain "ersons on account of their "ersonal reasons. e ado"ts certain line of action which
would ultimately lead to goals which ser&e his "ersonal ends.
5n the other hand, an o!jecti&e end is always arri&ed at !y a "rocess of em"irically &alid "redictions and must !e within the domain of o!ser&ation. or an action to !e logical, the means# end relation in o!jecti&e reality must corres"ond to the means#end relation in the mind of the actor.
"haracteristics of Logical Action:
8. The actions which are !ased on e'"eriment and logic. 9. 7ctions must !e o!jecti&e.
:. 7ctions must !e real.
;. 7ctions must !e acce"ted !y the actor and must !e defined o!jecti&ely. <. These actions ha&e no "lace in imagination or "rejudices.
=. 1oth the ends and the means must !e scientific and justified. >. Social sanctions must !e there !ehind such justification.
?. There must !e logical connection !etween means em"loyed and ends attained. 6@. ogical actions must !e rational in nature.
66. ogical actions are moti&ated !y reasoning.
Non-Logical Actions:
Aon#ogical actions mean sim"ly all human actions not falling within the sco"e of the logical actions. These are not logical#which does not mean that they are illogical. Aon#logical action is action guided !y sentiments and other non# logical factors. (n other words, in the category of non#logical actions fall all those which do not "resent the dou!le characteristics of logical connection.
6. Su!jecti&ely and 8. 5!jecti&ely or,
#f "orresondence between these two connections$
According to $aymond Aron:
Thus we can immediately draw u" a ta!le of non#logical actions which we shall call the second class of human actions.
5!jecti&ely $ A5 A5 B/S B/S
$eflections of these above categories:
Ao#Ao Category Ao#Bes Category
Bes#Ao Category Bes#Bes Category
%he No-No "ategory:
ere action is not logical. The means are not connected to the ends neither in reality nor in the mind. 0eans do not gi&e any result which is logical. The actor does not e&en ha&e in mind either an end or a means#end relation. This “no#no category” is rare as man has reasoning ca"acity.
No-&es "ategory:
This no#yes category is wides"read. ere the act is not logically related to the result it will gi&e. There is no logical connection !etween means em"loyed and ends attained. 1ut the actor wrongly imagines that the means he em"loys are of a kind to "roduce the end he desires.
E'amle:
2hen "eo"le desire rain they make sacrifices to the God. They are con&inced that their sacrifices ha&e an effect on the rainfall. (n this case a means#end relation e'ists su!jecti&ely !ut not o!jecti&ely.
&es-No "ategory:
This category includes actions which do "roduce a result logically related to the means em"loyed, !ut without the actorDs is ha&ing concei&ed the means#end relation. There are numerous e'am"les of this category. -efle' acts !elong here.
E'amle:
Closing of eyes when dust comes. 7nimals also e'hi!it this ty"e of !eha&iour for their sur&i&al. This action is o!jecti&ely defined !ut not su!jecti&ely logical !ut just like instincti&e ty"e of !eha&iour.
&es-&es "ategory:
This is the fourth category of action which has a result logically related to the means em"loyed. ere the actor su!jecti&ely concei&es a relation !etween the means and the ends, !ut in which the o!jecti&e se%uence does not corres"ond to the su!jecti&e se%uence.
E'amle:
The !eha&iour of re&olutionaries.
They wish to change e'isting society, to correct its &ices.
These are the four "rinci"al categories of non#logical actions. These four categories constitute the su!ject of Treatise on General Sociology.
Among the four categories of non-logical actions( two are articularly imortant:
)i+ The second category )Ao#Bes Category+ that is non# logical actions which ha&e no o!jecti&e goal !ut do ha&e a su!jecti&e goal. -itual and sym!olic actions fall under this category. 7ll actions which are of religious ty"es#all actions which are addressed to an em!lem or sym!ol of a sacred reality fall into this category.
)ii+ The fourth category )Bes#Bes Category+ in which there does not e'ist a coincidence !etween the su!jecti&e and the o!jecti&e. This category includes all actions dictated !y illusions, "articularly the illusions of "olitical men or intellectuals.
"haracteristics of Non-logical Actions:
Aon logical actions mean sim"ly all human actions not falling within the sco"e of the logical actions.
)i+ Aon#logical actions are determined !y su!jecti&e factors.
)ii+ (t cannot !e "ro&ed !y o!jecti&e o!ser&ation and e'"erimentation. )iii+ These actions are not determined !y reality.
)i&+ These actions are totally guided !y im"ulses !ut not reasoning. )&+ These actions in&ol&e to some degree a moti&ation !y sentiment.
"riticisms:
There are some crucial areas relating to logical and non#logical actions.
)ecause:
6. (t is &ery difficult to find out which action is logical or which is non#logical. 8. (t is also difficult to distinguish !etween means and ends.
9. Aum!er of non#logical actions is more than logical actions, !ecause man wants to do any action on the !asis of his imagination, thinking, sentiments etc., and tries to "ro&e that non# logical actions are &ery logical.
or Pareto, the main characteristic of an action was its relation through logic. or him, it was not necessary that e&ery action should !e !ased on logic. uman !eings may try to "ro&e an action to !e logical !y their own actions and in their own way. (n this res"ect Pareto made a &ery useful and &alua!le contri!ution.
Vilfredo Pareto: Residues and Derivations
ParetoEs attem"t to unmask nonscientific theories and !elief systems led him to make a distinction !etween changing elements accounting for these theories, which he termed derivations, and residual, relati&ely "ermanent ele# ments, which he termed residues. The notion of residues has often !een mis# understood as merely a fancy term for instinct and as corres"onding to the !asic sentiments discussed earlier. Pareto himself !rought forth this misunder# standing !y occasionally referring to residues as instincts. (t seems ne&ertheless that he concei&ed of residues as manifestations of sentiments or as corres"ond# ing to them, rather than as their e%ui&alents.
-esidues are intermediary !etween the sentiments we cannot know directly and the !elief systems and acts that can !e known and analyzed. urthermore, residues are related to manEs instincts !ut they do not co&er all of them, since we can only disco&er those instincts that gi&e rise to rationalization in theories while others must remain hidden.
7 manEs a""etite or taste for, say, "ork cho"s, does not fall into the category of residues in ParetoEs scheme. (f, howe&er, a man constructs a theory according to which Chinese cooking is su"erior to 7merican cooking, then Pareto would !e mo&ed to in&estigate the residues underlying the ela!oration of such theoreti# cal justification.
Pareto arri&es at his distinctions !etween residues and deri&ations !y the following "rocedure$ e in&estigates doctrines that are associated with action, for e'am"le, Christian religious doctrine or li!eral "olitical theory. rom these theories he se"arates those elements that corres"ond to the standards of logico# e'"erimental science. Ae't, he se"arates the remaining nonscientific elements into constants )residues+ and &aria!les )deri&ations+. Feri&ations only arise when there is reasoning, argument, and ideological justification. 2hen these are "resent, Paretian analysis looks for the underlying relati&ely constant ele# ments )residues+.
or e'am"le, we find in all ages a great &ariety of &er!alizations and doc# trines connected with the se'ual s"here. These may take the form of "orno# gra"hic literature or of the denunciation of se'ual license. There are strict and "ermissi&e theories a!out "ro"er se'ual conduct. 7scetic doctrines condemn what hedonistic doctrines e'tol. 1ut throughout all these manifold deri&a# tions runs a common se'ual residue, which remains remarka!ly sta!le at all times. Styles, modes,
fashions, and ethical theories a!out the se'ual s"here &ary immensely, !ut a uniform se'ual nucleus always cro"s u" in a &ariety of new doctrinal disguises.
7lthough men ha&e used an infinite num!er and &ariety of deri&ations in order to justify or logicalize their actions, Pareto argues that si' classes of residues ha&e remained almost constant throughout the long s"an of 2estern history. or this reason he surmises that the major classes of residues corres"ond closely to certain !asic human instincts or "ro"ensities. The si' classes of residues are as follows$
(. (nstinct for Com!inations.
((. Grou" Persistences )Persistence of 7ggregates+.
(((. Aeed of /'"ressing Sentiments !y /'ternal 7cts )7cti&ity, Self#/'"ression+ . (V. -esidues Connected with Sociality.
V. (ntegrity of the (ndi&idual and is 7""urtenances. V(. The Se' -esidue.
Pareto intends to show that the same residue can gi&e rise to a great &ariety of !elief systems or deri&ations, and that men decei&e themsel&es when they !elie&e that they take a gi&en course of action on the !asis of a "articular theory in which they ha""en to !elie&e. or e'am"le, 7 Chinese, a 0oslem, a Cal&inist, a Catholic, a Hantian, a egelian, a 0aterialist, all refrain from stealing3 !ut each gi&es a different e'"lanation for his conduct.EE (n &iew of such &aria!le e'"lanations of a constant characteristic, Pareto concluded that the real cause of the !eha&ior has to !e found in the constancy of a residue under# lying these different deri&ations. e reasoned that all these adherents of different schools of thought ha&e in common the need to maintain the integrity of their "ersonality and to "reser&e their self#regard. Therefore, Class V residues e'"lain their conduct.
/&erywhere, and at all times, men !elie&e in the o!jecti&e reality of gods or s"irits, of "rogress, freedom, or justice. The names and em!odiments of these entities change, as do the religious, "hiloso"hical, and moral theories that e'"lain these !eliefs. 1ut it will always !e found that, howe&er e'"ressed, the common !elief in such entities is rooted in a sta!le common element, in this case residue ((, the conser&ati&e tendency to grou" "ersistence, to social integration.
Pareto argued re"eatedly that it is useless, e&en a waste of time, to discuss the truth of a doctrine with an adherent to it. Christianity has not !een de# stroyed !y arguments dis"uting the historical reality of Iesus, and Catholic "atriotism in rance was not hurt !y assertions that Ioan of 7rc was a hys# teric. 5nly a scientific strategy that allows us to trace the multi"licity of !elief systems and doctrines to their common source in !asic residues can ad&ance science and lead to a measure of enlightenment.
2hether ParetoEs e'"lanations amount to more than "seudo#e'"lanations is an o"en %uestion. ( would agree with -aymond 7ron who !elie&es that they ha&e much in common with the reasoning of 0oliereEs %uack "hysician who e'"lains the effects of o"ium !y its dormiti&e "owers. 7s 7ron says with characteristic wit, 5ne does not dare to say JParetoEsK results are
false, !ut "erha"s they are not &ery instructi&e. Bet !efore attem"ting to "ass a judg# ment, one has to realize that ParetoEs theory of residues ser&ed him not only as a way of e'"laining theories and !elief systems, !ut also as a means of e'"laining social mo&ements, social change, and the dynamics of history. 1e# fore we turn to this matter, two other Paretian notions, the distinction !etween ty"es of nonlogical theories, and the distinction !etween su!jecti&e intentions and
o!jecti&e conse%uences of action need to !e e'amined.
Pareto’s Circulation of Elites: Characteristics and Criticisms
ParetoDs treatment of the circulation of elites is often cited and is generally considered the most interesting "art of his sociology. Pareto !elie&ed that indi&iduals are !orn with %uite different a!ilities and ac%uire %uite different skills and a"titudes.
7ccording to Pareto, since in e&ery society there are classes, therefore each society is heterogeneous. Such a heterogeneity takes "lace on account of mental, moral, "hysical and cultural reasons !ut hel"s in maintaining social !alance and organisation. 7ccording to Pareto, "eo"le are une%ual "hysically, as well as intellectually and morally.
Some "eo"le are more gifted than others. Pareto says, those who are most ca"a!le in any "articular grou"ing are the elite. The term elite denote sim"ly, “a class of the "eo"le who ha&e
the highest indices in their !ranch of acti&ity.”
7ccording to Pareto, “1y elite, we mean the small num!er of indi&iduals who, in each s"here of acti&ity, ha&e succeeded and ha&e arri&ed at a higher echelon in the "rofessional hierarchy.” /'am"les are the successful !usinessmen, artists, successful writers, "rofessors etc.
Pareto further divided the elite class into two categories:
6. 7 go&erning elite 8. 7 non#go&erning elite.
7 go&erning elite com"rising indi&idual who directly or indirectly "lay some c onsidera!le "art in go&ernment.
7 non#go&erning elite is com"rising the rest of the indi&iduals. ParetoDs main discussion focuses on the go&erning elite.
Go&erning elites are directly and indirectly concerned with administration. They "lay highly im"ortant role and enjoy "restigious "lace in society. Aon#Go&erning elites are not connected with administration !ut occu"y such a "lace in society that they somehow influence the administration.
)asic characteristics of elites:
6. The indi&iduals not !elonging to either of the go&erning elite or non#go&erning elite are called non#elite.
8. The class of elite is uni&ersal and continuous "rocess.
9. The elite mani"ulate o&ertly or co&ertly the "olitical "ower.
:. The elite is ha&ing the ca"acity to esta!lish su"eriority o&er others.
;. The mem!ers of the elite class will always try that the non# elites should not influence social, economic and "olitical "rocesses in any manner.
<. The non#elites res"ect only such elites who are li!eral in outlook and a""roach, !ecause they alone can hel" them to come nearer to each other.
1ogardus has descri!ed, “The theory of elite is that in e&ery society there are "eo"le who "ossess in a marked degree, the %ualities of intelligence, character, skill, ca"acity, whate&er kind, that there are two classes of elite, that the two grou"s are disjuncti&e at any gi&en time, that there is an u" and down circulation of elite.”
=. Circulation or u"ward and downward circulation amongst the mem!ers of the elite and non# elite is a ty"ical characteristic of the elite.
7ccording to Pareto the work and the role of the elites are influenced !y two ty"es of factors which are always o"erati&e in e&ery society. 5ne ty"e which is constant is called residues, the other ty"e is deri&ations.
7ccording to Pareto social change comes !ecause of residues of com!ination and residue of "ersistence of aggregates. Cycle of social change is a continuous "rocess. Political, economic
ollowing the 0achia&ellian formula, Pareto states that the elites are a!le to mani"ulate and control the masses !y resorting to two methods$ orce or raud, which corres"onding to 0achia&elliDs famous anti#thesis !etween the Lions” and the “o'es”.
The “o'es” are the elites a!undantly endowed with residues of the first class )-esidues of com!inations+ which includes the "ro"ensities in social grou"s to ado"t fle'i!ly to en&ironmental or situational e'igencies.
They are ca"a!le of inno&ation and e'"eriment, "refer materialistic to idealistic goals, !ut lack fidelity to "rinci"les and use strategies that &ary from emotional a""eal to unadulterated fraud. The “ions” are conser&ati&e elites in whom the second class of residues )Persistence of aggregates+ "redominates. They ha&e faith and ideology3 they dis"lay grou" loyalty and class solidarity3 they gain and retain "ower !y the use of force.
The conce"t of elites has !een gi&en a great deal of attention !y Vilfredo Pareto. ParetoDs &iews and conclusions a!out the elites are interesting and incisi&e. 7ccording to him, e&ery society has elite grou"s of different kinds. These elites, !eing the !est or e'cellent mem!ers of their classes are always in a minority. 1ut they are nonetheless &ital and it is they who determine the de&elo"ment or "rogress of e&ery society.
Pareto concerns himself with a sim"le distinction !etween those ha&ing "ower called the elite and those ha&ing none called the non#elite. e sees the history of e&ery human society as the history of the relations !etween its elite who rules and its non#elites who are just ruled. Circulation of /lite is !etween elite and non#elite, and !etween go&erning elite and non# go&erning elite.
7ccording to Pareto, there can !e also a circulation of elites in the sense of !eing a "rocess !y which indi&iduals circulate !etween the elite and the non#elite. This "rocess of re"lacement takes "lace in two ways. (t is either !y a gradual "rocess of infiltration or !y a &iolent re&olution.
Pareto e'"lains all this in terms of changes in the "sychological characteristics of the mem!ers of the elite on the one hand, and those of the lower strata, on the other. Thus when the elite no longer "ossesses the residues necessary for kee"ing it in "ower and at the same time at the lower
strata of society, the necessary residues are sufficiently manifest then the declining elite recruits new elements from the lower strata of society and there!y restores its &itality. 5r it may so ha""en that an elite decaying in the necessary residues is &iolently o&erthrown !y the lower classes strong in the re%uisite residues necessary for kee"ing them in "o wer.
7ccording to Pareto the elites not only change within or amongst their own classes, they also do so across the classes. 7 few indi&iduals may join the ranks of elites from the non#elite grou"s. 7nd a few elites may !ecome non#elite mem!ers of society.
The num!ers of the &arious elite grou"s may decline !oth in arithmetical terms as well as in their %uality or significance on account of the &arious factors. 2hen this ha""ens the elites cease to !e elites and tend to come down to the non#elite grou". 5n the other hand, when some mem!ers of the non#elite grou"s achie&e e'cellence or ac%uire s"ecial "ower they tend to join the "articular elite grou"s.
Pareto says that this kind of increase in the num!er or strength of elites as well as the decrease or decline in their ranks is common features of e&ery society. Pareto takes a &ery large can&as of history "articularly -oman history and the (talian history of his times to show how the circulations of elites take "lace.
e o!ser&es that in a "erfectly free society there would !e a constant and free circulation of elites. 1ut such a "erfect society is almost an ideal society. 0ost societies ha&e im"erfections of &arious ty"es and therefore the circulation of elites is seldom ideally free or unim"eded.
Pareto adds that in case of great social changes as signified !y wars or re&olutions there takes "lace a large scale re"lacement of the old elites !y the new ones. e argues that, whether "articular elites stay in "ower or not, whether they are "artially or fully re"laced or not, the fact
remains that they remain in &ital "ositions and characterised the de&elo"ment and "rogress of a gi&en society.
Pareto argues that men ha&e a "redominance of either Class#( residues where they are the “fo'es” or of Class#(( residues where they are the “lions”. The style of go&erning will de"end on whether the ruling elite is com"osed of the fo'es or the lions. The fo'es are !old and ad&enturous, they do not care to !e cautious and li&e !y cunning and cle&erness.
(n the economic field, the fo'es are the s"eculators3 they do not dread risks for the sake of ma'imum "rofits. They indulge in "romotion schemes. The lions on the other hand, are solid, conser&ati&e, tradition lo&ing, loyal to family, church and nation.
They always "refer to rely on force rather than on cle&erness. (n their economic field they are rentiers. They are cautious, thrifty, content with small returns on safe in&estments and unwilling
to gam!le. The elite are com"osed of either of these ty"es of indi&iduals de"ending on the sort of residues that ha""en to "re&ail.
2hen Class ( residues are dominant, the fo'es will rule and the "redominance of Class (( residues will esta!lish the rule !y the lions. (ndeed, history re&eals a constant alteration !etween an elite ha&ing the dominant Class ( residues and an elite ha&ing the "re"onderance of Class (( residues.
The theory of elite is that in e&ery society there are “"eo"le who "ossess in a marked degree the %ualities of intelligence, character, skill, ca"acity, of whate&er kind3 that there are two kinds of elite$ that the two grou"s are disjuncti&e at any gi&en time, and that there is an u" and down circulation of the elite. 1ut aristocracies with the go&erning elite at the to", do not last. The 7thenian aristocracy of the elite "assed away without lea&ing descendants. “(n Germany the aristocracy of the "resent day is &ery largely made u" of descendants of &assals of the” ords of 5ld.”
Pareto says, “istory is the gra&e#yard of 7ristocracy”.
The famous statement re&eals the fact that history is accentuated with the elite class since generation, who emerge, dominate, fall into decadency and is re"laced !y non#decadent elites in society. Pareto has gi&en a num!er of reasons for mortality of aristocracy which are un#gra&ed in history for generation and generation.
6. 7ristocrats )mainly Hing and /m"eror+ were engaged in historical wars which lead to degeneration of aristocracy.
8. The inheritors of aristocracy are not necessarily "ossessed with some inherent traits of that of their forefathers. 1ut they rule or go&ern on the !asis of heredity e&en though they may not ha&e the necessary skill, knowledge a!out go&ernance and sufficient a!ility to go&ern the kingdom, or em"ire3 they fall into decadence after few hours of glory.
Thus aristocracies emerge, dominate, fall into decadence and fall into "ower, re"laced !y non# decadent elites.
5n the whole the u" and down mo&ement of elite takes "lace in two ways. irstly, some non# elite, !y their merit, may rise to the le&el of elite. Secondly, !y re&olution the entire go&erning class may !e reduced to the status of the go&erned. Pareto says, circulation of elite is necessary for healthy social change.
The general mechanism of society according to Pareto, can !e understood !y interest, residues, deri&ations and social heterogeneity. These four major &aria!les are in a state of mutual
de"endence on which the mo&ement of society de"ends. These are the four clear com"onents in all the acti&ities which had to assume some sort of e %uili!rium in any social system.
L1y the circulations of elites, “Pareto wrote, “the go&erning elite is in a state of continuous and slow transformation. (t flows like a ri&er, and what it is today is different from what it was yesterday. /&ery so often, there are sudden and &iolent distur!ances. The ri&er floods and !reaks its !anks. Then afterwards, the new go&erning elite resume again and slow "rocess of self# transformation. The ri&er returns to its !ed and once more flows freely on. ”
"riticisms:
Pareto fails to "ro&ide a method of measuring and distinguishing !etween the su""osedly su"erior %ualities of the elite. e sim"ly assumes that the %ualities of the elite are su"erior to those of the mass. is criterion for distinguishing !etween “lion and fo'es” is merely his own inter"retation of the style of the elite rule. 0oreo&er, Pareto fails to "ro&ide a way of measuring the "rocess of elite decadence. e suggests that, if elite is closed to recruitment from !elow, it is likely to ra"idly lose its &igour and &itality and ha&e a short life.
Talcott Parsons criticized Pareto that he failed to define the conditions go&erning changes in the "ro"ortions of residues. e has not said anything a!out !iological and genetic factors, “!earing
u"on these changes.”
0itchell also criticized that Paretean scheme has a meta#"hysical strength along with an em"irical weakness.
ParetoDs conce"t of residues and their "art in the social change is not clearly defined.
1ut in#s"ite of these criticisms his circulation of elites is a &ery im"ortant contri!ution to study of sociology.
light at their dis"osal, a single wea"on with which to fight$ science.
Pareto today
The !locks "ut down !y Pareto on the !uilding site of logic and non#logic still remain rough hewn. Contem"orary sociologists ha&e made no real !reakthrough in research on useful !eliefs, "ractical efficacy, the logical conse%uences of non#logic reasoning, the weighing of reason in the "roduction of historical effects. 2ith his concerned historical ty"ology of conte'ts and their
indi&isi!le effects, with his use of this ty"ology in the study of actions which are reasoned !ut not entirely reduci!le to the logical calculation, Pareto has drafted a method which makes it easy to o!ser&e and descri!e the differential de"artures !etween models or ty"ologies and modeled or
ty"ologized social actions. This method is also a contri!ution to esta!lishing fruitful relationshi"s !etween sociology and history, to consolidating sociology as a historical disci"line.
Pareto has challenged sociologists to descri!e the re%uisites of actions, interactions and "seudo# logical re"resentations, to elucidate the unwanted relationshi"s of actions and conducts and "er&erse effects, to esta!lish the differences !etween utility for a collecti&e unit, utility of a collecti&e unit and o"helimity. That challenge has not yet !een taken u". The distinction !etween the truth of an utterance and its social utility, the methodical descri"tion of the heterogeneity of ends, costs of social e&ents and the analysis of su!jecti&e utilities in social actions, are fields of research which still lie fallow. Aowadays, the theories of action and the cogniti&e theories of knowledge struggle against the same "ro!lems as Pareto "osed so well, !ut they ha&e not !een at all satisfactorily resol&ed. Aeither the "ositi&ist, culturalist or naturalist theories which seek causes of action elsewhere than in reason, nor functionalism, rational choices, the theory of e'change which "lace them in reason, none of these theories has !een a!le to take ad&antage of the "aretian !reakthroughs.
(n the research into arguments and scientific rhetoric, into innate or natural logic, where Marguing is more a matter of showing than demonstratingN, the "resence of ParetoDs work is more e&ident. Trends in recent sociology aim at transferring the legacy from Pareto into interactionist sociology !y means of research into natural and non#demonstrati&e logic. -e&ealing the rationalist
influences of Iohn Stuart 0ill on the theoretical and non#theoretical "aretian constructions gi&es a new dimension to the sco"e of the emoti&ist doctrines in the Traité de sociologie général and !rings its author !ack into the rationalist tradition.
(f it is !elie&ed that the social sciences are not sa&ing sciences ca"a!le of !ringing ha""iness to men who ha&e so far sought it in &ain3 if one is con&inced that no social science will e&er manage to define the general interest and the "u!lic good, to resol&e the "ro!lems of li&ing well and the good society3 if, howe&er, one is con&inced that the social sciences are means ca"a!le of making social relations intelligi!le, that they show how man !elie&es, acts, "roduces and answers %uestions on the organization and conditions of life in society, on e'istential destiny, then reading the works of Pareto can hel" researchers to free themsel&es of illusions a!out truth and o!jecti&ity as a!solute &alues. Such reading can gi&e a glim"se of how and why indi&iduals "roduce certain knowledge, how such knowledge !ecomes the !asis of action, how it is used to &italize ho"es and "rojects. Sociology also shows the limits and s"arsity of the contents of our knowledge. Produced in "articular conte'ts, this knowledge is neither eternal nor a!solute. /ssential wisdom which science tends to make intelligi!le. owe&er, the intelligi!ility is always conte'tual and historically situated. Sociology assists, like a constant criti%ue of all forms of "roduction of knowledge, in understanding how the study of society is a "owerful means of
mo!ilizing energies in order to arouse consent, to justify, e'"lain and rationalize social action, to o!tain consensus, !ut also in order not to confuse rationality of action and decision with e"istemic rationality.
