Alpay
@alpd
.
Daha önce ne böyle bir şeye niyetlendiğim olmuştu, ne de onun baştan çıkarıcı müstehcen önerilerine kapıldığım, ama benim ilke sahibi biri olduğuma hiç inanmazdı o. Ahlâk da bir zaman sorunudur, derdi, yüzünde hınzırca bir gülümsemeyle, görürsün bak.
Permanence or Fluidity of Elites?
In their survey on employers, Pierre Bourdieu and Monique de Saint Martin observe that "the criteria in use by the insiders are contrary to the modernist and rational picture that the big technocratic parade suggests to outsiders: this controlling fraction that likes to be seen as entirely focused on the future finds the real principles of its actual selection at the same time as the practical justifications for its privileges in the past, in history and in the seniority of acquired rights.[25] Thus "managers" as the new masters of the economy would in fact mask the weight of the past behind modernist costumes. They would be the indispensable screen for maintaining the illusion of a meritocracy. However, sociologists and economists, at least certain of them, agree in recognizing the property and the family networks that always find themselves in a powerful position. Thus, the authors of the Dictionnaire des groupes industriels et financiers en France (Dictionary of Industrial and Financial Groups in France) write that "family ties are one of the means, maybe the principal means, by which the bourgeoisie and in particular the financial oligarchy assures and reproduces over time its control of capital [. . . ] that gives it value." [26] Bernard Marguerite leads to similar conclusions while underscoring the relative permeability of the grande bourgeoisie: "There is not a class of men of means on the one hand and a class of managers on the other, there is a selection-absorption mechanism within the class (or on its immediate periphery) pulling in those who appear best qualified to manage in the collective interest of the class."[27] Daniel Bertaux, in the earliest of all the texts cited here, affirmed that "thanks to some recent studies, [he] saw rather quickly that [the
Permanence or Fluidity of Elites?
The theme of "fluidity of the elite" has a sociological tradition, too. According to Dominique Merllié, Vilfredo Pareto (1848-1923), who divided society into two classes, the elite and the rest, affirmed that the destiny of elites is to renew themselves, either progressively by integrating some new individuals and rejecting others, or globally when a group, due to a failure to renew itself or for other grounds, loses its dominant position. [22] In addition, the notion of social mobility itself, introduced by Pitirim Sorokin (1889-1968), was formulated on the basis of the problem of elites. For Sorokin, social mobility appeared to be a form of generalization of the older theme of "the mobility of elites". And still long after Sorokin, works on social mobility are in fact fairly often limited to the question of elite recruitment.[23] This tradition returns to an ancient preoccupation in the developed Western societies, that of equality, at least formal, of opportunity. Without being egalitarian societies, North America and old Europe are meritocratic societies, where it is demonstrated and made evident that the dominant positions are not only inherited, but are earned and that they are the object of a valiant struggle whose result is uncertain.
To counter this socially and politically legitimizing picture of an open society, in which competition is possible and permits each person to realize his opportunities, it is necessary to recall some elementary facts. First of all, that "immobility prevails over mobility" as the tables of social mobility show.[24] And then, that social replication does not handle the individual case, from father to son or mother to daughter. This reproduction gains significance on a group scale. It is even more true for the haute bourgeoisie that
Introduction
The common view that equates the upper classes with individualism obscures the fundamental cohesion found in the great families. The idea of grand-bourgeois individualism is all the more misleading in that this individualism is only, in its manifestations, the transliteration of the habits of the group. By its own social magic, the haut bourgeois is so well adapted to the world in which he lives, that being himself is sufficient to meet the requirements of circumstance and of other people, in the ineffable sense of the achievement of being and of irreducible individuality.
10/10
75 günde okudu
·2019 11. kitabı
