Abstract
Normally, when there is no change, elites share norms and expectations of each other, and are unified in a way that their opponents rarely are. This is the source of their power, suggesting that if they become fragmented, and a more unified counter-elite emerges, their grip can be loosened. Historians’ accounts of revolutions or periods of radical change confirm that this is indeed the pattern: the elite fragments and its dissident members join forces with its opponents. The resulting counter-elite forms an alliance with the people, and this alliance is held together by strong belief in ideas and ideals. These contrast the glorious future with the decaying past.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Elites have been defined as groups that exercise the most power in a society (John Scott). As with any sociological definition, this has empirical content: it reminds us that power is exercised by groups and that some groups have more power than others.
- 2.
Scott talks of distinct counter-elites that fail to fuse into a single counter-elite . The distinct counter-elites he refers to are “those that organise the response to the exercise of power.” They are not really counter-elites of the kind that took over in France in the 1790s, or Britain in the 1940s and to avoid confusion I will not refer to them as counter-elites.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Seaford, C. (2019). Change in the Past (1). In: Why Capitalists Need Communists. Wellbeing in Politics and Policy. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98755-2_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98755-2_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-98754-5
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-98755-2
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)