Intra-Elite Competition
Discussion
Rob Henderson:
"Goldstone continues:
“When we examine societies in the years leading up to a revolution, we find that social relationships have changed. The rulers have become weakened, erratic, or predatory so that many of the elites no longer feel rewarded or supported, and are not inclined to support the regime. Elites are no longer unified but instead have become divided into mutually suspicious and distrusting factions…Many elites and popular groups view the rulers and other elites as unjust; they are drawn to heterodox beliefs or ideologies that make sense of their grievances and offer solutions through social change.”
He goes on:
“If a significant portion of the elites and diverse popular groups form a coalition against the rulers and demand major changes, a revolution has begun. If the military then suffers defections, and is reluctant or unable to overcome the spreading resistance, the revolution will succeed…Elites may hide their growing discord and opposition until they seize the opportunity to act against the regime.”
This is consistent with Oxford philosopher Isaiah Berlin’s observations: Revolutionaries who occupy key positions in prominent institutions quietly bide their time, and wait for the right moment to implement their long-awaited plans.
A common mistake is to view elites as a unified block. A group of people who look out for one another. They are not. Elites are constantly trying to get ahead of one another.
One of the more interesting ideas I’ve read about is intra-elite competition, a concept developed by the mathematician and biologist Peter Turchin.
The key idea of intra-elite competition is that competing “elite aspirants” are vying to obtain powerful positions.
Turchin notes that there are more wealthy people today as a proportion of the population, relative to about 30 years ago.
For example, he notes that since 1983 the number of American households worth at least $10 million (in 1995 dollars) has grown from 66,000 to 350,000.
But there are limited powerful positions. Turchin points out there are still only 100 senators and 435 representatives.
...
When there are large numbers of frustrated elite aspirants—what Turchin refers to as “elite overproduction”—intra-elite competition intensifies.
He writes:
“Moderate intra-elite competition need not be harmful to an orderly and efficient functioning of the society; in fact, it’s usually beneficial because it results in better-qualified candidates being selected. Additionally, competition can help weed out incompetent or corrupt office-holders. However, it is important to keep in mind that the social effects of elite competition depend critically on the norms and institutions that regulate it and channel it into such societally productive forms. Excessive elite competition, on the other hand, results in increasing social and political instability.”
Large numbers of elite aspirants heighten intra-elite competition. As elites retire, spaces become available. Elite aspirants compete for those spots.
But there are always more elite aspirants than powerful positions. This gives rise to frustration among would-be elites.
A great expansion in the numbers of elite aspirants with a narrow pool of powerful positions available means that large numbers of them will experience bitterness.
Turchin:
“Intense intra-elite competition, however, leads to the rise of rival power networks, which increasingly subvert the rules of political engagement to get ahead of the opposition. Instead of competing on their own merits, or the merits of their political platforms, candidates increasingly rely on “dirty tricks” such as character assassination.”
The more ambitious elite aspirants who either do not obtain the positions they desire or do not see a path for themselves to earn positions they desire, become counter-elites. They lead rebellion movements.
Social movements are typically led not by someone from the underclass or the poor, but by second-tier elites. Lenin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, Che Guevara, America’s founders, etc. were relatively educated and at least middle-class. They were not nearly the poorest of their societies. Far from it."