Jean-Pascal Daloz

Political Elites and Conspicuous Modesty: Norway, Sweden, Finland in Comparative Perspective

All sorts of distinctions can be made concerning prestige goods: for instance, between the most durable like precious stones passed down from generation to generation and the ephemeral ones, or between those which seem to exert a universal fascination, like gold and others valued only in some places. The question of borrowings and possible syncretism is also most appealing for the comparatist and countless illustrations could be given here. In many cases, prestigious goods must be studied by taking both their symbolic and practical value into consideration. What I mean is that a ‘Veblenesque’ approach only paying attention to them as status symbols tends to underestimate their functional dimension. For example, limousines or jets must certainly be analyzed in terms of attributes of power and status enhancement. However, one cannot deny that they also have concrete functions of ‘comfortableness’ and rapidity for ubiquitous elites bound to do extensive traveling. Normally, in modern democracies, top political actors inherit or acquire all kinds of prestigious public assets, but these must be returned at the end of their mandate. Even presents officially given to them are supposed to be surrendered to a public museum. The famous affair of Emperor Bokassas diamonds offered to Valery Giscard d’Estaing no doubt discredited the French President and contributed to his defeat in the 1981 elections.

Elite Distinction: Grand Theory and Comparative Perspectives

Most of the major social theorists have addressed the issue of distinction. Largely ignoring each others views on the matter, they have mainly sought to integrate their discussion within their respective grand theories. The main defect is that, often extrapolating from the analysis of one particular case, they have claimed to provide sociological laws. On the basis of personal field work as well as a sound acquaintance with the literature dealing with elite groups, the author aims at suggesting how differences from one society to another challenge universalistic understanding. Although comparative research proves to make it impossible to accept any general theory of distinction, the article, however, shows that many classical perspectives are worthy of note if taken as partially valid.

OSTENTATION IN COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE: CULTURE AND ELITE LEGITIMATION

In their endless quest for self-devotion, the elite, the powerful, often seek to appropriate the most beautiful and impressive things. As Thorstein Veblen (1899, p. 36) put it: “In order to gain and to hold the esteem of men it is not sufficient to merely possess wealth or power. The wealth or power must be put in evidence, for esteem is awarded only on evidence.” Looking at it in these terms, pomp and prestige prove to be necessary elements for “upholding one’s rank.” Many authors have acknowledged that Veblen was the first to give a systematic sociological interpretation of “conspicuous behaviour.” However he has often been criticized for taking on a rather puritan and incriminating tone. For his part, Norbert Elias (1974, pp. 48–49) reproaches Veblen for not managing to understand the behavioural logics and the mentalities of societies different from the (American-bourgeois) one he was analysing. Moreover, Elias quite rightly points out that in industrialized societies, one is able to preserve great prestige without providing public proof for it through costly display. Social pressure for prestigious consumption would no longer have the unavoidable character it used to have (particularly within court society) and would take on a much more private one (Elias, 1974, pp. 54–55). Even if this statement often proves to be true, it is also an over-generalization.

The Distinction of Social and Political Elites

This article introduces the special issue on “The Distinction of Social and Political Elites.” It aims to provide some analytical reflections about the usefulness and limits of classical models of interpretation when confronted with empirical realities in very different societies. Although the separation between the societal and the political spheres is not always very clear, it is argued that the differentiation between the two corresponding types of elite is often significant from a theoretical point of view. Indeed, the symbolic superiority of political elites is frequently raised in rather specific terms because of the nature of their role as representatives.

Paris, Pretoria, and the African continent : the international relations of states and societies in transition

Preface T.Lodge - Acknowledgements - Notes on the Contributors - Introduction C.Alden & J-P.Daloz - PART 1: FRANCE AND AFRICA: CONTINUITY AND CHANGE - From Policy Autonomy to Policy Integration: The Evolution of Frances Role in Africa C.Alden - End Game South of the Sahara? Frances Africa Policy J-F.Bayart - Africans in France: French Immigration Policy and West Africa C.Quiminal - Algeria and France: The Enduring Strength of Cultural Ties M.Khandriche - PART 2: FRANCE AND SOUTHERN AFRICA - France and South Africa C.Cuddumbey - France and Southern Africa: The Economic Dimension A.Ulpat - Between Peace and War: French Non-Governmental Organizations in Southern Africa M.Kassa - PART 3: SOUTH AFRICA AND FRANCOPHONE AFRICA - Out of Africa: Madagascar and South Africa Since the 1820s G.Campbell - South Africa and the Maghreb: Past, Present and Future K.Lambrechts -Settlers and Natives: The Cases of South Africa and Algeria A.Guelke - PART 4: NEW CONTEXT, NEW DIRECTION? - Frances Policy Towards South Africa in the Transition Period G.Lory - The Changing Image of South Africa in France I.Crouzel - France, the New World Order and the Francophone West African States: Towards a Reconceptualisation of Privileged Relations E.Nwokedi - Towards the Intellectual Marginalization of Africa? J-P.Daloz - Conclusion C.Alden & J-P.Daloz - Selected Bibliography - Index

Political Elites in Sub-Saharan Africa

This chapter underlines the fact that elite perspectives have never been given a high priority in African studies. Analyses have long suffered from having to fit reductive schematic molds full of dogmatic assumptions, as is demonstrated here in the first section revisiting the developmentalist and neo-Marxist theories that became predominant at the beginning of the post-colonial era, but also the so-called third wave of African studies. It is argued that due to the fact that in sub-Saharan Africa, political power remains weakly institutionalized, moving away from highly abstract or normative discussions and looking at situations from the more concrete angle of elites should be given priority. Recurrent features such as the enduring predominance of informal political relations, the long tenures, and limited circulation of top-level political leaders, as well as the imperative of particularistic economic redistributions are emphasized.

Elite Attributes and Resources

Most of the personal attributes of elites such as personality, motivation, values, political attitudes, and professional expertise are acquired in a long process of personal and political socialization. Moreover, the opportunities for advancement into elite positions are rooted in the relatively stable social and political structures of a society. The resources of elite power and influence, rather than being personal assets, are mostly tied to the elite position. While individual attributes determine how elites use these positional resources, elite behavior is shaped by institutional constraints and the expectations of their selectorates. To be effective and maintain status, elites must balance contradictory expectations of different elite groups and their electorate—in non-democratic settings, their clientele. Analyses of policy-making networks in consolidated democracies confirm that such networks include representatives of governmental agencies and other organized groups and only a few non-elite persons. Network members are engaged in a complex process of bargaining that takes place in a variety of formal and informal committees.

Grand Theories and the Challenge of Comparative Analysis

More than half a century ago, C. Wright Mills (1959) coined the term “grand theory” as a caveat against overly ambitious systems of interpretation. Around the same period, Robert K. Merton (1949) developed the notion of “middle range theory” as a cautiously applied framework for analysing limited sectors of social reality without extending into major conceptual structures.1 Furthermore in the same vein, the most influential anthropologist of his generation, Clifford Geertz (1993 [1973], p. 4), famously declared that “calls for a ‘general theory’ of just about anything social sound increasingly hollow”. Decades later, efforts to promote one grand theory over another still feature prominently in the sociological mindset and key authors continue to exert a great influence over the thinking of their disciples. However, the diversity of available approaches makes it virtually impossible for any of the competing traditions to claim control over an increasingly complex social scientific landscape. Sadly the outcome has been less space for discussion, and even debate, and a growing attitude of mutual disdain and withdrawal into one’s more or less limited world of reference. Self-contained schools of thought orbiting around seigniorial figures of authority, dedicated research centres, journals and book series, as well as exclusive conferences endlessly commemorating the legacy of their founding fathers, have become an all-too-familiar reality. In this “feudal” environment, allegiance to a conceptual apparatus serves as a sign of recognition and the researchers most likely to be lionised are those who can produce findings that support the analytical prominence of their respective strongholds. These young champions, having recently grasped and started to teach the thought of

Reference Models in the Eye of the Comparativist

While much can be learnt from existing theoretical frameworks, they remain rather unsatisfactory on the issue of the relation between social distinction and prevailing codes. Deductive approaches in terms of, say, emulation, imitation, reference groups, hegemony, and resistance frequently betray their exponents’ dogmatic stance and are guilty of overreaching extrapolation. As useful as these outlooks may be, they cannot be taken as systematically valid. This chapter will provide examples and counter-examples meant to emphasise the ambiguity of many such mechanisms. Once again, comparative explorations will help widen our analytical horizon.

‘Distinction through Taste’ Revisited

The success of Pierre Bourdieu’s book Distinction (1984 [1979]) has drawn attention back to the question of taste, generating much research and debate over the past few decades. This literature is in many ways characteristic of contemporary sociological work on social distinction. On the one hand, it develops extremely sophisticated analyses. On the other, it is also rather dogmatic in its assumptions and deductive in its form of reasoning.