Whereas symbolic interactionism, neo-Marxism and the other approaches that we have encountered so far attempt to provide a holistic theory that would be able to explain social life in its totality, elite theory singles out a concrete group of social actors whom it deems to be decisive for generating social action, and examines them, and only them, extensively.
This mode of analysis is simultaneously a source of its strengths and weaknesses. On the plus side elite theory provides a relatively simple analytical framework, which is not only theoretically tight but is also realistic in its focus on tangible, actually existing people and, as such, is empirically very useful. Elite theory bestows us with a simple but potent predictor of ethnic group conflict. An analytical focus on the role of leadership, the motives of power holders, the links between rulers and their followers, the strategies and tactics of group mobilization employed by political elites and so on are essential in understanding any specific case of ethnic group animosity.
What elite theory does is to provide us with research tools for identifying concrete ‘sources of trouble’. With its use one is able to pinpoint individuals and groups most responsible for enacting or preventing a particular social change. If, for example, when trying to explain ethnic separatism among Muslims in South Asia, one is in a position to demonstrate empirically how Ulema’s particular interpretation of Shari’a law is strategically employed to transform their position of religious authority into one of political hegemony over their co-ethnic brethren, then such a finding can have direct explanatory, ethical and policy implications. We know who to blame and, potentially, how to contain such an episode.
In this sense the elite theory of ethnic relations is the embodiment of Occam’s razor principle that the most simple solution is often the right one. On the minus side, although elite theory provides us with a realistic and practical account of ethnic relations, that account is incomplete and occasionally problematic.This incompleteness is pronounced in three major ways: a) elite approaches to ethnicity have a weak theoretical foundation; b) they underestimate potential and actual action of the masses; and c) they operate with an inadequate understanding of culture.
The contemporary elite theory of ethnicity lacks strong epistemological and general sociological foundations. This is most apparent in the weak or almost non-existent link between classical and contemporary elite approaches. While Pareto, Michels and Mosca did not discuss ethnicity, they did provide much wider and epistemologically stronger fundamentals for generating a sociologically coherent and thorough elite theory that is able, as I previously indicated, to encompass ethnicity.They elaborated general principles of individual and collective action, provided historical analyses of social change and social structure, developed methodological and conceptual apparatus for analysis, and so on. Unlike the classics, the contemporary elite theory of ethnicity, as it now stands, hangs in the air – it is too narrow in its focus on ethnicity and, as such, is unable to supply a comprehensive theoretical framework that would be able to articulate ethnic relations in the wider social context of social change and social structure.
Thus, instead of surpassing and overcoming the shortcomings of the classics as, for example, neo-Marxism or neo-functionalism attempt to do, contemporary elite theory is a long way from the classics and it remains theoretically much more limited than its classical predecessors.The main reason for this is the fact that the most influential contemporary elite positions do not have a sociological background but come from political anthropology, social psychology and political science.As such their primary goal is not to ground their analysis of ethnic relations in a wider understanding of social reality, or to link it to a firmer sociological tradition, but rather to provide effective and a relatively simple account of power relations that could have direct policy implication.
Islamic Visual Arts: Phenomenal Vision of the Sacred
