Pareto 271047

Pareto’s Formulation of Logical and NonLogical Actions of Human Vilfredo Pareto summarized his aim in writing his major sociological work, “The treatise on General Sociology.” His ambition was to construct a system of sociology analogous in its essential features of the generalized physicochemical system. The treatise attempts to study only non-rational aspects of action. He suggested that the field of economics had limited itself to the single aspect of human action: rational and logical action in pursuit of the acquisition of scarce resources. Pareto turned to sociology when he became convinced that human affairs were largely guided by non-logical, non-rational actions which were excluded from consideration by the economists. It is this analytical distinction between rational and non-rational elements of actions and not a classification of concrete behaviour that Pareto aimed, “It is not actions, as we find them in the concrete that we are called upon to classify, but the elements constituting them.” All the actions are divided into two broad categories: (а) Personal (b) Social Every action or social phenomenon has two aspects: (i) Form (ii) Reality Form is the way in which the phenomenon presents itself to the human mind. (It is something subjective). Reality involves the actual existence of the things. (It is something objective). Likewise all the actions of individual whether it is personal or social, it has two parts. (i) Ends (ii) Means

Logical Actions: So every action is based on either logical action or non-logical action. If the actions are based on logic and experiment and if the means and ends are connected with each other, those actions are known as logical action. Behaviour, Pareto believed is logical both subjectively and objectively. Pareto defines logical actions are those if the end is objectively attainable and if the means employed are objectively united with the end within the framework of best knowledge available. For an action to be logical, the logical connection between the means and ends must exist both in the mind of the actor who performs the act and in objective reality. Logical action is the pure rational action as Weber calls it. In the calculation of means- end relationship; with the addition of the fact that it rested upon knowledge which was objectively true. Logical behaviour, wrote Pareto, consists of: “….those actions which are logically linked to an end, not only in respect to the persons performing them, but also to those other people who have more extensive knowledge : that is to say, behaviour which is subjectively and objectively logical…” Pareto defines “logical action are those actions which use means appropriate to ends and which logically connects means with ends. This logical connection of means with ends must hold not only the subject performing them but also from the stand point of other persons who have a more extensive knowledge.” So the logical co-relation between means and ends must be approved by: (i) The actor or the self (ii) The other persons (These other persons must have extensive knowledge.) So logical actions are those actions that are both subjectively and objectively logical. While, discussing subjective and objective end Pareto says that subjective ends are those which are liked by certain persons on of their personal reasons. He adopts certain line of action which would ultimately lead to goals which serve his personal ends. On the other hand, an objective end is always arrived at by a process of empirically valid predictions and must be within the domain of observation. For an action to be logical, the meansend relation in objective reality must correspond to the means-end relation in the mind of the actor. Characteristics of Logical Action: 1. All the actions personal or social that have a proper adjustment between means and the ends.

2. The actions which are based on experiment and logic. 3. Actions must be objective. 4. Actions must be real. 5. Actions must be accepted by the actor and must be defined objectively. 6. These actions have no place in imagination or prejudices. 7. Both the ends and the means must be scientific and justified. 8. Social sanctions must be there behind such justification. 9. There must be logical connection between means employed and ends attained. 10. Logical actions must be rational in nature. 11. Logical actions are motivated by reasoning. Non-Logical Actions: Non-Logical actions mean simply all human actions not falling within the scope of the logical actions. These are not logical-which does not mean that they are illogical. Non-logical action is action guided by sentiments and other non- logical factors. In other words, in the category of non-logical actions fall all those which do not present the double characteristics of logical connection. 1. Subjectively and 2. Objectively or, Of Correspondence between these two connections: According to Raymond Aron: Thus we can immediately draw up a table of non-logical actions which we shall call the second class of human actions. Objectively :

NO

NO

YES

YES

Subjectively :

NO

YES

NO

YES

Reflections of these above categories: No-No Category No-Yes Category Yes-No Category Yes-Yes Category The No-No Category: Here action is not logical. The means are not connected to the ends neither in reality nor in the mind. Means do not give any result which is logical. The actor does not even have in mind either an end or a means-end relation. This “no-no category” is rare as man has reasoning capacity. No-Yes Category: This no-yes category is widespread. Here the act is not logically related to the result it will give. There is no logical connection between means employed and ends attained. But the actor wrongly imagines that the means he employs are of a kind to produce the end he desires. Example: When people desire rain they make sacrifices to the God. They are convinced that their sacrifices have an effect on the rainfall. In this case a means-end relation exists subjectively but not objectively. Yes-No Category: This category includes actions which do produce a result logically related to the means employed, but without the actor’s is having conceived the means-end relation. There are numerous examples of this category. Reflex acts belong here. Example: Closing of eyes when dust comes. Animals also exhibit this type of behaviour for their survival. This action is objectively defined but not subjectively logical but just like instinctive type of behaviour. Yes-Yes Category: This is the fourth category of action which has a result logically related to the means employed. Here the actor subjectively conceives a relation between the means and the ends, but in which the objective sequence does not correspond to the subjective sequence.

Example: The behaviour of revolutionaries. They wish to change existing society, to correct its vices. These are the four principal categories of non-logical actions. These four categories constitute the subject of Treatise on General Sociology. Among the four categories of non-logical actions, two are particularly important: (i) The second category (No-Yes Category) that is non- logical actions which have no objective goal but do have a subjective goal. Ritual and symbolic actions fall under this category. All actions which are of religious types-all actions which are addressed to an emblem or symbol of a sacred reality fall into this category. (ii) The fourth category (Yes-Yes Category) in which there does not exist a coincidence between the subjective and the objective. This category includes all actions dictated by illusions, particularly the illusions of political men or intellectuals. Characteristics of Non-logical Actions: Non logical actions mean simply all human actions not falling within the scope of the logical actions. (i) Non-logical actions are determined by subjective factors. (ii) It cannot be proved by objective observation and experimentation. (iii) These actions are not determined by reality. (iv) These actions are totally guided by impulses but not reasoning. (v) These actions involve to some degree a motivation by sentiment. Criticisms: There are some crucial areas relating to logical and non-logical actions. Because: 1. It is very difficult to find out which action is logical or which is non-logical. 2. It is also difficult to distinguish between means and ends.

3. Number of non-logical actions is more than logical actions, because man wants to do any action on the basis of his imagination, thinking, sentiments etc., and tries to prove that nonlogical actions are very logical. For Pareto, the main characteristic of an action was its relation through logic. For him, it was not necessary that every action should be based on logic. Human beings may try to prove an action to be logical by their own actions and in their own way. In this respect Pareto made a very useful and valuable contribution.

Vilfredo Pareto: Residues and Derivations Pareto's attempt to unmask nonscientific theories and belief systems led him to make a distinction between changing elements ing for these theories, which he termed derivations, and residual, relatively permanent ele- ments, which he termed residues. The notion of residues has often been mis- understood as merely a fancy term for instinct and as corresponding to the basic sentiments discussed earlier. Pareto himself brought forth this misunder- standing by occasionally referring to residues as instincts. It seems nevertheless that he conceived of residues as manifestations of sentiments or as correspond- ing to them, rather than as their equivalents. Residues are intermediary between the sentiments we cannot know directly and the belief systems and acts that can be known and analyzed. Furthermore, residues are related to man's instincts but they do not cover all of them, since we can only discover those instincts that give rise to rationalization in theories while others must remain hidden. A man's appetite or taste for, say, pork chops, does not fall into the category of residues in Pareto's scheme. If, however, a man constructs a theory according to which Chinese cooking is superior to American cooking, then Pareto would be moved to investigate the residues underlying the elaboration of such theoreti- cal justification. Pareto arrives at his distinctions between residues and derivations by the following procedure: He investigates doctrines that are associated with action, for example, Christian religious doctrine or liberal political theory. From these theories he separates those elements that correspond to the standards of logico- experimental science. Next, he separates the remaining nonscientific elements into constants (residues) and variables (derivations). Derivations only arise when there is reasoning, argument, and ideological justification. When these are present, Paretian analysis looks for the underlying relatively constant ele- ments (residues). For example, we find in all ages a great variety of verbalizations and doc- trines connected with the sexual sphere. These may take the form of porno- graphic literature or of the denunciation of sexual license. There are strict and permissive theories about proper sexual conduct. Ascetic doctrines condemn what hedonistic doctrines extol. But throughout all these manifold derivations runs a common sexual residue, which remains remarkably stable at all times. Styles, modes,

fashions, and ethical theories about the sexual sphere vary immensely, but a uniform sexual nucleus always crops up in a variety of new doctrinal disguises. Although men have used an infinite number and variety of derivations in order to justify or logicalize their actions, Pareto argues that six classes of residues have remained almost constant throughout the long span of Western history. For this reason he surmises that the major classes of residues correspond closely to certain basic human "instincts" or propensities. The six classes of residues are as follows: I. Instinct for Combinations. II. Group Persistences (Persistence of Aggregates). III. Need of Expressing Sentiments by External Acts (Activity, Self-Expression) . IV. Residues Connected with Sociality. V. Integrity of the Individual and His Appurtenances. VI. The Sex Residue. Pareto intends to show that the same residue can give rise to a great variety of belief systems or derivations, and that men deceive themselves when they believe that they take a given course of action on the basis of a particular theory in which they happen to believe. For example, "A Chinese, a Moslem, a Calvinist, a Catholic, a Kantian, a Hegelian, a Materialist, all refrain from stealing; but each gives a different explanation for his conduct.'' In view of such variable explanations of a constant characteristic, Pareto concluded that the real cause of the behavior has to be found in the constancy of a residue under- lying these different derivations. He reasoned that all these adherents of different schools of thought have in common the need to maintain the integrity of their personality and to preserve their self-regard. Therefore, Class V residues explain their conduct. Everywhere, and at all times, men believe in the objective reality of gods or spirits, of "progress," "freedom," or "justice." The names and embodiments of these entities change, as do the religious, philosophical, and moral theories that explain these beliefs. But it will always be found that, however expressed, the common belief in such entities is rooted in a stable common element, in this case residue II, the "conservative" tendency to group persistence, to social integration. Pareto argued repeatedly that it is useless, even a waste of time, to discuss the truth of a doctrine with an adherent to it. Christianity has not been de- stroyed by arguments disputing the historical reality of Jesus, and Catholic patriotism in was not hurt by assertions that Joan of Arc was a hys- teric. Only a scientific strategy that allows us to trace the multiplicity of belief systems and doctrines to their common source in basic residues can advance science and lead to a measure of enlightenment.

Whether Pareto's explanations amount to more than pseudo-explanations is an open question. I would agree with Raymond Aron who believes that they have much in common with the reasoning of Moliere's quack physician who explains the effects of opium by its dormitive powers. As Aron says with characteristic wit, "One does not dare to say [Pareto's] results are false, but perhaps they are not very instructive." Yet before attempting to a judg- ment, one has to realize that Pareto's theory of residues served him not only as a way of explaining theories and belief systems, but also as a means of explaining social movements, social change, and the dynamics of history. Be- fore we turn to this matter, two other Paretian notions, the distinction between types of nonlogical theories, and the distinction between subjective intentions and objective consequences of action need to be examined.

Pareto’s Circulation of Elites: Characteristics and Criticisms

Pareto’s treatment of the circulation of elites is often cited and is generally considered the most interesting part of his sociology. Pareto believed that individuals are born with quite different abilities and acquire quite different skills and aptitudes. According to Pareto, since in every society there are classes, therefore each society is heterogeneous. Such a heterogeneity takes place on of mental, moral, physical and cultural reasons but helps in maintaining social balance and organisation. According to Pareto, people are unequal physically, as well as intellectually and morally. Some people are more gifted than others. Pareto says, those who are most capable in any particular grouping are the elite. The term elite denote simply, “a class of the people who have the highest indices in their branch of activity.” According to Pareto, “By elite, we mean the small number of individuals who, in each sphere of activity, have succeeded and have arrived at a higher echelon in the professional hierarchy.” Examples are the successful businessmen, artists, successful writers, professors etc. Pareto further divided the elite class into two categories: 1. A governing elite 2. A non-governing elite. A governing elite comprising individual who directly or indirectly play some considerable part in government. A non-governing elite is comprising the rest of the individuals. Pareto’s main discussion focuses on the governing elite.

Governing elites are directly and indirectly concerned with istration. They play highly important role and enjoy prestigious place in society. Non-Governing elites are not connected with istration but occupy such a place in society that they somehow influence the istration.

Basic characteristics of elites: 1. The individuals not belonging to either of the governing elite or non-governing elite are called non-elite. 2. The class of elite is universal and continuous process. 3. The elite manipulate overtly or covertly the political power. 4. The elite is having the capacity to establish superiority over others. 5. The of the elite class will always try that the non- elites should not influence social, economic and political processes in any manner. 6. The non-elites respect only such elites who are liberal in outlook and approach, because they alone can help them to come nearer to each other. Bogardus has described, “The theory of elite is that in every society there are people who possess in a marked degree, the qualities of intelligence, character, skill, capacity, whatever kind, that there are two classes of elite, that the two groups are disjunctive at any given time, that there is an up and down circulation of elite.” 7. Circulation or upward and downward circulation amongst the of the elite and nonelite is a typical characteristic of the elite. According to Pareto the work and the role of the elites are influenced by two types of factors which are always operative in every society. One type which is constant is called residues, the other type is derivations. According to Pareto social change comes because of residues of combination and residue of persistence of aggregates. Cycle of social change is a continuous process. Political, economic and ideological factors are responsible for continuing this process.

Following the Machiavellian formula, Pareto states that the elites are able to manipulate and control the masses by resorting to two methods: Force or Fraud, which corresponding to Machiavelli’s famous anti-thesis between the ‘Lions” and the “Foxes”. The “Foxes” are the elites abundantly endowed with residues of the first class (Residues of combinations) which includes the propensities in social groups to adopt flexibly to environmental or situational exigencies. They are capable of innovation and experiment, prefer materialistic to idealistic goals, but lack fidelity to principles and use strategies that vary from emotional appeal to unadulterated fraud. The “Lions” are conservative elites in whom the second class of residues (Persistence of aggregates) predominates. They have faith and ideology; they display group loyalty and class solidarity; they gain and retain power by the use of force. The concept of elites has been given a great deal of attention by Vilfredo Pareto. Pareto’s views and conclusions about the elites are interesting and incisive. According to him, every society has elite groups of different kinds. These elites, being the best or excellent of their classes are always in a minority. But they are nonetheless vital and it is they who determine the development or progress of every society. Pareto concerns himself with a simple distinction between those having power called the elite and those having none called the non-elite. He sees the history of every human society as the history of the relations between its elite who rules and its non-elites who are just ruled. Circulation of Elite is between elite and non-elite, and between governing elite and nongoverning elite.

According to Pareto, there can be also a circulation of elites in the sense of being a process by which individuals circulate between the elite and the non-elite. This process of replacement takes place in two ways. It is either by a gradual process of infiltration or by a violent revolution. Pareto explains all this in of changes in the psychological characteristics of the of the elite on the one hand, and those of the lower strata, on the other. Thus when the elite no longer possesses the residues necessary for keeping it in power and at the same time at the lower

strata of society, the necessary residues are sufficiently manifest then the declining elite recruits new elements from the lower strata of society and thereby restores its vitality. Or it may so happen that an elite decaying in the necessary residues is violently overthrown by the lower classes strong in the requisite residues necessary for keeping them in power. According to Pareto the elites not only change within or amongst their own classes, they also do so across the classes. A few individuals may the ranks of elites from the non-elite groups. And a few elites may become non-elite of society. The numbers of the various elite groups may decline both in arithmetical as well as in their quality or significance on of the various factors. When this happens the elites cease to be elites and tend to come down to the non-elite group. On the other hand, when some of the non-elite groups achieve excellence or acquire special power they tend to the particular elite groups. Pareto says that this kind of increase in the number or strength of elites as well as the decrease or decline in their ranks is common features of every society. Pareto takes a very large canvas of history particularly Roman history and the Italian history of his times to show how the circulations of elites take place. He observes that in a perfectly free society there would be a constant and free circulation of elites. But such a perfect society is almost an ideal society. Most societies have imperfections of various types and therefore the circulation of elites is seldom ideally free or unimpeded. Pareto adds that in case of great social changes as signified by wars or revolutions there takes place a large scale replacement of the old elites by the new ones. He argues that, whether particular elites stay in power or not, whether they are partially or fully replaced or not, the fact remains that they remain in vital positions and characterised the development and progress of a given society. Pareto argues that men have a predominance of either Class-I residues where they are the “foxes” or of Class-II residues where they are the “lions”. The style of governing will depend on whether the ruling elite is composed of the foxes or the lions. The foxes are bold and adventurous, they do not care to be cautious and live by cunning and cleverness. In the economic field, the foxes are the speculators; they do not dread risks for the sake of maximum profits. They indulge in promotion schemes. The lions on the other hand, are solid, conservative, tradition loving, loyal to family, church and nation. They always prefer to rely on force rather than on cleverness. In their economic field they are rentiers. They are cautious, thrifty, content with small returns on safe investments and unwilling

to gamble. The elite are composed of either of these types of individuals depending on the sort of residues that happen to prevail. When Class I residues are dominant, the foxes will rule and the predominance of Class II residues will establish the rule by the lions. Indeed, history reveals a constant alteration between an elite having the dominant Class I residues and an elite having the preponderance of Class II residues. The theory of elite is that in every society there are “people who possess in a marked degree the qualities of intelligence, character, skill, capacity, of whatever kind; that there are two kinds of elite: that the two groups are disjunctive at any given time, and that there is an up and down circulation of the elite. But aristocracies with the governing elite at the top, do not last. The Athenian aristocracy of the elite ed away without leaving descendants. “In the aristocracy of the present day is very largely made up of descendants of vassals of the” Lords of Old.” Pareto says, “History is the grave-yard of Aristocracy”. The famous statement reveals the fact that history is accentuated with the elite class since generation, who emerge, dominate, fall into decadency and is replaced by non-decadent elites in society. Pareto has given a number of reasons for mortality of aristocracy which are un-graved in history for generation and generation. 1. Aristocrats (mainly King and Emperor) were engaged in historical wars which lead to degeneration of aristocracy. 2. The inheritors of aristocracy are not necessarily possessed with some inherent traits of that of their forefathers. But they rule or govern on the basis of heredity even though they may not have the necessary skill, knowledge about governance and sufficient ability to govern the kingdom, or empire; they fall into decadence after few hours of glory. Thus aristocracies emerge, dominate, fall into decadence and fall into power, replaced by nondecadent elites. On the whole the up and down movement of elite takes place in two ways. Firstly, some nonelite, by their merit, may rise to the level of elite. Secondly, by revolution the entire governing class may be reduced to the status of the governed. Pareto says, circulation of elite is necessary for healthy social change. The general mechanism of society according to Pareto, can be understood by interest, residues, derivations and social heterogeneity. These four major variables are in a state of mutual

dependence on which the movement of society depends. These are the four clear components in all the activities which had to assume some sort of equilibrium in any social system. ‘By the circulations of elites, “Pareto wrote, “the governing elite is in a state of continuous and slow transformation. It flows like a river, and what it is today is different from what it was yesterday. Every so often, there are sudden and violent disturbances. The river floods and breaks its banks. Then afterwards, the new governing elite resume again and slow process of selftransformation. The river returns to its bed and once more flows freely on.” Criticisms: Pareto fails to provide a method of measuring and distinguishing between the supposedly superior qualities of the elite. He simply assumes that the qualities of the elite are superior to those of the mass. His criterion for distinguishing between “lion and foxes” is merely his own interpretation of the style of the elite rule. Moreover, Pareto fails to provide a way of measuring the process of elite decadence. He suggests that, if elite is closed to recruitment from below, it is likely to rapidly lose its vigour and vitality and have a short life. Talcott Parsons criticized Pareto that he failed to define the conditions governing changes in the proportions of residues. He has not said anything about biological and genetic factors, “bearing upon these changes.” Mitchell also criticized that Paretean scheme has a meta-physical strength along with an empirical weakness. Pareto’s concept of residues and their part in the social change is not clearly defined. But in-spite of these criticisms his circulation of elites is a very important contribution to study of sociology. light at their disposal, a single weapon with which to fight: science. Pareto today

The blocks put down by Pareto on the building site of logic and non-logic still remain rough hewn. Contemporary sociologists have made no real breakthrough in research on useful beliefs, practical efficacy, the logical consequences of non-logic reasoning, the weighing of reason in the production of historical effects. With his concerned historical typology of contexts and their indivisible effects, with his use of this typology in the study of actions which are reasoned but not entirely reducible to the logical calculation, Pareto has drafted a method which makes it easy to observe and describe the differential departures between models or typologies and modeled or

typologized social actions. This method is also a contribution to establishing fruitful relationships between sociology and history, to consolidating sociology as a historical discipline. Pareto has challenged sociologists to describe the requisites of actions, interactions and pseudological representations, to elucidate the unwanted relationships of actions and conducts and perverse effects, to establish the differences between utility for a collective unit, utility of a collective unit and ophelimity. That challenge has not yet been taken up. The distinction between the truth of an utterance and its social utility, the methodical description of the heterogeneity of ends, costs of social events and the analysis of subjective utilities in social actions, are fields of research which still lie fallow. Nowadays, the theories of action and the cognitive theories of knowledge struggle against the same problems as Pareto posed so well, but they have not been at all satisfactorily resolved. Neither the positivist, culturalist or naturalist theories which seek causes of action elsewhere than in reason, nor functionalism, rational choices, the theory of exchange which place them in reason, none of these theories has been able to take advantage of the paretian breakthroughs. In the research into arguments and scientific rhetoric, into innate or natural logic, where «arguing is more a matter of showing than demonstrating», the presence of Pareto’s work is more evident. Trends in recent sociology aim at transferring the legacy from Pareto into interactionist sociology by means of research into natural and non-demonstrative logic. Revealing the rationalist influences of John Stuart Mill on the theoretical and non-theoretical paretian constructions gives a new dimension to the scope of the emotivist doctrines in the Traité de sociologie général and brings its author back into the rationalist tradition. If it is believed that the social sciences are not saving sciences capable of bringing happiness to men who have so far sought it in vain; if one is convinced that no social science will ever manage to define the general interest and the public good, to resolve the problems of living well and the good society; if, however, one is convinced that the social sciences are means capable of making social relations intelligible, that they show how man believes, acts, produces and answers questions on the organization and conditions of life in society, on existential destiny, then reading the works of Pareto can help researchers to free themselves of illusions about truth and objectivity as absolute values. Such reading can give a glimpse of how and why individuals produce certain knowledge, how such knowledge becomes the basis of action, how it is used to vitalize hopes and projects. Sociology also shows the limits and sparsity of the contents of our knowledge. Produced in particular contexts, this knowledge is neither eternal nor absolute. Essential wisdom which science tends to make intelligible. However, the intelligibility is always contextual and historically situated. Sociology assists, like a constant critique of all forms of production of knowledge, in understanding how the study of society is a powerful means of mobilizing energies in order to arouse consent, to justify, explain and rationalize social action, to obtain consensus, but also in order not to confuse rationality of action and decision with epistemic rationality.