By Alexander Perepechko

Published on May 23, 2015

When I tell my fellow Americans that I study American elites, I often get a bizarre reaction: “How can you, a foreigner, study American elites?” It happens so frequently that a special essay is required.

It is not unusual for foreigners to scrutinize American elites. Just like many other scientific disciplines, elitology in the United States was founded by immigrants. Moisey Ostrogorsky and Pitirim Sorokin, immigrants from the Eastern Europe, were among the founding fathers of elitology in America. Ostrogorsky was a Belarusian Jew. Sorokin’s father was Russian and his mother was Komi. American elitologist and strategist Edward Luttwak was born into a Jewish family in Romania. By the same token, Sergey Kurginyan, one of the founding fathers of elitology in another country – the Russian Federation – is also a “foreigner” there with Jewish and Armenian cultural roots. I often utilize his provocative findings about military and national security elites in my work. Thus, it is not credible to conjecture that an immigrant cannot study American elites.
Continue reading Elites and elitologists →

By Alexander Perepechko

Published on April 26, 2015

In four previous essays on Barack Hussein Obama, I left unanswered the following question: “Are theorists of elites right that in a multi-racial, multi-religious, multi-ethnic or socially complex state the ruling class should be recruited almost exclusively from the dominant majority?” This question requires an answer after Rafael Edward “Ted” Cruz announced his 2016 presidential bid. In his speech, Cruz dedicated the first 900 words to a detailed retelling of his origin story. That is more than most candidates will do. It seems as though Cruz plans to lean heavily on his biography to distinguish himself from the rest of the candidates and to send the message that he represents real change and the future face of America. That is exactly what Obama did during his own presidential campaigns. His background functioned as proof of how different he was from the rest of the candidates (Cillizza, 2015). After Ted Cruz, another minority candidate – Marco Rubio – announced his 2016 presidential bid.

The theory of elites gives few clues about this culturally sensitive matter. Neither bureaucratic advancement nor party patronage is the rule for a leader of a minority group. The rule is cooptation: the outsider must be like those who are already in. Indeed, the cooptation of leaders of minorities in the United States used to be quite successful. American theorist of elites C. Wright Mills (2000: 142) describes the two ways elites are formed: “Those who have started from on high have from their beginnings been formed by sound men and trained for soundness. They do not have to think of having to appear as sound men. They are just sound men; indeed, they embody the standards of soundness. Those who have had low beginnings must think all the harder before taking a risk of being thought unsound. As they succeed, they must train themselves for success; and, as they are formed by it, they too come to embody it, perhaps more rotundly than those of the always-high career.”
Continue reading Circulation of elites: from azamoglans in the Ottoman Empire to creoles in the United States →

By Alexander Perepechko

Published on March 26, 2015

The x axis and y axis are respectively the time and development (figure 5). In the epoch of Modernity (the last 500 years), the technosphere has demonstrated an exponential growth (see my February 17, 2015 post). No exponential curve of economic growth can continue indefinitely. The technosphere has limits of growth and approaches a critical barrier. At the same time, the anthropos remains constant. As a result, the gap between development of the technosphere and development of the anthropos – the anthropotechnological scissors – increases. At a certain point this gap reaches a critical width and a civilization destroys itself. This phenomenon is called the Peters paradox (or, Peters barrier) after Thomas Peters, the first author of the book In Search of Excellence (1982), which is celebrated in the theory of elites. Peters and his colleagues researched organizational effectiveness. Results of their research were used and developed in the area of elite studies. There is a hypothesis that both the development of the technosphere and the development of the anthropos arrive at trifurcation points with three options for each (figure 5).

The development of the technosphere has three options:

a) Apocalypse is self-termination of the human race owing to uncontrolled exponential growth.

b) Counter-Modernity bears a resemblance to Pre-Modernity (a society prior to Modernity regulated by religion, tradition, and rules of estate corporation in rural society). However, unlike Pre-Modernity, Counter-Modernity is unnaturally imposed upon a society in the time of Modernity (see Kurginyan, 2012: 108).

c) Sustainable development is development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.
Continue reading Why did Obama not find ways to reach consensus among clashing political elites? (Part 4) →

By Alexander Perepechko

Published on February 17, 2015

To be honest, I am late with this post because I was waiting for Obama’s 2014 State of the Union Address (delivered in 2015). In his speech, the President did not signify that his vision of the technosphere and anthropos had changed. He pointed out that fast economic growth combined with several new ecological regulations demonstrate the successful development of the technosphere. He repeated in fact one of last year’s key proclamations. In the 2013 State of the Union he declared that “we can make meaningful progress on [climate change] […] while driving strong economic growth” (2013). As for the anthropos, in the 2014 State of the Union Address the President praised the melting pot of cultural groups and expressed excitement about identity politics. He named new minority groups: religious, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender. It seems as though the continuing reformatting of human society requires that more groups be created on various criteria. Glued together by the strength of the American work ethic and the scope of American dreams (State of the Union, 2014), a growing number of ever-changing, old and new, real and surrogate groups symbolizes the march of the human progress in the United States.

Based on our earlier analyses and this new text, we infer that these days development of the West is not the progress described by Kant – it is not a change for the better in terms of science, technology, and modernization. Progress does not increase exponentially. No exponential curve of economic growth or scientific development can continue indefinitely. In other words the technosphere has limits of growth.
Continue reading Why did Obama not find ways to reach consensus among clashing political elites? (Part 3) →

By Alexander Perepechko

Published on December 25, 2014

Unlike his vision of the development of the technosphere, Obama’s idea of the development of anthropos (human beings) is less apparent. Nevertheless, he makes several hints pertaining to anthropos. For example, he states: “When times change, so must we.” (Inaugural, 2013). This change needs to be a collective action in response to the call of history and an uncertain future. Therefore, Obama’s hope for change is related to a left-wing political ideology.

Political ideologies of the major American parties replicate communitarianism and individualism, two of America’s major political traditions. Communitarianism emphasizes the role of the community or group in defining individuals, collective action and group rights and is marked by leftist perspectives on economic issues and a number of social matters. Communitarian elites represent the state as a benign entity, implement egalitarian and communitarian ideology in society, and encourage citizens to self-sacrifice in the name of supreme group interests. Individualism’s highest espoused value is defending and preserving the personal and economic liberty and freedom of individuals. The Democratic Party leadership departs from communitarianism. The Republican Party establishment claims the supremacy of the individual above all else.
Continue reading Why did Obama not find ways to reach consensus among clashing political elites? (Part 2) →

By Alexander Perepechko

Published on November 23, 2014

Why did Barack Obama not take the initiative in reforming the American ruling class? Why could he not find ways to reach consensus among clashing political elites? Why did he choose to abandon normative politics and switch to post-modernism? Are theorists of elites right that in a multi-racial, multi-religious, multi ethnic or socially complex state the ruling class should be recruited almost exclusively from the dominant majority? Although his campaign was monitored and analyzed by innumerable observers of all calibers, one can hardly find answers to these questions.

In reality, freedom of speech and political discourse in the United States are framed by a two-party system: to criticize American politics one has to take a stand for one of the two major parties and direct his or her critics against the other major party. One shortcoming of this approach is that Democrats avoid criticizing Republicans (and Republicans avoid condemning Democrats) when the critique can be used against their own political party. The Machiavellian school allows one to overcome this and some other drawbacks while studying politics in this country. The Machiavellian approach already helped us to discern (see my October 15, 2012 post) that beliefs and doctrines in America quickly lose meaning. At the same time, norms, institutions, and changes in the ruling class increasingly fall behind the changes in beliefs and doctrines. Instead of reforming old norms, institutions and the ways in which elites renew, the American ruling class empties beliefs and doctrines of their original meaning. Drained of a “political epistemology”, a citizen might find it difficult to grasp the meaning of some of the moves of the American ruling class and key political actors. While the White House team prepares its lame duck agenda in the aftermath of the 2014 election, we will scrutinize Obama’s maneuvers through the lens of the theory of elites.
Continue reading Why did Obama not find ways to reach consensus among clashing political elites? (Part 1) →

By Alexander Perepechko

Published on October 15, 2012

According to theorists of elites (Mosca, 1939: 105), in a multi-racial, multi-religious, multi ethnic or socially complex state the ruling class should be recruited nearly exclusively from the dominant majority. A subjected minority group almost always has its own elite. Its upper stratum often is the first to be absorbed by majority rulers. Cooptation starts with minority leaders who are willing to cooperate and – often – give up essential interests of the group they represent. In my opinion, this reasoning is not convincing. It is known that when a minority group has particular memories of a glorious or tragic national past or a sense of group superiority, this group’s leaders are unlikely to be assimilated. Certainly, the massive “non-white” vote for Obama in 2008 (Gurfinkiel, 2012) reflects an upheaval of identity in America. That was the year when for the first time in American history more non-white than white babies were born. In several decades America will be a country with a new identity and new work ethic. But does this necessarily mean that Obama is not assimilated? It seems to me that Barack Hussein Obama II can represent various racial, ethnic, religious and cultural groups of citizens (Melber, 2012) better than Willard Mitt Romney. Also, social groups such as old aristocracies, immigrants, refugees and foreigners can hardly assimilate at all. In countries like the United States the Catholic clergy can take leadership roles in immigrant populations. At the same time, the Holy See is not thrilled about the assimilation of Catholic priests in the United States: the Vatican would like to have Roman Catholics in America, not American Catholics. For this reason, Popes send more Italian and Irish bishops to America to replace those who are presumably assimilated by the politics of cooptation. Therefore, modification of the ruling class can lead to situations in which minority elites represent both majority and racial, ethnic, religious and other groups in a country.
Continue reading If reelected could Obama find ways to reach consensus among clashing political elites? →

By Alexander Perepechko

Published on October 3, 2012

Theorists of elites have shown that a foundation mythology would not be sufficient to provide a political consensus for the ongoing political process in America. The ways in which the ruling class renews its membership are of critical importance for the future of this country. Elite-related theories state that elites vary with respect to the number and rank of social forces which they represent (control, conciliate, tolerate, stimulate or create). There has to be a certain correlation between the dynamics of elites and the dynamics of social forces in a country (Mosca, 1972: xix). I have provided examples to show that electoral and parliamentary mechanisms are not the only means of this renewal. The theory of elites emphasizes important challenges pertaining to the modification of the ruling class.

Firstly, when the ruling class can no longer deliver crucial services to society, this ruling class is no longer relevant. In the 21^st century, neo-conservatives failed to deliver security to Americans, and neo-liberals denied many Americans (leaving aside immigrants, refugees and foreigners!) the American dream. Electoral, parliamentary and political party mechanisms are not enough anymore to fix the long-lasting structural crisis. Important rules by which the ruling class renews itself need to be changed. Otherwise, a structural crisis can turn in a systemic crisis.
Continue reading Theory of elites on the renewal of the ruling class →

By Alexander Perepechko

Published on July 5, 2012

We continue the literature review of the major theories about elites.

For the American ruling class protecting the foundation mythology is a matter of survival. Otherwise, this ruling class will need to tell the American people who they are and why they are what they are. But such a confession can be suicidal for elites because Americans do not want to give up their status as “demi-gods”. When the center of world power moved from France to England and later from England to the United States the ruling class of the declining power relatively easily adapted to the new situation. This happened because these shifts took place within West. The upcoming change in world leadership involves the rise of Sinic (China) and Hindu (India) civilizations and the end of the 500 year (note this number one more time; we will come back to it in a future essay) leadership of the West. India and especially China belong to conflict-ridden civilizations, dominated and humiliated in the past by western countries. In the forthcoming new world, Chinese and Indian elites will set up and impose new rules. In this forthcoming new world, will the American ruling class be willing to adjust to these rules and follow them? Will it be willing to learn and speak foreign languages? Will it be willing to change behavior? How will it explain the decline of America to the American people? American elites know that revising these myths can cost them this country. And without this country American oligarchs (not unlike some Russian oligarchs in exile – disgusting outcasts in their villas) might drain the bitter cup. Even “intellectual elites”—such as post-modernist gurus and Marxist ringleaders, promoting ideologies of globalization and internationalism—do not want to live the lives of pariahs abroad!

Meanwhile, slow corrosion of the independence mythology is underway. It goes in three directions. Firstly, the divine component of the independence myth fades due to a decrease in religiosity (Douthat, 2012; Howard, 2011; Shifting, 2009). Current religious revivalism and charisms have slowed down this trend, but it is not clear whether they will reverse the trend. Secondly, post-modernists and globalists revise the doctrine of the sovereign state and reshape and restructure the theory and practice of the sovereignty of the people. Electoral, parliamentary and other democratic mechanisms are used extensively to replace the “power of the majority” by the power of minorities and constructed surrogates. Thirdly, immigrants, refugees and foreigners are not eager to accept American foundation mythology. Since this population comprises tens of millions (illegal immigrants alone in America include 12-13 million) and immigration today is one of the major campaign issues, we need to write a few words about this attitude.
Continue reading Game of elites: using xenophobia to unite the populace →

By Alexander Perepechko

Published on July 4, 2012

How does myth work?

Philosophical foundations for the analysis of myth have been outlined by Henri-Louis Bergson and developed in behavioral science.

According to this approach, there are two different selves: ourselves and outside ourselves (Bergson, 1950). We are very concerned about what others think of us. We speak rather than think, and we are acted on rather than act ourselves. “Living” outside of ourselves in this way involves a perception of time as a quantitative measure of information observed and stored in memory (Ornstein, 1969). This is about chronological (clock) time. The duration of chronological time is indirectly constructed from the quantity of information stored in the memory. Clock time is used to measure and spread out events, states and intervals (Figure 2).
Continue reading Game of elites: using myths to maintain utopias (part 2) →