Genieys, The Sociology of Political Elites in France

7/31/2019 Genieys, The Sociology of Political Elites in France

1/18

The Sociology of Political Elites in France:The End of an Exception?

WILLIAM GENIEYS

ABSTRACT. This article presents the position of, and debates within,French elite sociology today. The analysis stresses the reasons for thefields weak development, and discusses current debates about politicians(politics as profession versus political savoir-faire) and about therelationship between elites and the state (their role as custodians of thestate). The author underlines the dilemmas stemming from thesedebates, points out the three directions (the comparative approach, thehistorical approach, and the policy-making approach) that French neo-elitism has taken, and suggests the need for a cognitive frameworkpermitting the study of elite action within the decision-making process inorder to improve empirical observation of how new power elites are

formed.Keywords: Elite theory France Civil service State Regime change

Introduction

Since the beginning of the classic controversy between the partisans of monismand partisan pluralism, elite theory has facilitated the understanding of politicalregimes real nature (totalitarian versus authoritarian versus pluralistic). Indeed,

an ongoing controversy regarding elite sociology stems from the contradictionbetween the theoretical debate, strongly linked to the expansion of modern socialsciences, and the refinement of methodological tools (social classes versus elites).1

For some time now elite theory has been a field of research within politicalscience, a discipline in which the study of the opposition between structure andagency is omnipresent and in which empirical research is mobilized in order toprovide a comparative vision of the reality of political regimes. However, since the1980s, certain Anglo-Saxon sociologists have suggested that the approach used byelite theorists be reconsidered and that greater emphasis be placed on how the

International Political Science Review(2005), Vol 26, No. 4, 413430

DOI: 10.1177/0192512105055808 2005 International Political Science AssociationSAGE Publications (London, Thousand Oaks, CA and New Delhi)


2/18

arrangements and agreements between elites help one to assess the coherence ofdemocratic configurations across the world (Field and Higley, 1980; Higley andBurton, 1987). The problem of democratic transitions has reinforced this trendtoward international research (Dogan and Higley, 1998; Linz and Stepan, 1996).This article looks at how this debate has been viewed in French political science,

showing how it was initially bypassed and then led to a greater focus on thestructure of the states political elites. More generally, we attempt to show in whatways this response has contributed to the weak development of comparative elitesociology in France (Aberbach et al., 1981; Putnam, 1976).

From a slightly naive culturalist approach, one might suggest that the ideologydominant in France is one of mritocratie rpublicaine, an ideology which is incom-patible with an elitist conceptualization of power. Up until now, the ideas of thefounding fathers of elitist theory, notably Pareto and Mosca, have been reduced inFrance to a simple perpetuation of French counter-revolutionary political philosophy(from Maistre, Bonald, and so on) and have not prompted careful thought aboutthe relationship between elites and democracy. As a discursive category, elites areconceptualized negatively (Its the fault of the elites). After two importantmilitary political defeats in France in 1870 and 1940, two great intellectual figures,Ernest Renan in La rforme intellectuelle et moraleand Marc Bloch in Ltrange dfaite,despite a 60-year gap, evoked the same cause: the weakness of French elite leader-ship, which they blamed for the collapse of the countrys political system. Similarly,in a book tracing the imaginary foundations present at the birth of modernFrance, Pierre Birnbaum (1998: 19) shows how there arose, after the events of1789, a division between two Frances due to differences between two sets of elites.

Partly because of these sociohistorical reasons, the notion of elites has neverbeen considered in France as an analytical variable or even as a useful conceptwith which to understand changes in political power. There have been remarkablyfew articles on elites published in either the Revue franaise de sociologieor the Revuefranaise de science politique since the 1950s. A synthetic overview written byresearchers from the Fondation Nationale des Sciences Politiques (FNSP) put theword elite in quotes, clearly indicating the problems faced by political scientistsin using this term or concept (Cayrol et al., 1970). In analyzing the socialmechanisms at work in the French social reproduction process, Pierre Bourdieuargued that the elite concept was irrelevant for a sociology of domination.According to Bourdieu, whose influence on the development of French politicalscience has been notable since the 1970s, one should refuse to give any scientificvalue to the theories or traditional methods of the sociology of elites, and useinstead the theory of a dominant class (Busino, 1992; Genieys, 2000).

There has, however, been a recent change in the literature, as some authorshave begun to discuss the study of elites as a way of understanding changingregimes (Genieys, 1996; Higley and Pakulski, 2000). In this new approach to acomparative sociology of elites, the old modes of study, as exemplified in the elitetheorists approach to the study of French politicians, are rejected and theproblem of the comparability of elites or the French politico-administrative elite(or elites) and the general weakness of comparative analysis are emphasized. Asociology of elites as prisoners of the state is emerging. Understanding thesedifferences allows us to discern the hidden reasons for French tardiness withregard to the comparative sociology of political elites. Consequently, it is necessaryto take a closer look at the path French researchers have been following as theychange their methods for studying political elites.

414 International Political Science Review26(4)


3/18

A Sociology of Elites Very Different from the Anglo-Saxon Tradition

In a synthesis of the indicators used to study social positions and understand theprofessionalization of parliamentary representatives, Frdric Sawicki (1999) haspointed out a key difference between the French and US approaches to the study

of political elites: when studying politicians, French researchers tend to giveexcessive weight to the question of political representations of social classes,whereas in the USA, the politicians profession receives greater attention.2

To understand the reasons for this difference and the impact it has had on theFrench study of political elites, it is useful to begin by considering the heritage ofRaymond Aron. In two texts, printed 10 years apart (Aron, 1950a, 1950b, 1960),Aron began the debate in France. In a first discussion on the articulation betweenthe elite structure and the social structure, he considered key factors determiningwhether a political regime is oppressive or liberal, the homogeneity or diversity ofits elites, plus their dispersal or concentration. In a second contribution, hereturned to elites and the ideological implication that drives the theory of elites, at

the same time denouncing the Marxist approach to political domination in terms ofsocial class, political class, and ruling classes. To get out of this impasse, he criticizesexcessively global approaches and suggests the analytical concept of catgoriesdirigeantes as a tool allowing us to understand political developments in theircontext rather than as a whole (Aron, 1960). For Aron, this analytical conceptdesignates more a function than a social group and ... it allows us, at the sametime, to analyze the organization of power, the relationship between power andsociety in a certain country, and to outline comparisons between countries andregimes. In short, if Arons leading categories are the same as Paretos elites, hisskepticism as regards elite theory has nevertheless left its traces on French politicalscientists. Since Aron, the notion of elites and especially political elites (elected

officials, civil servants, and so on) has been regularly denigrated as unoperational.An illustration of this evolution can be seen as early as 1963. La classe dirigeante:mythe ou ralit? was the question asked by Aron in the context of a roundtable ofthe Association Franaise de Science Politique (November 1516, 1963), thecontributions to which were published in the Revue franaise de science politique.3 Inthe context of the cold war and the confrontation between Marxists and liberals,Aron carried on a debate with Jean Meynaud around the concept of the rulingclass, a notion for which he sought to substitute that of catgories dirigeantes. Thediscussion that followed was a rich one, and underscored the importance ofvocabulary in both scientific and ideological debate.4

Despite the small number of scholarly publications devoted to it, the question

of whether a ruling class does indeed exist in contemporary France remainsrelevant (Dogan, 2003). In fact, in the 1970s only one French empirical study wascarried out. Distancing itself from the Aron approach, it dealt with the questionof the French ruling class in order to discover to what extent the cohesion ofthese ruling classes depends on both objective and structural links between themand on the circulation between the personnel who ... occupy places within thisspace of rulership (Birnbaum et al., 1978: 18). (It should be mentioned here thatPierre Birnbaum, in his individual research, simultaneously aligned himself withRaymond Arons way of thinking and the re-examination of elitist theory in theUSA.5 As will be discussed further below, he has been one of the rare Frenchcomparatists to deal explicitly with the problems of elites in his research on the

logic of the French state, using the notion of a French leading class.)

GENIEYS: The Sociology of Political Elites in France 415


4/18

Other empirical research on French politicians has pointed out ways to ascendin French society via politics (Cayrol et al., 1970, 1973; Charle, 1987; Charlot,1973; Dogan, 1961; Gaxie, 1983). But even these studies have demonstrated acontinuing aversion to using elite theory. The very qualifying of someone as apolitician poses an epistemological, or even cultural-political, problem which is

only just beginning to fade in France (Genieys, 2000). Why has traditional Frenchanalysis of French politicians been so slow to employ the tools of the sociology ofpolitical elites?

In France, there seems to be a sort of refusal to define political elites. RobertPutnam, who has carried out a comparative analysis of elites throughout theworld, reserves the term political elites for those who have more power thanothers. Power is here understood to mean a power to truly influence, directly orindirectly, politics and state activity (Putnam, 1976: 6). Members of parliament,ministers, presidents, and highly placed administrative workers are seen as personshaving the possibility of exercising political domination, regardless of the type ofpolitical regime they are in. What Putnam gains in comparability by thus definingelites, and deliberately putting aside the decisional approach, he loses by limitinghis sociology of elites to legitimate political personnel. Colette Ysmal, who wrotethe article Elites and Leaders in the Trait de science politique (the Frenchequivalent of a handbook of political science), deeply criticizes this definition ofpolitical elites as an unnecessary cutback which eliminates non-office-holdingpartisan elites (1985: 604). Ysmal does not denounce the comparative approach tothe study of political elites, but she does find that Putnams particular approachleads to a perverse effect. As she, Cayrol, and Parodi had earlier demonstrated,in France a research tradition does exist which focuses explicitly on partisan elites(Cayrol et al., 1970, 1973). Paradoxically, however, these researchers distancethemselves from that tradition by advocating partial skepticism toward theheuristic value of the notion of elites and by implicitly suggesting theimportance of comparative research when they outline the sociological profile ofFrench members of parliament (Cayrol et al., 1973). Indeed, the authorsmentioned that, Regardless of the theoretical or political methods used, andbeing that there are so many questions left unanswered regarding Americanpluralist political science and Marxist research, it appears only logical to developnew theoretical and empirical research ideas about elites and the nature ofpower (Cayrol et al., 1970: 811). Their research on French parliamentarians isfocused on recruitment methods and the roles and political careers of members ofparliament, and is clearly influenced by the work of Matt Dogan on Frenchmembers of parliament (see below).

Other, more complex differentiations have emerged. We can, for example,agree with Putnam that it is illogical to think that good representativeness withinelites necessarily means good democracy,6 and this question has been amplyaddressed by Best and Cotta (2000) in their important comparative study of theevolution of the social properties of parliaments and democratic representation inwestern Europe since 1848.

Overall, however, two options have come to be privileged: the first aiming toexamine the connections between the differentiations of the state and the unity ofelites (Badie and Birnbaum, 1979; Birnbaum, 1977, 1984) and the second,inspired by Bourdieu, challenging the use of the term elites and trying tounderline the effects of the professionalization of politicians. The question askedregarding the relative autonomy of elites becomes essential in order to escape



5/18

marxisme orthodoxe (Gaxie, 1973). Work on the French political class has begun tofocus on these two main research points and has tended to put aside the debateabout Anglo-Saxon sociology on elites.

Politics as Profession and Political Savoir-Faire: The First French DebateFrench researchers who analyze the effects of the professionalization of politics onpoliticians deliberately leave aside the sociology of elites in order to encourage away of thinking which privileges the independence of a group of people around aspecific interest. All the same, in reducing the causes of political attitudes to socialproperties, this research attempts to go beyond the classic empirical work on thecontinuity of politicians and the institutionalization of a new social class ofpolitical representation when regimes change.

Here, one must recall the pioneering empirical research of Matt Dogan(1953, 1957, 1961, 1967) on the social properties of French members ofparliament. It should be pointed out that until the 1970s Dogan was one of therare researchers in France who carried out quantitative sociographic studies onFrench politicians. He studied the origins, religious and political socialization, andthe careers of parliamentarians as well as ministers, especially those under theThird and Fourth Republics. The great intuition of this scholar lay in hisdecision to analyze regime change and personnel change simultaneously. None-theless, Dogan (1953, 1957) remained very focused upon the role of socialproperties (in the broad sense) in the building of political careers, in order toemphasize the fact that the social recruitment of members of parliament iscorrelated with the social image of the voters. In his later work on politicalrepresentation under the French Fifth Republic, he gives much more attention tothe question of social origins as a factor in understanding political careers. It is theextension of this research that gave rise to empirical inquiries into the Le dputfranais by researchers from the FNSP (Cayrol et al., 1970, 1973). This latter lineof study was inspired by the increasing use in the 1960s of survey research to studymembers of parliament in Europe and the USA. As noted above, in the firstarticle, the writers criticized the research done on politicians and at the same timepointed out the limits and put in doubt the relevance of an elitist approach to thisobject (Cayrol et al., 1970). The second article begins with the clear observationthat in France no empirical inquiry had, until then, regularly asked a large part ofthe members of parliament about their social backgrounds, their discovery ofpolitics, their entrance into political life and their career, their conceptions of theparliamentary function, their opinions and their beliefs (Cayrol et al., 1973: 8).These same researchers decided to make up for lost time by doing a largeempirical study. Unfortunately, this study was never repeated over time, whichprevented the production of longitudinal knowledge of French politicians. Whileon this subject, it is interesting to note that, years later, Colette Ysmal movedslightly away from her initial way of thinking. While still believing in the theory ofelites as prolegomenous, as in her Les lites politiques: Un monde clos? (Ysmal,1995), she was now able to draw on a fund of empirical material which enrichedthe initial inquiry.

With a more critical view, Daniel Gaxie published Les professionnels de la politique(1973), in which the question of the relative autonomy of politicians was clearlyasked. Gaxie suggested an analysis of internal relationships within the articulatedpolitical sphere which centered around a way of thinking about the concepts of



6/18

differentiation, specialization, and professionalization. The paradigm proposed byGaxie is fairly ambitious in the sense that he tends to offer a theoretical exit to thedebates between partisans of an analysis in terms of class and the few Frenchdefenders of an analysis in terms of homogeneous and differentiated elites.7 Gaxieinterprets the professionalization process by attributing a particularly strong role to

two classical sociological variables: those of social origins and socio-professionalcategories. Starting from this and backed up by numerous empirical inquiries, heshows how, for the past 20 years, there have been effects of his paradigm on allcategories of political actors, from party activists to members of parliament toministers (Gaxie, 1980, 1983). Moreover, Gaxie continues along the same lines as hisfirst thoughts on professionals in politics and refuses to use the term elite in hiswork.8 Lastly, it is interesting to note that in his large contribution in collaborationwith Heinrich Best on the recruitment of MPs in France since 1848, he discusses theheritage of Dogan, at the same time continuing to insist upon his own paradigmsrelevance (Best and Gaxie, 2000). These authors show that correlatively to changesof political regime in France, especially since 1946, it is the figure of the professionalpolitician and politics as a profession which must be taken into consideration.

Notwithstanding this finding, the approach in terms of politics as a professionhas come to be the object of criticism in a series of works around the question ofpolitical savoir-faire, in studies which propose a more global vision of politicalactivities (Garraud, 1989; Offerl, 1999). In mobilizing the US sociology ofprofessional roles and in becoming interested in the political practices of localelites in the decentralization process, these researchers show that politicalprofessionalization in the Weberian sense of the term is not as obvious as in thereality of French political life. Without referring at all to the theory of elites, thisresearch on the background of parliamentary members shows the importance ofthe learning process of politics and of political savoir-faire at the heart of theNational Assembly at the end of the 19th century (Joana, 1999).

These various attempts to circumvent the sociology of political elites has had anisolating effect on research results. Research emphasizing the importance of thepolitical savoir-faire of political elites looks for the specificity of these politicians,thereby losing the capacity to analyze political change. From a methodologicalpoint of view, in losing itself in the quest for singularity, French research cuts itselfoff, in the short term, from all comparative perspectives and, in the long term,from a more general pool of thinking on the articulation between regimes andpolitical elites.

Lastly, if there is a research field in which the French situation justifies anapproach in terms ofexceptionnalisme, it is not in the relative autonomy of staffingpolicies compared to civil society, because this articulation is always reinforced bythe state. Since 1958, with the beginning of the Fifth Republic, the politico-administrative elite has been seen in two ways: that of the involvement of seniorofficials in the structures of political representation and that of a politicization ofthe senior spheres of the civil service (Chevallier, 1997). This debate constitutes areal challenge for the comparative sociology of elites in France as they are stillconsidered as custodians of the state.

Custodians of the State Versus State Elites: The Second French Debate

Indeed, as we shall see below, in France the development of the comparativesociology of elites came about due to the question of the complicated relationship



7/18

between such elites and the state. In response to the classic question of the theoryof elites, the question of who governs France, the answers are complicated andcontradictory: the custodians of the state versus the elite of the state. The monismor pluralism debate is more or less explicit with an unsurpassable analyticalthreshold: the French state.9Why has comparative sociology in France come to be

so focused on the complex relation between the elite (or elites) and the state?To answer that question, it is important now to look at the second dimension

which tends to make the analysis of elites and their relationship to the stateexceptional in France.10 The first trend in this research work can be found in theexcellent first books of the US political scientist Ezra Suleiman (1976, 1979) aboutelites and politics in France. This author shows that elites who were educated inthe grandes coleshad the necessary strong and homogeneous bureaucratic trainingto be placed in the world of politics. For him, the secrets of a successful, French,modern political world resided in the emergence of these custodians of thestate. From a slightly different analytical perspective, he also analyzes the mech-anisms which lead to the production and reproduction of French politico-administrative elites. He entirely accepts an elitist perspective, inspired bySchumpeter and centered on the elites capacity to adapt (Suleiman, 1979: 16).He tries to show how French elites successfully adapted to social changes whilemaintaining their power. This certainly explains why the important empirico-theoriqueworks by Ezra Suleiman were, in fact, rarely discussed in the politicalscience field in France. From his empirical study, Suleiman (1979: 19) gives awider definition, characterizing his subjects as follows:

[They are] state elites because they are trained by the state and destined [for]its service. If they had restricted themselves just to the public services, this sameservice would insure them a remarkable influence. But their importance goes

much further than the public sector as its members occupy today (even mono-polize) the key positions of the administrative, political, industrial, financialand even teaching sectors. We are therefore interested in the elites totallycreated by the state, that is to say those who are trained, promoted andlegitimized by a highly selective teaching system and who use the educationgiven them by the state and the services of the state as a springboard to jump toother careers.

In a general way, as regards elite sociology, by emphasizing the importance of therole of institutions and organizations leading to the formation of a particular elite,Suleiman enhances French research which tends to be focused more on the socialstructure of senior officials (Darbel and Schnapper, 1969), on the techno-cratization of top public functions (Thoenig, 1973), or even on les grands corps(Kessler, 1986).11 For Suleiman the specificity of the elite of the state lies primarilyin the special schooling given in the grandes coles, which leads to certain posts inthis power structure (grands corps, Direction dadministration centrale, and cabinetsministriels). In becoming interested in more recent publications on the questionof limpossible reform of the Ecole Nationale dAdministration (ENA), heunderlines the phenomenon of devolution affecting this institution, which hasbecome a machine for classifying and for teaching. For him, For the last 20 yearsthe ENA has tried to choose a certain elite rather than to give new technicaltraining to future state administrators (Suleiman, 1995: 293). He then shows howthe principle of the availability of these administrative elites creates thepossibility of pursuing political careers. He also analyzes how the development of



8/18

pantouflage (a political phenomenon which is particular to French politicalculture and which is characterized by the fact that certain former students of thegrandes coles and senior officials hold management positions in large Frenchcapitalist companies) has accelerated due to the nationalization ordenationalization of large industries by the French state. He has counted 4500narques(former students of the ENA) present in private industries to show thatservice to the state truly constitutes a wonderful path to management positions inthe capitalist system in France (Suleiman, 1995). Lastly, he develops his ideas onthe articulation between social changes and changes in the elite yet further byshowing that the Golden Era of the State, linked to the action of the grandscommis de lEtat, today seems to be part of the past (Suleiman and Courty, 1997).In fact, the continuity of public policies that we have seen over the 30 glory years(194474) is now questioned by the interpenetration of power between theadministrative, political, industrial, and financial elites. All the same, although thisresearch trend underlines the central political role of the custodians of the state,its devotees are nevertheless subscribing to the pluralistic approach of the elites.

In contrast, the French variant of the monist approach to power puts forwardthe scholarly mechanisms of the reproduction of the elite, while challenging thescientific validity of the elite concept. The perspective of this research is doublyflawed, in that working on elites can often lead, on the one hand, to legitimizingthe political point of view of the dominants and, on the other hand, to relyingon contestable, scientific empirical data (Bourdieu, 1989). Oleg Lewandowski(1974) ably describes the nature of the debate: on the one hand, publications suchas Whos Whocan be used as a base for a critical sociology of the elites (the imageof the elites for the ruling class), but on the other hand, recognition of thestructural differentiation of the ruling class is less important than the integrationmechanisms, which means that social representations are strongly shared at theheart of the elite. Pierre Bourdieus way of thinking denounced the weakness ofthe empirical source (Whos Who and so on) on which the works of these eliteswere founded. For these writers, a true sociology of the dominant class shouldconcentrate on the role of scholarly institutions, as it is there that the sentiment ofbelonging to one world is inculcated. The mere existence of a sociology of elitesis rendered difficult by the criticisms offered in the sociology of domination(Bourdieu, 1989). Pierre Bourdieu denounced the principal research carried outon elites as being founded on the construction of a partial object (or a biasedone), which makes it impossible to understand fully the phenomena of socialreproduction and the auto-legitimating of the noblesse dEtat.12Although pursuinga different theoretical direction, he goes along with Ezra Suleiman, saying that thephenomenon should be considered in its totality if one wishes to understand howtoday, in France, a noblesse dEtatdisposes of a large range of economic, bureau-cratic, and even intellectual powers. He concludes that a conceptualization ofpower around the elite category is not scientifically founded. A recent study byEymeri (2001) gives a summary of both Bourdieus and Suleimans opinions,showing how todaynarquesare able to monopolize the role of custodians of thestate. This author also rejects precise discussions on the sociology of elites andshows how the socialization process of the narquesbegins long before they enterthe school, then showing how the ENA acts on people as a conforming machine.This special training, which functions like a parallel university, offers access to allthe major state jobs, and the bureaucratic elites in France form the only socialgroup having no power equivalent. An illustration of this phenomenon can be



9/18

seen in the manifesto Notre Etat, written by some senior officials regarding areform project for the French state (Fauroux and Spitz, 2000).13

In short, in France, research on elites is frequently concentrated on the centralrole of the custodians of the state in political life. Some of Bourdieus criticalsociology and his refusal to validate the elite concept stems more from a political

ideology than a scientific one. In a more general way, we can say that the analysisof elites in France focuses much more on the process of elite bureaucratization in other words, considering what happened to such leaders before they reachedpositions of power.

However, having emphasized the singular dimensions of French elite sociology,it then becomes necessary to show how, in the past few years, the foundations of aneo-elitism have been laid. In this new direction taken by elite research, moreemphasis is placed on the interactions between elites and institutions in thedecision-making process.

Some New Paths to a French Neo-ElitismFrench neo-elitism has its foundations in the work of critics who focus on thequestion of how the research object is constructed. The creator of the elite objectoften stumbles on the polysemy of the term elite (or elites), to which one mustadd the strong theoretical implications linked to it when it is used in the singularor the plural. Indeed, the French neo-elitist perspective is built from twoquestions. The first is how these elites come about in society, that is to say, theirsocial properties and ideological representations. The second resides in theanalysis of the involvement of elites in the decision-making process by taking intoaccount multi-positional and relational resources. In short, the aim is to develop amore integrated approach which devotes a large part of the research to theempirical study of the interactions within power configurations. A more integratedapproach is made possible by a combination of several analytical methods: (1)social analysis permits us to grasp social properties; (2) positional and reputationalanalysis focuses on the usages of positions; (3) the cognitive approach of thereferential allows us to interpret action logics; and (4) relational and decisionalanalysis leads to an understanding of the recomposition of power. The Frenchneo-elitist approach thus analyzes the dynamics of political regime changes andthe transformation of the state more precisely. It can be presented as having threemain directions: the comparative approach, the historical approach, and thepublic policy approach.14

A Comparative Neo-Elitism

The first research carried out on comparative neo-elitism was simply an extensionof what Matt Dogan had already written in his empirical research aboutpoliticians. From this perspective, Pierre Birnbaums works are both innovative forthe time and decisive for understanding how the comparative sociology of Frenchelites was built (Badie and Birnbaum, 1979; Birnbaum, 1977, 1985). In the middleof the 1970s, in order to go further than Nicos Poulantzas or even C. Wright Millsinterpretations, this sociologist undertook research on the historical building ofthe state in France, privileging the changes in the relationship between the elitesinside the politico-administrative power and those outside (Birnbaum, 1977).Influenced by Stein Rokkans historical sociology perspective,15 he showed how



10/18

one can understand the progress and consolidation of state institutionalizationfrom the analysis of the birth of a particular politico-administrative personnel, aparticular meritocratic recruitment belonging to a system of roles, and thepursuing of careers in a special politico-administrative space which remainsclosed to intruders from the business world. In these essays on French power

elites, Birnbaum (1977) analyzes the specificity of political power and the careersof people inside the state. Building a relational model between political elites(administrative and economic) at different periods in contemporary Frenchhistory allows him to put forward the idea of a strong state whose institutionalform was represented by the Fifth Republic (Birnbaum, 1977, 1984, 1985). Then,in moving on to a comparative sociology of different states, he shows that if seniorofficials are very much present among the politicians of the strong state (as inFrance), they are almost never present in the political elites of weak states (suchas Great Britain or the USA).16 From this perspective, Birnbaum underlines theparticularity of French political elites, such that even when there were radicalchanges in governments (as in 1985), a very strong link between bureaucrats andpoliticians still remained. Subsequent events, such as political alternation(CURAPP, 1986) and then the period of cohabitation, only helped to confirmthis theory.17

Lastly, the most recent research shows that the members of the socialistgovernments ministerial cabinets have political careers fairly similar to those ofsenior officials from conservative governments (Mathiot and Sawicki, 1999a,1999b). Other French researchers have developed this approach in a comparativeperspective of western Europe (Genieys and Hassenteufel, 1997). This last-mentioned work has shown that French research on the comparative sociology ofregime changes often tends to overestimate the role of elites in the analysis of suchtransitions in Spain and Germany. An effort is made to avoid a simplistic sociologyof the political trajectory of elites in order not to exaggerate its impact upon theircapacity for action, but it seems obvious that in this particular type of politicalsituation, in which the question of legitimation and delegitimation is asked withmore acuteness than in routine political life, understanding the potential tomobilize political resources requires analysis of individual or collective elitebackgrounds, or both, as is shown in the analysis of the role of elites withinchanging Spanish political regimes.18 Indeed, in western Europe today, a researchfield which is opening up more and more deals with the comparison of thepolitical paths of the intermediary elites and their capacity to influence politics ona meso-governmental level (Pasquier, 2004).

A Historical Neo-Elitism

Some French social scientists have set out to understand the reality of elites fromthe perspective of a historical sociology of politics. Pierre Birnbaum pursues hisresearch through the complex process of the integration of Jewish people in thehigher reaches of the state around the question of the role ofjuifs dEtat. He showsthat to understand the actions of the elites, one must take into account thecultural specificity of the social-historical context. Since the mid-1980s, Birnbaumhas worked on a large historical research project about the integration of Jewishpeople in French public professions. His careful study of the political trajectory ofpeople from this faith, analyzing the biographical trajectory of certain families (inits true sense) who have worked for the state, permits him to analyze the



11/18

integration process over a long period of time and ultimately to put forward a newanalytical category: the State Jew. What he means by the latter is the Jewish elitewho from the outset show a true appreciation of their new roles in the publicinterest service, and invest all their energy in their job, ridding themselves of theirold mindsets to now put on the noble badges of serious and responsible state

dignitaries (Birnbaum, 1992: 8). In this analytical, historical framework, it is not amatter of measuring the social determinism of the elites, but more of identifyingthe elective affinities and the adhesion logic which supports an elite categorywhich is singular in the development of the sens de lEtat rpublicain. Strong on thisinnovative social-historical way of thinking, the writer opens up a second area ofresearch with the story of 171 Jewish grands commis de lEtat(judges, generals,prfets,and sous-prfets), showing the career impediments due to race or religionunder the Third Republic as these madmen of the Republic are obliged to face aregime which willingly embraced popular anti-Semitic presumptions.

In a more explicitly comparatist register, the historian Christophe Charle(1987) uses the elite concept in the comparative analysis of processes regardingregime change in Europe.19 This author breaks down the elements for acomparative social history of the elites and state in France and western Europe(19th and 20th centuries). He invites us to understand better why since theFrench Revolution, the elites and the State have seen their legitimacy contested atregular intervals (Charle, 1997). Remembering the three successive ambitions ofthe study of elites, and in particular those linked to the state, this writer affirmsthat today we need to answer only two questions: Who governs? and How doesone get to the top? The sociology of power elites must explain the traits ofspecific regimes, their relationship with the whole society, and the possibleblocking mechanisms which arise and make political crises more serious in Francethan in other European countries. Starting from this dynamic approach, thishistorian puts forward a comparative social history of elites in which theNapoleonic and Prussian integration model of the state is seen as completelyopposite to the English model (Charle, 2001). He therefore shows that thebehavior and the choices of the successive elites depend simultaneously on theirsocial characteristics, on their margin for maneuver compared to the demands oftheir employer, or at least to those demands which they take into considerationaccording to the relationship of the political forces of the moment and regardingthe senior officials who ensure the continuity of this policy, especially itsapplication in the mid-to-long term.

Insisting on the changing relations which exist between elites and institutional-ized forms of power, these social historians once again place emphasis upon theweight of these social-historical and cultural contexts, thereby supplementing thefindings of Anglo-Saxon research on this question (Reinhard, 1996).

A Public Action Neo-Elitism

The third path of French neo-elitism is definitely the most original and interestingone for international comparison from both an empirical and a theoretical pointof view. In this approach, the role of ideas in transforming institutions and publicpolicies is introduced in a particularly stimulating manner (Hall, 1997). Thisapproach is also a continuation of the work of Aberbach, Putnam, and Rockmanon the varied roles of bureaucrats and politicians in the decision-making process.In the French research field, the analysis of public policies was inspired by the



12/18

work of Jobert and Muller (1987) on lEtat en action. The analysis of publicpolicies (in asking about the roles of actors in public policy-making) has opened afertile area for this type of investigation regarding the role of the Frenchcustodians of the state in political changes. The early research emphasized theinterrelations between ideological representations and the production of a

particular rfrentiel daction publique on sectoral public policies.20 From thisperspective, which goes beyond statist, neo-corporatist approaches, it is necessaryto understand how sectoral elites see the world when structuring the logic ofstate action. Therefore, public decisions can be considered to be the result of aprocess of imposing cognitive representations elaborated by the sectoral elites(which are most often composed of different groups of custodians of the state).This research perspective inspired a major work of comparative sociology studyingthe role of certain elites in the imposition of neo-liberal ideas in French publicpolicies (Jobert and Thret, 1994).21 This research, even if it does not explicitlyadhere to an elitist perspective, opens the way to a research area in which stateelites are understood from the point of view of cognitive mobilization andintellectual influence on the decision process. Comparative analysis of thisdifferential reception of neo-liberalism allows us to update the different elitecategories, particularly in France by including the state economists, who in thesocialist government cabinets since 1983, have carried this change to the heart ofthe state (Jobert, 1994). This new elitist perspective can be interpreted as areconsideration of the role of bureaucratic elites in the state transformationprocess. Since then a new sociology of elites in interaction has come into being whereby the question of who governs goes along with that of what is governed.From the perspective of the elites-in-action analysis, some work on the role of thissectional elite in employment, health, and public social policies in France since1981 has been carried out (Genieys, 2005; Mathiot, 2000). Understanding of therole of these elites or elite groups in the decision-making process in the statewelfare sector was enriched by pursuing a deeper explanation of their socialbackground and their politico-administrative trajectory. The use of this methodhelped explain the turn toward neo-liberalism in France, led by the left, and madeit possible to show the existence at the heart of the state of a small group forminga Welfare elite that was characterized by the accumulation of several types ofresources (administrative, political, survey, and relational) and the long periodspent in one sector (more than three years). The analysis of these trajectoriesshows how specialized bodies such as the Cours des comptes or the Inspectiongnrale des affaires sociales (IGAS), but also the training given in the Directionde la Prvision and the Direction du Budget at Bercy (Finance Ministry) are strongindicators of the growing autonomy of this elite. In terms of social representation,the welfare state shares a common cognitive framework (referential): To keepsocial security one must adapt to financial constraints, reinforcing the role of Statepiloting and focusing social allowances on those the least provided for (Genieys,2005).

By way of conclusion, we wish to insist on the fact that the work done on Frenchneo-elitism is particularly significant for the development of French elite sociologywhen dealing with international comparisons. It is thus important that this mostrecent approach to the study of elites always takes into account both theprogrammatic ideas that elites generate and the strategic positions that theyoccupy in western democracies, in order to be able better to compare the changesnow taking place in the capitalist model of government (Lehmbruch, 2003: 41).



13/18

Notes

1. In Anglo-Saxon countries, the elite concept became an alternative to the Marxistconcept of the ruling class when the first empirical research was undertaken. We referhere to the works of Eva Etzioni-Halevy (1993, 1997), who shows how Anglo-Saxonsocial scientists slowly admitted the utility (or the relevance) of elite sociology inunderstanding democratic theory.

2. The mritocratie rpublicaine is the ideological syncretism formulated by the foundingfathers (Gambetta, Ferry, and so on) of the Third Republic in 1877. Besides the fact thataccess to citizenship is available regardless of all social, cultural, or racial considerations,this republican philosophy invents a model of social promotion founded on taking intoconsideration an individuals effort and talent, which is tested by a system called theconcours (a highly competitive exam). Thus, doing this concoursbecomes a mandatorystep in joining the elite channels of the grandes coles or in entering the stateadministration.

3. For an overview of the stakes involved in the debate carried out in this roundtable, seethe three dossiers (I, II, and III) produced from it and published in Revue franaise descience politique(1964a, 1964b, 1965).

4. Aron points to a pre-existing semantic quarrel around the terms ruling class, elites,and establishment. He specifies that I have myself used the term [elites] in othercircumstances because it is in current use but, upon reflection, I think it better to speakof political personnel. Arons expression, personnel politique, might seem to refergenerally to all elected officials, but its use by him and his successors, as we will seebelow, makes it clear that the reference is more narrowly to members of parliamentonly.

5. In an autobiographical article which he presented at the ECPR sessions at the Universityof Leiden in April 1993, Pierre Birnbaum admitted, As luck would have it Raymond

Aron, the holder of the only chair of political sociology, agreed to act as my supervisor... From that time on the study of elites, which was to be the salient feature of my longacademic career, allowed me to focus on the working of influence and power within the

Etat fort. I hesitated between several research paths: I was first tempted by Paretos elitetheory, then by elite theories in the United States. My first study thus consisted of anexamination of the American debate between pluralism and elitism (Birnbaum, 1997:179).

6. Putnam (1976: 44) writes: To summarize, the impact of elite social background onpolitics and policy remains plausible, but ambiguous and unsubstantiated. We cannotbe certain that an elite that represents all social groups proportionally would actuallyfoster stability or effectiveness or responsiveness ... This moral answer to the So what?question remains the bedrock on which interest in the social composition of elites isfounded.

7. Here a slightly different intellectual slant is presented in Eva Etzioni-Halevys (1997)debate between classes and elites because of her understanding of democratic theory.

8. In his recent synthetic article on the question of the analysis of professional politics inFrance, Dominique Damamme points out two limits to this paradigm. For him theFrench paradigm of the professionnels de la politique leads to lintellectualo-centrisme or,even to populisme dnonciateur (Damamme, 1999: 66).

9. I have already shown in an article which argues for the return to a comparativesociology in the field of political science in France how this subdiscipline of politicalscience was a prisoner due to its originality. From all this we can see the strongcontrast between, on one side, Anglo-Saxon work in which the theory of elites is alwaysmore or less employed in the quest for a better-functioning democratic regime and, onthe other, French research which is focused on the analysis of the relationship betweenthe custodians of the state and the elites of the state (Genieys, 2000).

10. This remark could be addressed to all the researchers at Harvard University, who in

their vast comparative analysis of the relationships between bureaucrats and politicians



14/18

in western democracy tend too often to group Frances situation with that of countriessuch as Germany and Italy (Aberbach et al., 1981).

11. Much research followed which confirmed this sociological singularity and which alsoseparated itself from the comparative sociology of elites. This is the case withDominique Chagnollaud (1991), who is interested more particularly in the history of

institutions such as the Ecole Libre des Science Politique (today, Science Po) or eventhe Ecole Nationale dAdministration (ENA), in order to show how senior officialsbecame, in France, le premier des Ordres in the second half of the 20th century.

12. This phenomenon is even more explicit in Alain Garrigous (2001) work Les lites contrela Rpublique. Here, the author denounces both the transformation of Science Po into abusiness school and the conflict generated by ENAs being the center for the statesnobility. In the framework of this work, the term elites is used in order to denouncethe monopolizing of power by the states aristocracy.

13. In a critical article on this work, Franoise Dreyfus (2002) shows how, in France, thisstate elite claims a monopoly of state expertise. She attributes this recent phenomenonto a considerable weakening of academic work on the administrative science of thestate.

14. By French neo-elitism, we refer to the work done in the 1980s which simply added towhat Matt Dogan had already written about politicians, leading to the role of elitesand the dynamics of political regimes. Following the example of certain politicalscientists, he puts forward the importance of both the functioning of the state and ofdemocratic procedures (Dogan and Higley, 1998; Field and Higley, 1980; Higley andGunther, 1992).

15. In an introductory chapter about his own research background, it is the author himselfwho mentions the help and support which Rokkan gave him in developing this researchperspective (Birnbaum, 1997).

16. In collaboration with Betrand Badie, he shows how the processes of differentiation or ofdedifferentiation of the state leads to the emergence of a particular type of elite. Fromthis, the apprehension of values and cultural codes become elements for the

comprehension of the training of an elite (Badie and Birnbaum, 1979).17. Cohabitation goes back to a period when duel executive power opposed aprsident dela Rpubliqueand a premier ministrefrom different political parties. Since the middle ofthe 1980s, France has seen three periods of cohabitation: 198688, 199395, and19972002. This institutional dysfonctionnementis not innocent with regard to the crises

which today affect the Fifth Republic.18. It was then a question of rereading the role of the elites committed to this process,

taking into account not only their social attributes and their political trajectory(individual or collective), but also the political representations which they bear. Theanalysis of the political trajectories of Spanish peripheral elites confirms the overlap oftwo logics within the political representation (central and periphery) at the heart of thispolitical system (Genieys, 1997).

19. The following is Christophe Charles (1997: 39) recent defense of the terminology ofthe word elite: Je reconnais les inconvnients de lemploi de lexpression les litesen raison de lhritage partien et de son usage empirique vague dans certains travauxde sociologie ou de science politique. Deux avantages expliquent malgr tout que jyrecoure: dune part, le syntagme permet dembrasser, sous un concept plus abstrait, lesdivers types de groupes dirigeants ou dominants qui se sont succds en France depuisdeux sicles et dont les appellations, historiquement dates, ont chang au fil desrgimes; dautre part, la forme plurielle rappelle deux traits affirms des groupesdirigeants en France que cet article essaie dexpliquer: la pluralit des groupes en luttedans le champ du pouvoir et leur lgitimit en permanence conteste.

20. Bruno Jobert and Pierre Muller (1987: 689) define this as: limage dominante dusecteur, de la discipline, de la profession ... Il est construit: cest une image sociale du

secteur. Il nest pas rationnel parce quil correspond dabord la perception quont lesgroupes dominant le secteur et conforme leur intrts corporatifs ... Cest une image



15/18

qui est elle mme le produit des rapports de force dans le secteur. Souvent, la structuremme du rfrentiel refltera un compromise entre les diffrentes lites encomptition au sein du secteur.

21. This research opens the way to a research area in which state elites are understoodthrough their cognitive mobilization and intellectual influence on the decision-making

processes. The comparative analysis of this differential reception of neo-liberalismallows us to update different elite categories which have carried this change into theheart of the state. Therefore, it is up to researchers to grasp the modalities of ideationalimposition in a new way in order to build public action without falling into a linearapproach to new elites whereby those with the most appropriate world vision wouldcome to replace the old elite (Jobert and Thret, 1994).

References

Aberbach, J.D., Putnam, R.D. and Rockman, B.A. (1981). Bureaucrats and Politicians inWestern Democracies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Aron, Raymond (1950a). Social Structure and the Ruling Class, British Journal of Sociology

1(1): 116.Aron, Raymond (1950b). Social Structure and the Ruling Class, British Journal of Sociology1(2): 126143.

Aron, Raymond (1960). Classe sociale, classe politique, classe dirigeante, Archiveseuropennes de sociologie1(2): 26081.

Aron, Raymond (1965). Catgories dirigeante ou classe dirigeante? Revue franaise descience politique15(1): 727.

Badie, Bertrand and Birnbaum, Pierre (1979). Sociologie de lEtat. Paris: Grasset.Best, Henrich and Cotta, Maurizio, eds (2000). Parliamentary Representatives in Europe,

18482000: Legislative Recruitment and Careers in Eleven European Countries. Oxford: OxfordUniversity Press.

Best, Heinrich and Gaxie, Daniel (2000). Detours to Modernity: Long-Term Trends of

Parliamentary Recruitment in Republican France 18481999, in Heinrich Best andMaurizio Cotta (eds), Parliamentary Representatives in Europe, 18482000: LegislativeRecruitment and Careers in Eleven European Countries. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Birnbaum, Pierre (1977). Les sommets de lEtat: Essais sur llite du pouvoir en France. Paris: LeSeuil.

Birnbaum, Pierre (1984).Dimensions du pouvoir. Paris: PUF.Birnbaum, Pierre, ed. (1985). Les lites socialistes au pouvoir (19811985). Paris: PUF.Birnbaum, Pierre (1992). Les fous de la Rpublique: Histoire politique des juifs dEtat de Gambetta

Vichy. Paris: Fayard.Birnbaum, Pierre (1997). Encounter with Power, in H. Daalder (ed.), Comparative

European Politics: The Story of a Profession. London and New York: Pinter.Birnbaum, Pierre (1998). La France imagine: Dclin des rves unitaires?Paris: Fayard.

Birnbaum Pierre, Barucq, Charles, Bellaiche, Michel and Mari, Alain (1978). La classedirigeante franaise. Paris: PUF.Bourdieu, Pierre (1989). La noblesse dEtat: Grandes coles et esprits de corps. Paris: Editions de

Minuit.Busino, Giovani (1992).Elite(s) et litisme. Paris: PUF.Cayrol, Roland, Parodi, Jean-Luc and Ysmal, Colette (1970). Recherche actuelles sur les

parlementaires et les lites, Revue franaise de science politique20(4): 789811.Cayrol, Roland, Parodi, Jean-Luc and Ysmal, Colette (1973). Le dput franais. Paris: PNFSP.Chagnollaud, Dominique (1991). Les premiers des ordres: Les hauts fonctionnaires XVIIIeXXe

sicle. Paris: Fayard.Charle, Christophe (1987). Les lites de la Rpublique 18801900. Paris: Fayard.Charle, Christophe (1997). Lgitimits en pril. Elments pour une histoire compare des

lites et de lEtat en France et en Europe occidentale (XIXeXXe sicle), Actes de larecherche en sciences sociales1167: 3952.



16/18

Charle, Christophe (2001). La crise des socits impriales: Allemagne, France, Grande-Bretagne19001940. Paris: Fayard.

Charlot, Jean (1973). Les lites politiques en France de la IIIe la Ve, Archive europenne deSociologie4: 7892.

Chevallier, Jacques (1997). Llite politico-administrative: Une interprtation discute,

Pouvoirs80: 89100.CURAPP (1986). La haute administration et la politique. Paris: Presses Universitaires deFrance.

Damamme, Dominique (1999). Professionnel de la politique, un mtier peu avouable, inMichel Offerl (ed.), La profession politique XIXeXXe sicles. Paris: Belin.

Darbel, Alain and Schnapper, Dominique (1969). Morphologie de la haute administrationfranaise, 2 vols. Paris: Mouton.

Dogan, Matt (1953). La stabilit du personnel parlementaire sous la TroisimeRpublique, Revue franaise de science politique3(2): 31948.

Dogan, Matt (1961). Political Ascent in a Class-Society: French Deputies 18701958, inD. Marvick (ed.), Political Decision-Makers. Glencoe: Free Press.

Dogan, Matt (1967). Les filires de la carrire politique, Revue franaise de sociologie8(4):

46892.Dogan, Matt (2003). Is There a Ruling Class in France? Comparative Sociology2: 1789.Dogan, Matt and Campbell, Philip (1957). Le personnel ministriel en France et en

Grande-Bretagne, Revue franaise de science politique7(2): 31345.Dogan, Matt and Higley, John (1998)Elites, Crises, and the Origins of Regimes. Boulder, CO:

Rowman and Littlefield.Dreyfus, Franoise (2002). A la recherche du temps perdu. La science politique franaise

oublieuse de ladministration publique. -propos de Notre Etat, Politix15(59): 17194.Etzioni-Halevy, Eva (1993). The Elite Connection. London: Blackwell Publishers.Etzioni-Halevy, Eva (1997). Classes and Elites in Democracy and Democratization. London: Taylor

and Francis.Eymeri, Jean-Michel (2001). La fabrique des narques. Paris: Economica.

Fauroux, Roger and Spitz, Bernard, eds (2000). Notre Etat: Le livre vrit sur la fonctionpublique. Paris: Robert Laffont.Field, G. Lowell and Higley, John (1980).Elitism. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.Garraud, Philippe (1989). Profession, homme politique. Paris: LHarmattan.Garrigou, Alain (2001). Les lites contre la Rpublique: Science Po et lENA. Paris: La Dcouverte.Gaxie, Daniel (1973). Les professionnels de la politique. Paris: PUF.Gaxie, Daniel (1980). Les logiques du recrutement politique, Revue franaise de science

politique20(1): 545.Gaxie, Daniel (1983). Facteurs sociaux de la carrire gouvernementale sous la Ve

Rpublique, 19591981, Revue franaise de sociologie24(3): 44165.Genieys, William (1996). Les lites priphriques espagnoles face au changement de

rgime, Revue franaise de science politique46(4): 65080.

Genieys, William (1997). Les lites espagnoles face lEtat: Changements de rgimes politiques etdynamiques centre-priphries. Paris: LHarmattan.Genieys, William (2000). Pour une sociologie compare des lites en interaction, Revue

internationale de politique compare(7)2: 46792.Genieys, William (2005). La constitution dune lite du Welfare en France dans la France

des annes 90, Sociologie du travail47.Genieys, William and Hassenteufel, Patrick (1997). De la transition la consolidation des

rgimes politiques: Une comparaison Espagne/Allemagne, Revue internationale depolitique compare4(3): 699732.

Hall, Peter (1997). The Role of Interest, Institutions, and Ideas in the ComparativePolitical Economy of the Industrialized Nations, in M.I. Lichbach and A.S. Zuckerman(eds), Comparative Politics: Rationality, Culture, and Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press.Higley, John and Burton, Michael (1987). Invitation to Elite Theory: The Basic



17/18

Contentions Reconsidered, in G.W. Domhoff and T. Dye (eds), Power Elites andOrganizations. London and Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Higley, John and Gunther, Richard (1992). Elites and Democratic Consolidation in LatinAmerica and Southern Europe. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Higley, John and Pakulski, Jan (2000). Jeux de pouvoirs des lites et consolidation de la

dmocratie en Europe centrale et orientale, Revue franaise de science politique50(45).Joana, Jean (1999). Pratiques politiques des dputs franais au XIXe sicle: Du dilettante auspcialiste. Paris: LHarmattan.

Jobert, Bruno and Muller, Pierre (1987). LEtat en action. Paris: PUF.Jobert, Bruno and Thret, Bruno (1994). France: La conscration rpublicaine du no-

libralisme, in Bruno Jobert (ed.), Le tournant no-libral. Paris: LHarmattan.Kessler, Marie-Chistine (1986). Les grands corps de lEtat. Paris: FNSP.Lehmbruch, Gerhard (2003). Les modles de capitalisme Allemand et Japonais: Une mise

en perspective comparative et diachronique, in M. Lallement and J. Spurk (eds),Stratgies de la comparaison internationale. Paris: CNRS Editions.

Lewandowski, Oleg (1974). Diffrenciation et mcanisme dintgration de la classedirigeante: Limage sociale de llite daprs le Whos Whoen France, Revue franaise de

sociologie15(1): 4373.Linz, Juan J. and Stepan, Alfred (1996). Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation,Southern Europe, Southern America and Post Communist Europe. Baltimore, MD: JohnsHopkins University Press.

Mathiot, Pierre (2000). Acteurs et politiques de lemploi en France (19811993). Paris: LHarmattan.Mathiot, Pierre and Sawicki, Frdric (1999a). Les membres des cabinets ministriels

socialistes en France (19811993): Recrutement et reconversion, Revue franaise descience politique49(1): 330.

Mathiot, Pierre and Sawicki, Frdric (1999b). Les membres des cabinets ministrielssocialistes en France (19811993): Passage en cabinet et trajectoire professionnelle,Revue franaise de science politique49(2): 23164.

Offerl, Michel, ed. (1999). La profession politique XIXeXXe sicles. Paris: Belin.

Pasquier, Romain (2004). La capacit politique des rgions: Une comparaison France/Espagne.Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes.Putnam, Robert D. (1976). The Comparative Study of Political Elites. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.Reinhard, Wolfgang (1996). Les lites du pouvoir et la construction de lEtat en Europe. Paris:

Presses Universitaires de France.Revue franaise de science politique(1964a). Catgories dirigeantes ou classe dirigeante? Part

I, 14(2).Revue franaise de science politique(1964b). Catgories dirigeantes ou classe dirigeante? Part

II, 14(4).Revue franaise de science politique(1965). Catgories dirigeantes ou classe dirigeante? Part

III, 15(1).Sawicki, Frdric (1999). Classer les hommes politiques: Les usages des indicateurs de

position sociale pour la comprhension de la professionnalisation politique, in M.Offerl (ed.), La profession politique XIXeXXe sicles. Paris: Belin.Suleiman, Ezra (1976). Les hauts fonctionnaires et la politique. Paris: Le Seuil.Suleiman, Ezra (1979). Les lites en France: Grands corps et grandes coles. Paris: Le Seuil.Suleiman, Ezra (1995). Les ressorts cachs de la russite franaise. Paris: Le Seuil.Suleiman, Ezra and Courty, Guillaume (1997). Lge dor de lEtat: Une mtamorphose annonce.

Paris: Le Seuil.Thoenig, Jean-Claude (1973). Lre de technocrates. Paris: Editions dOrganisation.

Ysmal, Colette (1985). Elites et leaders, in M. Grawitz and J. Leca (eds), Trait de sciencepolitique, Vol. 3. Paris: PUF.

Ysmal, Colette (1995). Les lites politiques: Un monde clos? Revue politique et parlementaire980: 2734.



18/18

Biographical Note

WILLIAM GENIEYS is a CNRS Senior Research Fellow at the Centre dEtude duPolitique en Europe Latine at the University of Montpellier. His publicationsinclude Les lites espagnoles face lEtat in 1997 (translated into Spanish in 2004);

De la thorie la sociologie des lites en interaction: Vers un no-litisme? inCURAPP; Les mthodes au concretin 2000; Pour une sociologie compare des litesen interaction, Revue internationale de politique compare in 2002; and Laconstitution dune lite du Welfare en France dans la France des annes 90,Sociologie du travail in 2005. He is also the editor of Le choix des armes: Thories,acteurs et politiques, published in 2004. ADDRESS: Centre National de la RechercheScientifique, CEPEL University of Montpellier 1, 39, rue de lUniversit, 34060Montpellier cedex France [email: [email protected]].

Acknowledgments. The author thanks Holly Chevalier for translating this article from Frenchinto English and his colleagues John Higley (University of Texas at Austin) and Marc Smyrl(University of Montpellier) for their helpful comments.


Date post:	05-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	adriano-codato
View:	218 times
Download:	0 times

Genieys, The Sociology of Political Elites in France

Documents