Pareto

Pare Pareto to’’s Form Formul ulat atio ion n of Logi Logica call and and NonNonLogical Actions of Human Vilfredo Pareto summarized his aim in writing his major sociological work, “The treatise on General Sociology.” is am!ition was to construct a system of sociology analogous in its essential features of the generalized "hysicochemical system. The treatise attem"ts to study only non#rational as"ects of action. e suggested that the field of economics had limited itself to the single as"ect of human action$ rational and logical action in "ursuit of the ac%uisition of scarce resources. Pareto turned to sociology when he !ecame con&inced that human affairs were largely guided !y non#logical, non#rational actions which were e'cluded from consideration !y the economists. (t is this analytical distinction !etween rational and non#rational elements of actions and not a classification of concrete !eha&iour that Pareto aimed, “(t is not actions, as we find them in the concrete that we are called u"on to classify, !ut the elements constituting them.” All the actions are divided into two broad categories:

)*+ Personal )!+ Social Every action or social henomenon has two asects:

)i+ orm )ii+ -eality orm is the way in which the "henomenon "resents itself to the human mind. )(t is something su!jecti&e+. -eality in&ol&es the actual e'istence of the things. )(t is something o!jecti&e+. ikewise all the actions of indi&idual whether it is "ersonal or social, it has two "arts. )i+ /nds )ii+ 0eans

Logical Actions:

So e&ery action is !ased on either logical action or non#logical action. (f the actions are !ased on logic and e'"eriment and if the means and ends are connected with each other, those actions are known as logical action. 1eha&iour, Pareto !elie&ed is logical !oth su!jecti&ely and o!jecti&ely. Pareto defines logical actions are those if the end is o!jecti&ely attaina!le and if the means em"loyed are o!jecti&ely united with the end within the framework of !est knowledge a&aila!le. or an action to !e logical, the logical connection !etween the means and ends must e'ist !oth in the mind of the actor who "erforms the act and in o!jecti&e reality. ogical action is the "ure rational action as 2e!er calls it. (n the calculation of means# end relationshi"3 with the addition of the fact that it rested u"on knowledge which was o!jecti&ely true. ogical !eha&iour, wrote Pareto, consists of$ “4.those actions which are logically linked to an end, not only in res"ect to the "ersons  "erforming them, !ut also to those other "eo"le who ha&e more e'tensi&e knowledge $ that is to say, !eha&iour which is su!jecti&ely and o!jecti&ely logical4” Pareto defines “logical action are those actions which use means a""ro"riate to ends and which logically connects means with ends. This logical connection of means with ends must hold not only the su!ject "erforming them !ut also from the stand "oint of other "ersons who ha&e a more e'tensi&e knowledge.” !o the logical co-relation between means and ends must be aroved by:

)i+ The actor or the self  )ii+ The other "ersons )These other "ersons must ha&e e'tensi&e knowledge.+ So logical actions are those actions that are !oth su!jecti&ely and o!jecti&ely logical. 2hile, discussing su!jecti&e and o!jecti&e end Pareto says that su!jecti&e ends are those which are liked  !y certain "ersons on account of their "ersonal reasons. e ado"ts certain line of action which would ultimately lead to goals which ser&e his "ersonal ends. 5n the other hand, an o!jecti&e end is always arri&ed at !y a "rocess of em"irically &alid  "redictions and must !e within the domain of o!ser&ation. or an action to !e logical, the means# end relation in o!jecti&e reality must corres"ond to the means#end relation in the mind of the actor. "haracteristics of Logical Action:

6. 7ll the actions "ersonal or social that ha&e a "ro"er adjustment !etween means and the ends.

8. The actions which are !ased on e'"eriment and logic. 9. 7ctions must !e o!jecti&e. :. 7ctions must !e real. ;. 7ctions must !e acce"ted !y the actor and must !e defined o!jecti&ely. . Social sanctions must !e there !ehind such justification. ?. There must !e logical connection !etween means em"loyed and ends attained. 6@. ogical actions must !e rational in nature. 66. ogical actions are moti&ated !y reasoning. Non-Logical Actions:

 Aon#ogical actions mean sim"ly all human actions not falling within the sco"e of the logical actions. These are not logical#which does not mean that they are illogical. Aon#logical action is action guided !y sentiments and other non# logical factors. (n other words, in the category of  non#logical actions fall all those which do not "resent the dou!le characteristics of logical connection. 6. Su!jecti&ely and 8. 5!jecti&ely or, #f "orresondence between these two connections $ According to $aymond Aron:

Thus we can immediately draw u" a ta!le of non#logical actions which we shall call the second class of human actions.

5!jecti&ely $

A5

A5

B/S

B/S

Su!jecti&ely $

A5

B/S

A5

B/S

$eflections of these above categories:

 Ao#Ao Category  Ao#Bes Category Bes#Ao Category Bes#Bes Category %he No-No "ategory:

ere action is not logical. The means are not connected to the ends neither in reality nor in the mind. 0eans do not gi&e any result which is logical. The actor does not e&en ha&e in mind either  an end or a means#end relation. This “no#no category” is rare as man has reasoning ca"acity. No-&es "ategory:

This no#yes category is wides"read. ere the act is not logically related to the result it will gi&e. There is no logical connection !etween means em"loyed and ends attained. 1ut the actor  wrongly imagines that the means he em"loys are of a kind to "roduce the end he desires. E'amle:

2hen "eo"le desire rain they make sacrifices to the God. They are con&inced that their sacrifices ha&e an effect on the rainfall. (n this case a means#end relation e'ists su!jecti&ely !ut not o!jecti&ely. &es-No "ategory:

This category includes actions which do "roduce a result logically related to the means em"loyed, !ut without the actorDs is ha&ing concei&ed the means#end relation. There are numerous e'am"les of this category. -efle' acts !elong here. E'amle:

Closing of eyes when dust comes. 7nimals also e'hi!it this ty"e of !eha&iour for their sur&i&al. This action is o!jecti&ely defined !ut not su!jecti&ely logical !ut just like instincti&e ty"e of   !eha&iour. &es-&es "ategory:

This is the fourth category of action which has a result logically related to the means em"loyed. ere the actor su!jecti&ely concei&es a relation !etween the means and the ends, !ut in which the o!jecti&e se%uence does not corres"ond to the su!jecti&e se%uence.

E'amle:

The !eha&iour of re&olutionaries. They wish to change e'isting society, to correct its &ices. These are the four "rinci"al categories of non#logical actions. These four categories constitute the su!ject of Treatise on General Sociology. Among the four categories of non-logical actions( two are articularly imortant:

)i+ The second category )Ao#Bes Category+ that is non# logical actions which ha&e no o!jecti&e goal !ut do ha&e a su!jecti&e goal. -itual and sym!olic actions fall under this category. 7ll actions which are of religious ty"es#all actions which are addressed to an em!lem or sym!ol of a sacred reality fall into this category. )ii+ The fourth category )Bes#Bes Category+ in which there does not e'ist a coincidence !etween the su!jecti&e and the o!jecti&e. This category includes all actions dictated !y illusions,  "articularly the illusions of "olitical men or intellectuals. "haracteristics of Non-logical Actions:

 Aon logical actions mean sim"ly all human actions not falling within the sco"e of the logical actions. )i+ Aon#logical actions are determined !y su!jecti&e factors. )ii+ (t cannot !e "ro&ed !y o!jecti&e o!ser&ation and e'"erimentation. )iii+ These actions are not determined !y reality. )i&+ These actions are totally guided !y im"ulses !ut not reasoning. )&+ These actions in&ol&e to some degree a moti&ation !y sentiment. "riticisms:

There are some crucial areas relating to logical and non#logical actions. )ecause:

6. (t is &ery difficult to find out which action is logical or which is non#logical. 8. (t is also difficult to distinguish !etween means and ends.

9. Aum!er of non#logical actions is more than logical actions, !ecause man wants to do any action on the !asis of his imagination, thinking, sentiments etc., and tries to "ro&e that non# logical actions are &ery logical. or Pareto, the main characteristic of an action was its relation through logic. or him, it was not necessary that e&ery action should !e !ased on logic. uman !eings may try to "ro&e an action to !e logical !y their own actions and in their own way. (n this res"ect Pareto made a &ery useful and &alua!le contri!ution. Vilfredo Pareto: Residues and Derivations

ParetoEs attem"t to unmask nonscientific theories and !elief systems led him to make a distinction !etween changing elements accounting for these theories, which he termed derivations, and residual, relati&ely "ermanent ele# ments, which he termed residues. The notion of residues has often !een mis# understood as merely a fancy term for instinct and as corres"onding to the !asic sentiments discussed earlier. Pareto himself !rought forth this misunder# standing !y occasionally referring to residues as instincts. (t seems ne&ertheless that he concei&ed of residues as manifestations of sentiments or as corres"ond# ing to them, rather  than as their e%ui&alents. -esidues are intermediary !etween the sentiments we cannot know directly and the !elief  systems and acts that can !e known and analyzed. urthermore, residues are related to manEs instincts !ut they do not co&er all of them, since we can only disco&er those instincts that gi&e rise to rationalization in theories while others must remain hidden. 7 manEs a""etite or taste for, say, "ork cho"s, does not fall into the category of residues in ParetoEs scheme. (f, howe&er, a man constructs a theory according to which Chinese cooking is su"erior to 7merican cooking, then Pareto would !e mo&ed to in&estigate the residues underlying the ela!oration of such theoreti# cal justification. Pareto arri&es at his distinctions !etween residues and deri&ations !y the following "rocedure$ e in&estigates doctrines that are associated with action, for e'am"le, Christian religious doctrine or li!eral "olitical theory. rom these theories he se"arates those elements that corres"ond to the standards of logico# e'"erimental science. Ae't, he se"arates the remaining nonscientific elements into constants )residues+ and &aria!les )deri&ations+. Feri&ations only arise when there is reasoning, argument, and ideological justification. 2hen these are "resent, Paretian analysis looks for the underlying relati&ely constant ele# ments )residues+. or e'am"le, we find in all ages a great &ariety of &er!alizations and doc# trines connected with the se'ual s"here. These may take the form of "orno# gra"hic literature or of the denunciation of  se'ual license. There are strict and "ermissi&e theories a!out "ro"er se'ual conduct. 7scetic doctrines condemn what hedonistic doctrines e'tol. 1ut throughout all these manifold deri&a# tions runs a common se'ual residue, which remains remarka!ly sta!le at all times. Styles, modes,

fashions, and ethical theories a!out the se'ual s"here &ary immensely, !ut a uniform se'ual nucleus always cro"s u" in a &ariety of new doctrinal disguises. 7lthough men ha&e used an infinite num!er and &ariety of deri&ations in order to justify or  logicalize their actions, Pareto argues that si' classes of residues ha&e remained almost constant throughout the long s"an of 2estern history. or this reason he surmises that the major classes of  residues corres"ond closely to certain !asic human instincts or "ro"ensities. The si' classes of  residues are as follows$ (. (nstinct for Com!inations.  ((. Grou" Persistences )Persistence of 7ggregates+. (((. Aeed of /'"ressing Sentiments !y /'ternal 7cts )7cti&ity, Self#/'"ression+ . (V. -esidues Connected with Sociality.  V. (ntegrity of the (ndi&idual and is 7""urtenances. V(. The Se' -esidue.

Pareto intends to show that the same residue can gi&e rise to a great &ariety of !elief systems or  deri&ations, and that men decei&e themsel&es when they !elie&e that they take a gi&en course of  action on the !asis of a "articular theory in which they ha""en to !elie&e. or e'am"le, 7 Chinese, a 0oslem, a Cal&inist, a Catholic, a Hantian, a egelian, a 0aterialist, all refrain from stealing3 !ut each gi&es a different e'"lanation for his conduct.EE (n &iew of such &aria!le e'"lanations of a constant characteristic, Pareto concluded that the real cause of the !eha&ior has to !e found in the constancy of a residue under# lying these different deri&ations. e reasoned that all these adherents of different schools of thought ha&e in common the need to maintain the integrity of their "ersonality and to "reser&e their self#regard. Therefore, Class V residues e'"lain their conduct. /&erywhere, and at all times, men !elie&e in the o!jecti&e reality of gods or s"irits, of  "rogress, freedom, or justice. The names and em!odiments of these entities change, as do the religious, "hiloso"hical, and moral theories that e'"lain these !eliefs. 1ut it will always !e found that, howe&er e'"ressed, the common !elief in such entities is rooted in a sta!le common element, in this case residue ((, the conser&ati&e tendency to grou" "ersistence, to social integration. Pareto argued re"eatedly that it is useless, e&en a waste of time, to discuss the truth of a doctrine with an adherent to it. Christianity has not !een de# stroyed !y arguments dis"uting the historical reality of Iesus, and Catholic "atriotism in rance was not hurt !y assertions that Ioan of 7rc was a hys# teric. 5nly a scientific strategy that allows us to trace the multi"licity of !elief systems and doctrines to their common source in !asic residues can ad&ance science and lead to a measure of enlightenment.

2hether ParetoEs e'"lanations amount to more than "seudo#e'"lanations is an o"en %uestion. ( would agree with -aymond 7ron who !elie&es that they ha&e much in common with the reasoning of 0oliereEs %uack "hysician who e'"lains the effects of o"ium !y its dormiti&e  "owers. 7s 7ron says with characteristic wit, 5ne does not dare to say JParetoEsK results are false, !ut "erha"s they are not &ery instructi&e. Bet !efore attem"ting to "ass a judg# ment, one has to realize that ParetoEs theory of residues ser&ed him not only as a way of e'"laining theories and !elief systems, !ut also as a means of e'"laining social mo&ements, social change, and the dynamics of history. 1e# fore we turn to this matter, two other Paretian notions, the distinction  !etween ty"es of nonlogical theories, and the distinction !etween su!jecti&e intentions and o!jecti&e conse%uences of action need to !e e'amined.

Pareto’s Circulation of Elites: Characteristics and Criticisms

ParetoDs treatment of the circulation of elites is often cited and is generally considered the most interesting "art of his sociology. Pareto !elie&ed that indi&iduals are !orn with %uite different a!ilities and ac%uire %uite different skills and a"titudes. 7ccording to Pareto, since in e&ery society there are classes, therefore each society is heterogeneous. Such a heterogeneity takes "lace on account of mental, moral, "hysical and cultural reasons !ut hel"s in maintaining social !alance and organisation. 7ccording to Pareto,  "eo"le are une%ual "hysically, as well as intellectually and morally. Some "eo"le are more gifted than others. Pareto says, those who are most ca"a!le in any  "articular grou"ing are the elite. The term elite denote sim"ly, “a class of the "eo"le who ha&e the highest indices in their !ranch of acti&ity.” 7ccording to Pareto, “1y elite, we mean the small num!er of indi&iduals who, in each s"here of  acti&ity, ha&e succeeded and ha&e arri&ed at a higher echelon in the "rofessional hierarchy.” /'am"les are the successful !usinessmen, artists, successful writers, "rofessors etc. Pareto further divided the elite class into two categories:

6. 7 go&erning elite 8. 7 non#go&erning elite. 7 go&erning elite com"rising indi&idual who directly or indirectly "lay some c onsidera!le "art in go&ernment. 7 non#go&erning elite is com"rising the rest of the indi&iduals. ParetoDs main discussion focuses on the go&erning elite.

Go&erning elites are directly and indirectly concerned with administration. They "lay highly im"ortant role and enjoy "restigious "lace in society. Aon#Go&erning elites are not connected with administration !ut occu"y such a "lace in society that they somehow influence the administration.

)asic characteristics of elites:

6. The indi&iduals not !elonging to either of the go&erning elite or non#go&erning elite are called non#elite. 8. The class of elite is uni&ersal and continuous "rocess. 9. The elite mani"ulate o&ertly or co&ertly the "olitical "ower. :. The elite is ha&ing the ca"acity to esta!lish su"eriority o&er others. ;. The mem!ers of the elite class will always try that the non# elites should not influence social, economic and "olitical "rocesses in any manner.