Determining the Elite within Politics and the Judiciary.

Authors Avatar

Assessment Essay: Powerful and the Prosperous

Compare two elites in Britain with particular reference to recruitment, structure and power, situating your comparison within a broader analysis of the British social structure.

Abstract

To begin addressing this question, it was first necessary to define the term elite.  From here, it was then possible to clarify the specific positions within the upper ranks of politics and the senior judiciary that I would be examining.  Once this was established, the relationship between British elites and the social structure both past and present was outlined, along with the basic views of those who have commented upon this association.  This provided the appropriate context through which to compare the recruitment, structure and power of the named elites.  Following the analysis of these three dimensions, it was then possible to assess their relationship with the current British social structure as a totality.

Defining the Elite

The development of ideas concerning elites in society has led to the application of the term elite in a number ways.  I intend to employ a definition similar to that proposed by Stanworth (1984 p247), which simply signifies those individuals occupying high positions of authority within an institution or organisation.  However, the attribution of authority does not automatically equate with a given amount of power and I will examine this association in more detail later in the paper.

Determining the Elite within Politics and the Judiciary

The Political Elite

By applying the definitions I have just outlined to the sectors I have chosen for comparison, it is now possible to establish which members of these groups can be termed the ‘elite’.  Within the area of Politics, I will focus on the formal positions of authority held by Members of the House of Commons, government Ministers and the Prime Minister.

“Ministers, especially Cabinet Ministers, occupy the most desirable and sought-after positions in British Politics.  They can take decisions affecting millions of lives and allocating billions of pounds.  Membership of the House of Commons, though less important, nevertheless brings social esteem and a measure of fame.  Above all, a seat in the Commons is a necessary qualification for most Ministerial careers”

(Moran 1989 p154)

Due to the central place of class in British party politics, the distinction between Labour and Conservative MP’s and Ministers (and other parties where appropriate) will form an inherent part of this paper’s structure.  

The Judicial Elite

Analysis of the senior positions in the Judiciary will encompass all those involved in exercising the law from the High Court upwards, including the Law Lords, Lord Justices, Master of the Rolls, the Lord Chief Justice and High Court Judges.  Individuals and bodies outside of the positions listed, yet who wield some influence in the respective fields will also be addressed at the appropriate points in this paper.

Studying Elites and Social Structure

Historically, class and wealth have been the principal areas of social stratification discussed in relation to elite composition. For the term ‘class’, a conventional definition will be used, derived initially from the work of Weber, to refer to “an aggregate of individuals who share a common market situation” (Giddens 1972 p349).  Discussions of class during this essay will mainly be in reference to class origins, calculated via the fathers’ occupational status.  Although this broad definition is not without flaws, when referring to a large number of individuals it does at least give a reasonable indication of market situation at birth and the life chances that may be available.  The main lines of division in this essay will be upper class, middle class (sometimes divided into upper middle-class and lower middle-class) and working class.  The notion of class is therefore different to the concept of an elite; whereas class is defined in terms of economic position and power, it is possible for elites to have a non-economic basis.  Likewise, we cannot assume that the upper class is solely formed from those occupying an elite position, as there may be members of this class who are moneyed yet without any formally defined authority.

The empirical study of elites has been dominated by attempts to unearth how far elite members are representative of different occupational classes in the community.  Researchers then use this information to evaluate the importance of inherited privilege in gaining the power, financial, and social resources associated with obtaining an elite position.  A common interpretation of such data is that those born to families of a higher occupational class are much more likely to gain a similar elite position than those born to a lower class are.  The general reasoning behind this assertion is that those of a higher social class already have disproportionate access to the income, power and social goods often required when striving towards a leading position in society.

The response to such accusations by Britains most powerful institutions has been to deny this existence of ‘closure’, stressing instead that elite recruitment has become increasingly meritocratic (Burch & Moran 1985 p3).  Those who adopt this view draw attention to a number of social changes that have occurred over the last century.  They believe such changes have ensured that access to elite positions is now open to all able individuals from a wide range of social backgrounds.  Consequently, the impact of privilege on society as a whole has lessened. These regularly cited changes include:

  1. Increased social mobility as a result of determined measures to make the nation more meritocratic, such as the 1944 Education Act,
  2. Economic growth leading to mass affluence and employment
  3. The proposed decline in wealth of the very rich

However, many left-wing social scientists argue such changes have not altered the fact that there still remains a fundamental division between the wealthy and propertied on the one hand, and the middle and working classes on the other.  Although changes in mobility may be visible in the lower to mid reaches of the social structure, these theorists believe the social composition of the actual elite has not dramatically modified.  Rather, they propose that the wealthier upper class is still able to keep recruitment closed to outsiders due to a privileged and exclusive pattern of schooling and a high level of social integration.

“Closure theory asserts that whatever the opportunities for upward social mobility in society at large, at the very top powerful social mechanisms close off access to elite positions, reserving leadership posts for a small minority disproportionately drawn from families of those already enjoying privilege.  On this view, elites in Britain are largely self-recruiting.  Little impact is to be expected from social change or policy reform”

(Burch & Moran in Parliamentary Affairs 1985 p3)

In light of this ongoing debate, the pivotal focus of this paper will be to assess the influence of privileged groups within the social structure upon both the political and judicial elite.  This will mainly examine the existence of class bias in both their composition and behaviour, though I also intend to pay attention to gender and racial disparities.  As social values have changed over the last century, these are also groups that society has deemed should be treated equally under meritocratic selection.

We begin with an examination of the political and judicial elites’ origins, in order to gain some insight into how much they have perpetuated their traditional characteristics regardless of changes further down the social structure.

Recruitment: Advantage or Ability?

As well as assessing how representative these elites are of the social structure, it is also important to study the typical ‘avenues’ taken to attain elite positions (such as the educational or occupational pathway), including those taken by members of the most privileged class into a relatively ‘closed’ elite (Giddens 1972 p349).  Studies concerning the social profile of successive elites in British society traditionally focus on the proportion educated at public schools and/or Oxbridge (Oxford or Cambridge), as compared to those experiencing other types of education.  

“Just under five per cent of Britons are educated at public schools, most of whose pupils pay sizeable fees.  The proportion of a particular cohort educated at such schools is commonly taken as a measure of how far members of the cohort have privileged social origins.”

(Burch & Moran 1985 p2)

Although somewhat fallible, such information provides useful signs that a person is not of lowly social origins, especially if they were educated at one of the more prestigious public schools. Furthermore, it indicates the path that working class individuals may need to take in order to mimic the success of their more privileged counterparts.

Recruiting the Political Elite

Of all public officials, the material available concerning the social and educational background of the political elite is the most complete.  We can trace back detailed information about the social profile of Parliament over a considerable period, allowing us to examine any long-term changes that may have occurred in their formation.  

At the beginning of the twentieth century, there was a marked contrast in both the social origins and the routes by which Labour and Conservative politicians had reached Parliament.  The Conservative Party at this time was in a period of transition, with a decline in the proportion of its landed and aristocratic interest, along with an increase in those from the financial, commercial and industrial sectors (Scott 1986 p4).  Despite this difference, these newer members still shared many social characteristics with the old upper class.  They conformed to a narrow and restrictive pattern of recruitment with the majority attending public schools (including the most exclusive such as Eton), and a high proportion of Oxbridge graduates.  During its emergence at the beginning of the twentieth century, apart from a small aristocratic contingent, those of working class origins overwhelmingly dominated the Labour Party.  At this time, they achieved ascent into the political elite via the Trade Union and Co-operative movements, as well as the Labour party itself (Stanworth 1984 p255).  However, this social division in Parliament was to change significantly over the course of the following century, the most dramatic transitions occurring after the Second World War.

In the Conservative Party, the number of aristocratic and outstandingly rich MPs continued to decline. However, this loss was not compensated through a recruitment of those from humble social origins, and if anything the party’s make-up became more uniformly middle-class.

“First there is a decrease in the MPs drawn from an Oxbridge background…Second there is a decline in public school recruitment…the third change is an increase in those MPs who were both educated at state schools and who took their first degrees at non-Oxbridge universities…a fourth change is the continued decline in the number of Old Etonians…A fifth and final change – in some ways the obverse of Eton’s decline – is the rise of those with only elementary and secondary education.”

Join now!

(Burch & Moran 1985 p5-6)

In the Labour Party, the most striking change has been the decline of manual workers; indeed, the party has now practically ceased to be working class, with a significant growth in the proportion of MPs drawn from a professional occupation.  An expanding educated contingent has accompanied this trend, with a marked rise in university educated MPs and those drawn from Oxbridge and a fall in MPs who only had an elementary and/or secondary education.

“The proportion of manual workers on the Labour benches fell steadily from 72 per cent between the wars to ...

This is a preview of the whole essay