CLASS IN BRITISH SOCIETY

Press, Volume CXIV, Issue 33693, 16 November 1974, Page 10

CLASS IN BRITISH SOCIETY

Elites and Power In British Society. Edited by Philip Stan worth and Anthony Giddens. Cambridge University Press. 261 pp. (Reviewed by M.F.) This book is a collection of essays which deals with the problem of power in British society. The problem is solved in neo-Marxist terms by showing that individuals from the same class hold power whether they are Labour M.P.s, Conservative M.P.s, civil servants, bishops of the Church of England, industrialists, or financiers. There is a serious methodological problem here. “Class” is a social and economic term, and the purpose of the essayists is to show that members of the upper classes, defined by family background and educational background, dominate the political elite, a group which founds its power upon control of the Administration. The

underlying presumption of the book is that the elite uses its power to further, or to maintain, the interests of the upper classes, and the explicit intention of the book is to disprove the “decomposition thesis,” the idea that the ruling class has yielded to leadership groups. The essays present a variety of statistics in support of the idea that Britain is still dominated by a single class. W. L. Gullsman offers some figures which demonstrate that from 1918 to 1935 the average number of former working class M.P.s was 71.7 while the size of the Parliamentary Labour Party varied from 52 to 288. From 1945 to 1970 the average number of former working class M.P.s was 36.7 while the size of the Parliamentary Labour Party varied from 258 to 393.

In other words, before World War II there were almost twice as many former working class M.P.s as since. Their numbers have declined at the same time as the party has grown. Workers V ave b® en re P laced by university educated professionals from middle-ciass backgrounds. In the competition for adoption by the Labour Party in safe seats the more exclusive or the more highly-educated have a better chance of being selected by the local party than a worker. This is true even in areas such as mining constituencies, where the local party has predominantly working-class membership. The Parliamentary Labour Party has been similiar to the Parliamentary Conservative Party in the social background of members, and in its career structure. Since 1964, the largest groups of M.P.S in both parties have been professionals. Their Cabinets are also similar. Both are about 80 per cent middle-class. The Conservative Party has shed its peers in the same way as the Labour Party has shed its workers. The similarity between the Parliamentary parties may account for the lack of difference between party policies, and for the reason behind succeeding Administrations failing to take strong action on supposedly divisive issues such as nationalisation and the Common Market

The book presents evidence that financial and industrial directors as well as company chairmen have narrow socio-economic backgrounds—that is, they belong to the same London clubs and went to the same public schools. However, it is not clear how this background is reflected in their decision-

making. There is a suggestion that the non-executive interlocking director may be used by company executives and, as much as he might want to control the distribution of resources for his own ends, or his class ends, he is not necessarily able to do so.

Recruitment to the higher Civil Service has broadened slightly to include more people from a working class background. This was as high as 31 per cent in 1967. However, graduates of Oxford or Cambridge still take three-quarters of the Civil Service places filled through open competition. Further, this figure is bound to increase, because, since 1970 the written examination has been entirely replaced by an extended interview in which those who attended Oxbridge or a public school have an increased advantage added to the one they have always enjoyed.

This does not necessarily mean that the Civil Service will become less efficient. One of the essayists, R. K. Kelsall, remarks that he cannot say whether entrants from less prestigious social backgrounds would have brought greater credit to the administrative part of the Civil Service. This raises a doubt about the value of the book, for while it certainly demonstrates that people from a certain kind of socio-economic background dominate government and business, it is not shown that they perform less efficiently or less impartially than those from less prestigious backgrounds who occupy similar positions. What is needed is evidence that the elite acts to buttress the interests of the social and economic class which produces it, and this evidence is not provided. For example, in the political elite the higher socio-economic groups, such as old Etonians and professionals, are over-represented and workers are under-represented, but what can be understood from this? In Parliament, middle-class M.P.s from miscellaneous professions, such as journalism and social work, adopt a more radical policy than working class M.P.s. Further, the personal preferences of M.P.s, whether they are for or against the nationalisation of steel or immigration—preferences which may reflect a middle class background—do not determine their eventual votes on such issues.

If an elite theory is to explain politics then it must demonstrate that a dominant group, openly or covertly, uses administration to win advantages. Otherwise, all that the theory does is to explain that the elite possesses the potential for acting in class interests, which is not interesting. Another criticism can be made of this book. It contains no analysis of elites in powerful organisations such as the 8.8. C., the I.T.V. and the British Medical Association. Nor is there an investigation of Britain’s scientific and technical bodies. All of these groups are important in forming opinion and providing expert information about the direction of future policy. To neglect them is to neglect the effect of elites on some of the most important issues that face society.