Vilfredo Pareto's Sociology : a Framework for Political Psychology

Vilfredo Pareto’s Sociology
xvi
the journey because they have heard that there may well be direction or relevance in the 
texts of the past or least they hold out the hope for such. If the custodians had not done 
their job, or if the custodians had had no job at all, then the traditions would die. The 
implication is that the classic texts do not always speak to the moment – part of the skill 
is being able to pose the appropriate questions – hence the role of the custodians. Of 
course it behoves those (self-appointed) ‘custodians’ of the classical traditions to keep 
a beady eye on all that is happening in the world and in the world of sociology, to keep 
in readiness for when they will be consulted; moreover, it behoves those self-appointed 
custodians to leave their enclave from time to time and remind those busily engaged on 
other projects of what the classics have to offer and to work for their promotion. 
The situation is of course not quite as polarised as I have portrayed it above and 
the analogies should not be pressed to far; the choices are not either side of the duality 
– the contemporary or the past. Rather, quality work in sociology that is conscious of 
its classical heritage but involved in the analysis of the contemporary (or historical 
societies) most probably requires a degree of balancing between the poles as I have 
represented them and works dialectically with its knowledge of past theory, method 
and substantive analysis, and current theory, method and substantive analysis and of 
course with the awareness of contemporary events and processes that are themselves 
comprehended because of sociology and its very reception of earlier formulations. 
Often the hermeneutical concerns of interpreting texts from the past is discussed 
by use of the metaphor of a bridge – the bridging of horizons for example. I have 
used this metaphor myself. I think the metaphor is useful when it brings home how 
careful we need to be when dealing with texts that come from a different time and 
culture to our own and are written in languages other than our own. However, I would 
caution against the metaphor of the bridge between the horizons of the classics and 
the contemporary world where it suggests a too wide a gulf between past and present 
sociological practice. It is important to keep in mind that the use of the metaphor of the 
bridge to reflect the hermeneutical distance between classic texts and contemporary 
conditions in itself can suggest that the classics are alien. An alternative metaphor 
of a roundabout from which one can step off at particular points but upon which all 
sociologists past and present are, so to speak, magically riding may in fact reflect 
more accurately the community of purposes of all sociologists classic or otherwise. 
Similarly, the scribes in the scriptorium of the sociological monastery guarding 
the sacred relics of sociology is surely but a literary invention of my own making to 
illustrate a possible function for classical sociology, but it too suggests too great a 
distance between classical sociology and current practice: it is a function to be stressed 
perhaps when the study of classical sociology is no longer supported. Fortunately, in 
the current climate that is far from the case, at least in many enlightened corners of 
sociology. Long may it continue. 
There are many good reasons then for reading classical sociology. Engaging in 
classical sociology therefore is not an easy option or an easier option from other 
demanding types of sociological work: on the contrary, it is even more demanding 
given the requirement to understand texts from the past in their own right and in terms 
of our own contemporary concerns, and without forgetting the reception history that 
purports to connect past and present but actually may in fact lead to different types 
of ruptures. One such serious engagement with a classical text and thinker follows 

---

Series Editor’s Preface
xvii
in Marshall’s volume on Pareto and the implications of his sociology for political 
psychology and the analysis of contemporary politics. 
Professor David Chalcraft
 Cumbria, 
2007

---

This page intentionally left blank 

---

Author’s Preface
The epoch of classical sociology, which is usually considered to span the late 
nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, is perhaps most famously associated with 
Weber, Marx, Durkheim and Simmel, whose texts endure as sources of inspiration 
for the sociological and wider social scientific imagination. This book presents Pareto 
as a further important source. It focuses upon his concern to bring together the ‘mind 
and society’, a concern which resonates with today’s feeling that psychological and 
sociological fields require closer dialogue. 
This book does not evaluate Pareto’s status within the corpus of classical sociology, 
either by comparing him with the ‘big four’ currently at its centre, or by comparing him 
with other sociologists who might one day be repositioned there. Such comparisons 
risk repeating the efforts of many previous Pareto commentators who have heaped 
critical attention onto areas of his thought which appear weak relative to other classical 
sources. Pareto is easily disadvantaged by such comparisons, because as a generalist 
and polymath writing in relative seclusion, it was inevitable that he would often be out-
thought by sociologists working alongside colleagues to develop specialisms.
One key weakness likely to be exposed through comparative evaluation is Pareto’s 
scientistic treatment of cultural-symbolic phenomena, which entailed looking across 
the entire sweep of western history, from the ancient Greek tyrannies right through 
to modern Italy, for those regular patterns which give science its subject matter. Also 
highly vulnerable is Pareto’s muddled theory of ‘residues’, which is fundamental 
to his sociology and has divided commentators over whether it is psychological or 
sociological. Most Pareto commentators, including Talcott Parsons, have allowed 
such matters to consume their attention. With very few exceptions, they have not 
explored how Pareto’s theory might be refined using subsequent theory and research, 
so that each new generation of scholars can evaluate it afresh for its relevance to 
contemporary social scientific concerns.  
To strike out in a new direction, this book considers how Pareto provides us 
with something quite unique. The book’s technique is to highlight the intrinsic value 
and indeed growing relevance of Pareto’s broad sociological framework theory, by 
bridging it to the modern discipline of political psychology. We will see that many 
classical and more recent sociologal works can help link the various sections of this 
bridge together. It is hoped that by highlighting these contributions, this book will 
encourage future writers and researchers to make greater use of Pareto’s bridge to 
political psychology, perhaps widening it into a busy thoroughfare between classical 
sociology and political psychology. In this way, Pareto might yet find a vital and 
highly practical role within the living tradition of classical sociology.
This book also engages with Pareto to serve a broad enlightenment agenda 
shared by many classical sociologists and political psychologists, which can be 

---