Vilfredo Pareto's Sociology : a Framework for Political Psychology

Testing Pareto’s Theory
189
This perspective very notably evokes that heightened apprehension of threat 
which we find in paranoia and neurotic anxiety, and which we recognise as an 
important feature of the conservative mindset when we return once more to the view 
of conservatism as a crisis or threat orientation. 
We might therefore regard conservative individualism as emerging from deep 
within the conservative psyche, and yet as something which may manifest itself at 
times within any political party, depending upon levels of social threat within society. 
However, perhaps the potential for conservative individualism to vary with level of 
social threat, combined with its status as a gestalt characterised by conflicts likely 
to provoke attitudinal dissonance, explains why commentators have drawn attention 
to it as a phenomenon which Conservative political leaders have either emphasised, 
or played down, in their strategic decisions. Writing in 1974, the archetypal Tory 
journalist Peter Utley echoed Lord Hailsham’s point that ‘the Conservative Party 
is at times a party of authority and at times a party of freedom’. Utley therefore 
proposed a set of maxims which party leaders might use to choose which course 
to steer. These stressed that the ‘public good’ should be viewed as an aggregate of 
individual and family interests, that individual industriousness in pursuit of these 
things is required, and that the most important function of the state is to protect the 
family by securing private property and inheritance rights (Utley in Moore and Heffer 
(ed.) 1989, 54–58). By representing individual industriousness and responsibility 
as prerequisites for liberty, and by representing conservative individualism less as 
individual selfishness and more as a concentration of altruism within the family unit, 
Utley’s maxims capture key elements of conservative individualism well, and it is 
certainly interesting to consider these as providing a framework for the outward 
harmonisation of what is essentially an ongoing conflict within the conservative 
mind. 
5.8.6 Demographic 
Analysis
The following factor matrix shows personality variables loading alongside 
demographic variables. This helped shed light upon the extent to which demographic 
variation contributed to the personality patterns revealed by the MP study.
Factor domain 6(b) shows higher class origin combining with greater aloofness and 
reduced social anxiety. This was explained previously as very much a Conservative 
phenomenon. Notably, the class variable failed to make significant correlations in 
the r-matrix run for all cases.
Factor domain 5(b) alerts us to something new. It links female gender to low 
innovativeness and high levels of social anxiety. Moreover, domain 2(b) links female 
gender to collectivism and internal locus of control. Cross referencing between these 
domains, it seemed that female respondents, the overwhelming majority of whom 
were Labour MPs, were more collectivistic, less innovative and more inclined 
towards internal locus of control than their male colleagues. 
A growing literature has speculated upon whether increased female representation 
within Westminster and other assemblies can create ‘critical masses’ of female 
presence with the potential to change political culture (e.g. Norris and Lovenduski 
2001). Some regarded the 1997 general election as a milestone event because it saw 

---

Vilfredo Pareto’s Sociology
190
numbers of women MPs double from the previous general election to reach 120, thus 
raising hopes of a ‘feminised transformation’ of Parliament (Childs 2001). Findings 
might be interpreted very tentatively as highlighting axes of cultural change within 
the Parliamentary Labour Party following this new influx. If table 5.6(a) had been 
based upon differences between male MPs only, it would have shown Labour scores 
marginally lower and closer to Conservative scores on individualism-collectivism. 
It would also show Labour MPs as having higher scores on innovativeness (thus 
widening the gap with Conservative scores). To be clear, these gender differences 
within the Parliamentary Labour Party are statistically significant at the p<.01 level. 
Male Labour MPs outscore female Labour MPs on innovativeness by .31 SDs. 
Table 5.8(b)  Factor analysis of all variables
Variable name
Component
      1(b)            2(b)             3(b)              4(b)             5(b)             6(b)
Con-Lib
     
     .79
Caution-risk
     .68
   -.36
Conv-Rel
     .49
    .41
Aloofness
     .30
     .30
     .55
Aggression
    .74
Social Anxiety
     .45
    .44
    -.45
Dissociation
     .30
    .70
Indiv-Collect
     .75
Loc Control
   -.71
Innovation
   -.76
Years as MP
     .91
Seniority
     .84
Age
     .74
Female Gender
     .45
     .61
Class Origin
     .74
        Component  
Rotation Sums of Squared Loadings
           Total                    % of Variance               Cumulative %        
              1
             2.3
           15.5
           15.5
              2
             1.7
           11.5 
           27.1 
              3 
             1.6
           11.0
           38.1
              4
             1.5 
           10.2 
           48.2
              5
             1.3
            8.8     
           57.0
              6
             1.2
            7.8
           64.9

---