Conflict Theory for Macro Practice

Conflict theory encompasses several theories that share underlying assumptions about interlocking systems of oppression and how they are maintained. The relevance of Marx’s theory of class conflict, C. Wright Mills’s power elite, and pluralist interest group theory are all important to understand and address social and economic gaps and informing policy for macro practice. Conflict theory can provide an understanding of health disparities, racial differences in mortality rates, class relationships associated with negative outcomes, poverty, discrimination in criminal justice, as well as numerous factors that are broadly associated with inequality embedded in social structures. Social workers play a significant role in addressing disparities in research, curricula, primary and secondary intervention, and public policy, and conflict theory can provide the framework necessary to enrich this understanding.

Standing in the space between fields: The interstitial power of elites in Italian banking foundations

In this article, I explore interstitiality – a concept based on Gil Eyal’s notion of ‘spaces between fields’ – as a potential heuristic lens for observing contemporary elites, applying it to high-ranking figures in the Compagnia San Paolo (CSP). CSP is a banking foundation ( Fondazione di origine bancaria or FOB) that was set up in the 1990s arising from the privatization of the Italian banking sector. After outlining the theoretical underpinnings of interstitiality, I bring the construct to bear on my own empirical work. First, I elucidate what FOBs are and why they may represent a valuable interstitial observatory on a significant segment of power elite. Second, I examine CSP as an emblematic instance of an FOB. Third, I illustrate the main characteristics of CSP’s elites, suggesting that these groups reflect the features of interstitiality insofar as: they merge logics and grammars of justification from different fields; and, given their high degree of mobility across fields, they contribute to disseminating discursive and governmental practices of hybridization. My aim, as advocated for by Mike Savage and Karel Williams, is to enrich the sociological debate on elites by introducing a new conceptual tool.

The Ruling Elite in Russia: Continuity or Change?

The third Vladimir’s Putin presidential term (2012-2018) was a significant period for the Russian Federation political security. Social protests, the annexation of Crimea, conflicts in eastern Ukraine and Syria, as well as economic sanctions and the deepening Russian isolationism - these are just some of the problems that Russian authorities had to face to ensure political stability. The aim of this article was to examine the changes and conflicts that occurred within President Putin’s inner circle between 2012 and 2018. The research was conducted according to content analysis method. It revealed that in 2012-2018 the attempts to weaken the decision-making power elite as a whole failed.

Shadow Elites

Seismic transformational developments over the past several decades have reorganized governance, spawned new spaces of policy and governance, and weakened impartial government and accountability. Systemic, structural corruption, in which activities are mostly legal but violate an official institution’s public, impartial mission has arisen, along with a new breed of influencers. “Shadow elites” are the most insidious of these influencers. This chapter, grounded in social anthropology, examines the organization and modus operandi of shadow elites as compared with their “power elite” forebears and evaluates theories of institutional corruption in light of shadow elite practices and their merging of state and private power. International anticorruption regimes have emerged over the same time frame (the past quarter century) as shadow elites. Hence we ask why these regimes have largely failed to recognize the impact of the transformational developments and the forms of corruption they forge. A wide-ranging, multidisciplinary approach to studying shadow elite practices, ecosystems, and implications is urgently needed.

Is It Human Service Cartels or the Power Elite That Promote Societal Control and Repression? A Reaction to David Stoesz’s Human Services Cartels Article

This article is a reaction paper to the article in this journal issue entitled Human Service Cartels: The Soft Repression of the Mediocracy by David Stoesz. As such, it addresses two significant questions about the Stoesz article. One question is as follows: Are we really talking about a cartel? The other question is as follows: Isn’t it the power elite that promotes societal control and repression?