Preliminary Programme

Between 1590 and 1650 feudal colonisation redesigned Sicilian territory and society. During these sixty years about 120 new feudal towns rose in Sicily. The concentration of this phenomenon in a relatively short period is indicative of important changes occurring in the social and economic structures in Sicily.
The protagonists of Sicilian feudalism was the aristocracy, chiefly the “new” nobles who acquired political prestige and a higher social status as owners of feudal estates through the foundation of new rural centres. The colonisation of a feudal state permitted them to enter the ranks of the feudal parliament of the Kingdom of Sicily with the title of Baron, Marquis, Count, or Prince as a sign of a consolidated political and financial position.
In fact, during the Seventeenth century the number of titles granted by the Spanish monarchs grew exponentially, compared to the Sixteenth century. In those years, for those who had money it was not difficult to purchase feudal titles and licentiae populandi. The Spanish Crown was committed militarily on several fronts in Europe and the rulers had to find financial systems to meet the needs of military expenses. One of the solutions was to sell the aristocracy feudal titles and the privileges associated with them.
Such behaviour and strategies will be compared to those investigated within feudality studies in other Italian and European contexts (above all in the Kingdom of Naples and the Kingdom of Castile), in order to identify common aspects and differences. (Show less)

The presentation is concentrated on the network analysis of Russian intellectuals (especially, professors of law and economics) when they decided to impact the economic policy in the late 19th century. The expected conflict between the Autocracy and some free-thinking intellectuals is under investigation in my paper. This conflict roused intellectuals to create a network, which turned them into new elite of Russia after the Emancipation reform of 1861 and during slow disintegration of the estate system in Russia. The economic policy became the “battlefield” where confrontation of government bureaucracy and liberal professors took place. Members of this network picked different ways of ascendancy over economic policy, one tried to enter public administration, others preferred to present experts’ appraisals. And thereby university intellectuals found themselves as leaders of public opinion and activism. The key question of my research is how intellectuals influenced economic policy, and whether economic thought of intellectual elite influenced economic reality? (Show less)

Elites were analyzed over time as a distinct body, a specific entity located somewhere above the masses. I will review some of the sociological theories that work with the history of the concept of “elites”. A wide range of theories and approaches dealing with the issue of the elites provide a challenging starting point of research.
Closer analysis stressed the need for systematization of the theories, revealing the different senses that a single concept reveals. Sense, based on Pareto and Mosca, we will proceed to analyze the differences that the Romanian sociology provide, differences that lay in the Romanian society and its elites. One of the fundamental characteristics of the elites is to encourage organic movement in the society, thus known as the circulation of the elites. Without this process, the society is unable to evolve in a consistent and beneficial form for its members. For Pareto, social behavior is explained by the existence and combination of residues. The polarization between elites and masses is due to the different residues that are found distributed in society (social heterogeneity). Circulation of the elites has a law status that determines social balance or imbalance.
Another item that I had in mind regarding the above theory resumes the distinction between mass and elite. Masses (the people) are without any form of power and influence. Decisions are made based on whose interest and welfare? Does the public know who the elites are and what is their role and influence? The answers lay empirically in the Romanian society.
Another issue that I had in mind is to what extent globalization, or the overall transformation of society affects the concept of elite as it was played a century ago? If Romanian society emphasizes the moral dimension and the need to assume responsibility of the community, the Romanian sociological theories regarding the elites emphasize the bridge between Pareto and other authors. Finally, we will try to rebuild, starting from Parsons and Luhmann, the concept of social system, in an effort to identify, in terms of function and structure, which is the role of the elites in the global social reality.
The present tells us that globalization has brought economic development and economic relations, which favored the multinational corporations, large NGOs, organizations and individuals working globally with special skills, particularly technical, for which there is global demand and so they develop their career by moving from one country to another. We now resume to highlight the gap that exists between the elite and the rest of society. This new type of man, "The Davos Man", "gold collar" or "cosmocrat" , is actually the new type of the elite, or so Huntington states. They see society organized on a supranational level, where borders do not exist and where the prevailing role and their place within multinational corporations and organizations. Although this type of elite in Romania has just occurred, the development of transnational corporations and NGOs will lead to a multiplication of cosmocrats. What does this mean? (Show less)