Paretos Formulation of Logical and NonLogical Actions of Human

Vilfredo Pareto summarized his aim in writing his major sociological work, The treatise on
General Sociology. His ambition was to construct a system of sociology analogous in its
essential features of the generalized physicochemical system. The treatise attempts to study only
non-rational aspects of action.
He suggested that the field of economics had limited itself to the single aspect of human action:
rational and logical action in pursuit of the acquisition of scarce resources. Pareto turned to
sociology when he became convinced that human affairs were largely guided by non-logical,
non-rational actions which were excluded from consideration by the economists.
It is this analytical distinction between rational and non-rational elements of actions and not a
classification of concrete behaviour that Pareto aimed, It is not actions, as we find them in the
concrete that we are called upon to classify, but the elements constituting them.
All the actions are divided into two broad categories:
() Personal
(b) Social
Every action or social phenomenon has two aspects:
(i) Form
(ii) Reality
Form is the way in which the phenomenon presents itself to the human mind.
(It is something subjective).
Reality involves the actual existence of the things. (It is something objective).
Likewise all the actions of individual whether it is personal or social, it has two parts.
(i) Ends
(ii) Means

Logical Actions:
So every action is based on either logical action or non-logical action. If the actions are based on
logic and experiment and if the means and ends are connected with each other, those actions are
known as logical action. Behaviour, Pareto believed is logical both subjectively and objectively.
Pareto defines logical actions are those if the end is objectively attainable and if the means
employed are objectively united with the end within the framework of best knowledge available.
For an action to be logical, the logical connection between the means and ends must exist both in
the mind of the actor who performs the act and in objective reality. Logical action is the pure
rational action as Weber calls it. In the calculation of means- end relationship; with the addition
of the fact that it rested upon knowledge which was objectively true. Logical behaviour, wrote
Pareto, consists of:
.those actions which are logically linked to an end, not only in respect to the persons
performing them, but also to those other people who have more extensive knowledge : that is to
say, behaviour which is subjectively and objectively logical
Pareto defines logical action are those actions which use means appropriate to ends and which
logically connects means with ends. This logical connection of means with ends must hold not
only the subject performing them but also from the stand point of other persons who have a more
extensive knowledge.
So the logical co-relation between means and ends must be approved by:
(i) The actor or the self
(ii) The other persons
(These other persons must have extensive knowledge.)
So logical actions are those actions that are both subjectively and objectively logical. While,
discussing subjective and objective end Pareto says that subjective ends are those which are liked
by certain persons on account of their personal reasons. He adopts certain line of action which
would ultimately lead to goals which serve his personal ends.
On the other hand, an objective end is always arrived at by a process of empirically valid
predictions and must be within the domain of observation. For an action to be logical, the meansend relation in objective reality must correspond to the means-end relation in the mind of the
actor.
Characteristics of Logical Action:
1. All the actions personal or social that have a proper adjustment between means and the ends.

2. The actions which are based on experiment and logic.

3. Actions must be objective.
4. Actions must be real.
5. Actions must be accepted by the actor and must be defined objectively.
6. These actions have no place in imagination or prejudices.
7. Both the ends and the means must be scientific and justified.
8. Social sanctions must be there behind such justification.
9. There must be logical connection between means employed and ends attained.
10. Logical actions must be rational in nature.
11. Logical actions are motivated by reasoning.
Non-Logical Actions:
Non-Logical actions mean simply all human actions not falling within the scope of the logical
actions. These are not logical-which does not mean that they are illogical. Non-logical action is
action guided by sentiments and other non- logical factors. In other words, in the category of
non-logical actions fall all those which do not present the double characteristics of logical
connection.
1. Subjectively and
2. Objectively or,
Of Correspondence between these two connections:
According to Raymond Aron:
Thus we can immediately draw up a table of non-logical actions which we shall call the second
class of human actions.
Objectively :

NO

NO

YES

YES

Subjectively :

NO

YES

NO

YES

Reflections of these above categories:

No-No Category
No-Yes Category
Yes-No Category
Yes-Yes Category
The No-No Category:
Here action is not logical. The means are not connected to the ends neither in reality nor in the
mind. Means do not give any result which is logical. The actor does not even have in mind either
an end or a means-end relation. This no-no category is rare as man has reasoning capacity.
No-Yes Category:
This no-yes category is widespread. Here the act is not logically related to the result it will give.
There is no logical connection between means employed and ends attained. But the actor
wrongly imagines that the means he employs are of a kind to produce the end he desires.
Example:
When people desire rain they make sacrifices to the God. They are convinced that their sacrifices
have an effect on the rainfall. In this case a means-end relation exists subjectively but not
objectively.
Yes-No Category:
This category includes actions which do produce a result logically related to the means
employed, but without the actors is having conceived the means-end relation. There are
numerous examples of this category. Reflex acts belong here.
Example:
Closing of eyes when dust comes. Animals also exhibit this type of behaviour for their survival.
This action is objectively defined but not subjectively logical but just like instinctive type of
behaviour.
Yes-Yes Category:
This is the fourth category of action which has a result logically related to the means employed.
Here the actor subjectively conceives a relation between the means and the ends, but in which
the objective sequence does not correspond to the subjective sequence.

Example:
The behaviour of revolutionaries.
They wish to change existing society, to correct its vices.
These are the four principal categories of non-logical actions. These four categories constitute
the subject of Treatise on General Sociology.
Among the four categories of non-logical actions, two are particularly important:
(i) The second category (No-Yes Category) that is non- logical actions which have no objective
goal but do have a subjective goal. Ritual and symbolic actions fall under this category. All
actions which are of religious types-all actions which are addressed to an emblem or symbol of a
sacred reality fall into this category.
(ii) The fourth category (Yes-Yes Category) in which there does not exist a coincidence between
the subjective and the objective. This category includes all actions dictated by illusions,
particularly the illusions of political men or intellectuals.
Characteristics of Non-logical Actions:
Non logical actions mean simply all human actions not falling within the scope of the logical
actions.
(i) Non-logical actions are determined by subjective factors.
(ii) It cannot be proved by objective observation and experimentation.
(iii) These actions are not determined by reality.
(iv) These actions are totally guided by impulses but not reasoning.
(v) These actions involve to some degree a motivation by sentiment.
Criticisms:
There are some crucial areas relating to logical and non-logical actions.
Because:
1. It is very difficult to find out which action is logical or which is non-logical.
2. It is also difficult to distinguish between means and ends.

3. Number of non-logical actions is more than logical actions, because man wants to do any
action on the basis of his imagination, thinking, sentiments etc., and tries to prove that nonlogical actions are very logical.
For Pareto, the main characteristic of an action was its relation through logic. For him, it was not
necessary that every action should be based on logic. Human beings may try to prove an action
to be logical by their own actions and in their own way. In this respect Pareto made a very useful
and valuable contribution.

Vilfredo Pareto: Residues and Derivations

Pareto's attempt to unmask nonscientific theories and belief systems led him to make a
distinction between changing elements accounting for these theories, which he termed
derivations, and residual, relatively permanent ele- ments, which he termed residues. The notion
of residues has often been mis- understood as merely a fancy term for instinct and as
corresponding to the basic sentiments discussed earlier. Pareto himself brought forth this
misunder- standing by occasionally referring to residues as instincts. It seems nevertheless that
he conceived of residues as manifestations of sentiments or as correspond- ing to them, rather
than as their equivalents.
Residues are intermediary between the sentiments we cannot know directly and the belief
systems and acts that can be known and analyzed. Furthermore, residues are related to man's
instincts but they do not cover all of them, since we can only discover those instincts that give
rise to rationalization in theories while others must remain hidden.
A man's appetite or taste for, say, pork chops, does not fall into the category of residues in
Pareto's scheme. If, however, a man constructs a theory according to which Chinese cooking is
superior to American cooking, then Pareto would be moved to investigate the residues
underlying the elaboration of such theoreti- cal justification.
Pareto arrives at his distinctions between residues and derivations by the following procedure:
He investigates doctrines that are associated with action, for example, Christian religious
doctrine or liberal political theory. From these theories he separates those elements that
correspond to the standards of logico- experimental science. Next, he separates the remaining
nonscientific elements into constants (residues) and variables (derivations). Derivations only
arise when there is reasoning, argument, and ideological justification. When these are present,
Paretian analysis looks for the underlying relatively constant ele- ments (residues).
For example, we find in all ages a great variety of verbalizations and doc- trines connected with
the sexual sphere. These may take the form of porno- graphic literature or of the denunciation of
sexual license. There are strict and permissive theories about proper sexual conduct. Ascetic
doctrines condemn what hedonistic doctrines extol. But throughout all these manifold derivations runs a common sexual residue, which remains remarkably stable at all times. Styles, modes,

fashions, and ethical theories about the sexual sphere vary immensely, but a uniform sexual
nucleus always crops up in a variety of new doctrinal disguises.
Although men have used an infinite number and variety of derivations in order to justify or
logicalize their actions, Pareto argues that six classes of residues have remained almost constant
throughout the long span of Western history. For this reason he surmises that the major classes of
residues correspond closely to certain basic human "instincts" or propensities. The six classes of
residues are as follows:
I. Instinct for Combinations.
II. Group Persistences (Persistence of Aggregates).
III. Need of Expressing Sentiments by External Acts (Activity, Self-Expression) .
IV. Residues Connected with Sociality.
V. Integrity of the Individual and His Appurtenances.
VI. The Sex Residue.
Pareto intends to show that the same residue can give rise to a great variety of belief systems or
derivations, and that men deceive themselves when they believe that they take a given course of
action on the basis of a particular theory in which they happen to believe. For example, "A
Chinese, a Moslem, a Calvinist, a Catholic, a Kantian, a Hegelian, a Materialist, all refrain from
stealing; but each gives a different explanation for his conduct.'' In view of such variable
explanations of a constant characteristic, Pareto concluded that the real cause of the behavior has
to be found in the constancy of a residue under- lying these different derivations. He reasoned
that all these adherents of different schools of thought have in common the need to maintain the
integrity of their personality and to preserve their self-regard. Therefore, Class V residues
explain their conduct.
Everywhere, and at all times, men believe in the objective reality of gods or spirits, of
"progress," "freedom," or "justice." The names and embodiments of these entities change, as do
the religious, philosophical, and moral theories that explain these beliefs. But it will always be
found that, however expressed, the common belief in such entities is rooted in a stable common
element, in this case residue II, the "conservative" tendency to group persistence, to social
integration.
Pareto argued repeatedly that it is useless, even a waste of time, to discuss the truth of a doctrine
with an adherent to it. Christianity has not been de- stroyed by arguments disputing the historical
reality of Jesus, and Catholic patriotism in France was not hurt by assertions that Joan of Arc was
a hys- teric. Only a scientific strategy that allows us to trace the multiplicity of belief systems
and doctrines to their common source in basic residues can advance science and lead to a
measure of enlightenment.

Whether Pareto's explanations amount to more than pseudo-explanations is an open question. I

would agree with Raymond Aron who believes that they have much in common with the
reasoning of Moliere's quack physician who explains the effects of opium by its dormitive
powers. As Aron says with characteristic wit, "One does not dare to say [Pareto's] results are
false, but perhaps they are not very instructive." Yet before attempting to pass a judg- ment, one
has to realize that Pareto's theory of residues served him not only as a way of explaining theories
and belief systems, but also as a means of explaining social movements, social change, and the
dynamics of history. Be- fore we turn to this matter, two other Paretian notions, the distinction
between types of nonlogical theories, and the distinction between subjective intentions and
objective consequences of action need to be examined.

Paretos Circulation of Elites: Characteristics and Criticisms

Paretos treatment of the circulation of elites is often cited and is generally considered the most
interesting part of his sociology. Pareto believed that individuals are born with quite different
abilities and acquire quite different skills and aptitudes.
According to Pareto, since in every society there are classes, therefore each society is
heterogeneous. Such a heterogeneity takes place on account of mental, moral, physical and
cultural reasons but helps in maintaining social balance and organisation. According to Pareto,
people are unequal physically, as well as intellectually and morally.
Some people are more gifted than others. Pareto says, those who are most capable in any
particular grouping are the elite. The term elite denote simply, a class of the people who have
the highest indices in their branch of activity.
According to Pareto, By elite, we mean the small number of individuals who, in each sphere of
activity, have succeeded and have arrived at a higher echelon in the professional hierarchy.
Examples are the successful businessmen, artists, successful writers, professors etc.
Pareto further divided the elite class into two categories:
1. A governing elite
2. A non-governing elite.
A governing elite comprising individual who directly or indirectly play some considerable part in
government.
A non-governing elite is comprising the rest of the individuals. Paretos main discussion focuses
on the governing elite.

Governing elites are directly and indirectly concerned with administration. They play highly
important role and enjoy prestigious place in society. Non-Governing elites are not connected
with administration but occupy such a place in society that they somehow influence the
administration.

Basic characteristics of elites:

1. The individuals not belonging to either of the governing elite or non-governing elite are called
non-elite.
2. The class of elite is universal and continuous process.
3. The elite manipulate overtly or covertly the political power.
4. The elite is having the capacity to establish superiority over others.
5. The members of the elite class will always try that the non- elites should not influence social,
economic and political processes in any manner.
6. The non-elites respect only such elites who are liberal in outlook and approach, because they
alone can help them to come nearer to each other.
Bogardus has described, The theory of elite is that in every society there are people who possess
in a marked degree, the qualities of intelligence, character, skill, capacity, whatever kind, that
there are two classes of elite, that the two groups are disjunctive at any given time, that there is
an up and down circulation of elite.
7. Circulation or upward and downward circulation amongst the members of the elite and nonelite is a typical characteristic of the elite.
According to Pareto the work and the role of the elites are influenced by two types of factors
which are always operative in every society. One type which is constant is called residues, the
other type is derivations.
According to Pareto social change comes because of residues of combination and residue of
persistence of aggregates. Cycle of social change is a continuous process. Political, economic
and ideological factors are responsible for continuing this process.

Following the Machiavellian formula, Pareto states that the elites are able to manipulate and
control the masses by resorting to two methods: Force or Fraud, which corresponding to
Machiavellis famous anti-thesis between the Lions and the Foxes.
The Foxes are the elites abundantly endowed with residues of the first class (Residues of
combinations) which includes the propensities in social groups to adopt flexibly to
environmental or situational exigencies.
They are capable of innovation and experiment, prefer materialistic to idealistic goals, but lack
fidelity to principles and use strategies that vary from emotional appeal to unadulterated fraud.
The Lions are conservative elites in whom the second class of residues (Persistence of
aggregates) predominates. They have faith and ideology; they display group loyalty and class
solidarity; they gain and retain power by the use of force.
The concept of elites has been given a great deal of attention by Vilfredo Pareto. Paretos views
and conclusions about the elites are interesting and incisive. According to him, every society has
elite groups of different kinds. These elites, being the best or excellent members of their classes
are always in a minority. But they are nonetheless vital and it is they who determine the
development or progress of every society.
Pareto concerns himself with a simple distinction between those having power called the elite
and those having none called the non-elite. He sees the history of every human society as the
history of the relations between its elite who rules and its non-elites who are just ruled.
Circulation of Elite is between elite and non-elite, and between governing elite and nongoverning elite.

According to Pareto, there can be also a

circulation of elites in the sense of being a process by which individuals circulate between the
elite and the non-elite. This process of replacement takes place in two ways. It is either by a
gradual process of infiltration or by a violent revolution.
Pareto explains all this in terms of changes in the psychological characteristics of the members of
the elite on the one hand, and those of the lower strata, on the other. Thus when the elite no
longer possesses the residues necessary for keeping it in power and at the same time at the lower

strata of society, the necessary residues are sufficiently manifest then the declining elite recruits
new elements from the lower strata of society and thereby restores its vitality. Or it may so
happen that an elite decaying in the necessary residues is violently overthrown by the lower
classes strong in the requisite residues necessary for keeping them in power.
According to Pareto the elites not only change within or amongst their own classes, they also do
so across the classes. A few individuals may join the ranks of elites from the non-elite groups.
And a few elites may become non-elite members of society.
The numbers of the various elite groups may decline both in arithmetical terms as well as in their
quality or significance on account of the various factors. When this happens the elites cease to be
elites and tend to come down to the non-elite group. On the other hand, when some members of
the non-elite groups achieve excellence or acquire special power they tend to join the particular
elite groups.
Pareto says that this kind of increase in the number or strength of elites as well as the decrease or
decline in their ranks is common features of every society. Pareto takes a very large canvas of
history particularly Roman history and the Italian history of his times to show how the
circulations of elites take place.
He observes that in a perfectly free society there would be a constant and free circulation of
elites. But such a perfect society is almost an ideal society. Most societies have imperfections of
various types and therefore the circulation of elites is seldom ideally free or unimpeded.
Pareto adds that in case of great social changes as signified by wars or revolutions there takes
place a large scale replacement of the old elites by the new ones. He argues that, whether
particular elites stay in power or not, whether they are partially or fully replaced or not, the fact
remains that they remain in vital positions and characterised the development and progress of a
given society.
Pareto argues that men have a predominance of either Class-I residues where they are the foxes
or of Class-II residues where they are the lions. The style of governing will depend on whether
the ruling elite is composed of the foxes or the lions. The foxes are bold and adventurous, they
do not care to be cautious and live by cunning and cleverness.
In the economic field, the foxes are the speculators; they do not dread risks for the sake of
maximum profits. They indulge in promotion schemes. The lions on the other hand, are solid,
conservative, tradition loving, loyal to family, church and nation.
They always prefer to rely on force rather than on cleverness. In their economic field they are
rentiers. They are cautious, thrifty, content with small returns on safe investments and unwilling

to gamble. The elite are composed of either of these types of individuals depending on the sort of
residues that happen to prevail.
When Class I residues are dominant, the foxes will rule and the predominance of Class II
residues will establish the rule by the lions. Indeed, history reveals a constant alteration between
an elite having the dominant Class I residues and an elite having the preponderance of Class II
residues.
The theory of elite is that in every society there are people who possess in a marked degree the
qualities of intelligence, character, skill, capacity, of whatever kind; that there are two kinds of
elite: that the two groups are disjunctive at any given time, and that there is an up and down
circulation of the elite. But aristocracies with the governing elite at the top, do not last. The
Athenian aristocracy of the elite passed away without leaving descendants. In Germany the
aristocracy of the present day is very largely made up of descendants of vassals of the Lords of
Old.
Pareto says, History is the grave-yard of Aristocracy.
The famous statement reveals the fact that history is accentuated with the elite class since
generation, who emerge, dominate, fall into decadency and is replaced by non-decadent elites in
society. Pareto has given a number of reasons for mortality of aristocracy which are un-graved in
history for generation and generation.
1. Aristocrats (mainly King and Emperor) were engaged in historical wars which lead to
degeneration of aristocracy.
2. The inheritors of aristocracy are not necessarily possessed with some inherent traits of that of
their forefathers. But they rule or govern on the basis of heredity even though they may not have
the necessary skill, knowledge about governance and sufficient ability to govern the kingdom, or
empire; they fall into decadence after few hours of glory.
Thus aristocracies emerge, dominate, fall into decadence and fall into power, replaced by nondecadent elites.
On the whole the up and down movement of elite takes place in two ways. Firstly, some nonelite, by their merit, may rise to the level of elite. Secondly, by revolution the entire governing
class may be reduced to the status of the governed. Pareto says, circulation of elite is necessary
for healthy social change.
The general mechanism of society according to Pareto, can be understood by interest, residues,
derivations and social heterogeneity. These four major variables are in a state of mutual

dependence on which the movement of society depends. These are the four clear components in
all the activities which had to assume some sort of equilibrium in any social system.
By the circulations of elites, Pareto wrote, the governing elite is in a state of continuous and
slow transformation. It flows like a river, and what it is today is different from what it was
yesterday. Every so often, there are sudden and violent disturbances. The river floods and breaks
its banks. Then afterwards, the new governing elite resume again and slow process of selftransformation. The river returns to its bed and once more flows freely on.
Criticisms:
Pareto fails to provide a method of measuring and distinguishing between the supposedly
superior qualities of the elite. He simply assumes that the qualities of the elite are superior to
those of the mass. His criterion for distinguishing between lion and foxes is merely his own
interpretation of the style of the elite rule. Moreover, Pareto fails to provide a way of measuring
the process of elite decadence. He suggests that, if elite is closed to recruitment from below, it is
likely to rapidly lose its vigour and vitality and have a short life.
Talcott Parsons criticized Pareto that he failed to define the conditions governing changes in the
proportions of residues. He has not said anything about biological and genetic factors, bearing
upon these changes.
Mitchell also criticized that Paretean scheme has a meta-physical strength along with an
empirical weakness.
Paretos concept of residues and their part in the social change is not clearly defined.
But in-spite of these criticisms his circulation of elites is a very important contribution to study
of sociology.
light at their disposal, a single weapon with which to fight: science.
Pareto today

The blocks put down by Pareto on the building site of logic and non-logic still remain rough
hewn. Contemporary sociologists have made no real breakthrough in research on useful beliefs,
practical efficacy, the logical consequences of non-logic reasoning, the weighing of reason in the
production of historical effects. With his concerned historical typology of contexts and their
indivisible effects, with his use of this typology in the study of actions which are reasoned but
not entirely reducible to the logical calculation, Pareto has drafted a method which makes it easy
to observe and describe the differential departures between models or typologies and modeled or

typologized social actions. This method is also a contribution to establishing fruitful relationships
between sociology and history, to consolidating sociology as a historical discipline.
Pareto has challenged sociologists to describe the requisites of actions, interactions and pseudological representations, to elucidate the unwanted relationships of actions and conducts and
perverse effects, to establish the differences between utility for a collective unit, utility of a
collective unit and ophelimity. That challenge has not yet been taken up. The distinction between
the truth of an utterance and its social utility, the methodical description of the heterogeneity of
ends, costs of social events and the analysis of subjective utilities in social actions, are fields of
research which still lie fallow. Nowadays, the theories of action and the cognitive theories of
knowledge struggle against the same problems as Pareto posed so well, but they have not been at
all satisfactorily resolved. Neither the positivist, culturalist or naturalist theories which seek
causes of action elsewhere than in reason, nor functionalism, rational choices, the theory of
exchange which place them in reason, none of these theories has been able to take advantage of
the paretian breakthroughs.
In the research into arguments and scientific rhetoric, into innate or natural logic, where arguing
is more a matter of showing than demonstrating, the presence of Paretos work is more evident.
Trends in recent sociology aim at transferring the legacy from Pareto into interactionist sociology
by means of research into natural and non-demonstrative logic. Revealing the rationalist
influences of John Stuart Mill on the theoretical and non-theoretical paretian constructions gives
a new dimension to the scope of the emotivist doctrines in the Trait de sociologie gnral and
brings its author back into the rationalist tradition.
If it is believed that the social sciences are not saving sciences capable of bringing happiness to
men who have so far sought it in vain; if one is convinced that no social science will ever
manage to define the general interest and the public good, to resolve the problems of living well
and the good society; if, however, one is convinced that the social sciences are means capable of
making social relations intelligible, that they show how man believes, acts, produces and answers
questions on the organization and conditions of life in society, on existential destiny, then reading
the works of Pareto can help researchers to free themselves of illusions about truth and
objectivity as absolute values. Such reading can give a glimpse of how and why individuals
produce certain knowledge, how such knowledge becomes the basis of action, how it is used to
vitalize hopes and projects. Sociology also shows the limits and sparsity of the contents of our
knowledge. Produced in particular contexts, this knowledge is neither eternal nor absolute.
Essential wisdom which science tends to make intelligible. However, the intelligibility is always
contextual and historically situated. Sociology assists, like a constant critique of all forms of
production of knowledge, in understanding how the study of society is a powerful means of
mobilizing energies in order to arouse consent, to justify, explain and rationalize social action, to
obtain consensus, but also in order not to confuse rationality of action and decision with
epistemic rationality.