Pareto went farther to elucidate three separate components that underlie the forces of circulation: residues, derivations, and the role of social heterogeneity.
According to Pareto, “Residues” are inborn traits or instincts that make people more likely to act in particular ways or adopt particular leadership philosophies. They are the constant human components that shape behaviour in many settings. However, “Derivations” refers to the theoretical or ideological defences that elites employ to justify their control. These can be political, religious, moral, or economic agendas or ideologies that support the supremacy of a specific elite group (Pareto, 1916).
Pareto further underlined that because social heterogeneity makes such action possible, it also plays a part in the mobility of elites. Diverse societies produce intricate relationships and a multitude of conflicting interests, which provides the necessary atmosphere for the mobility of leaders. Because of this diversity, no single elite can rule forever because new groups or leaders can always arise from other societal sectors or strata. Which makes matters far more complicated when such circulation takes place as a result of people who have no legitimate authority over the nation and society in question forcing demographic changes on that nation and its citizens.
The dissemination of elitest has consequences for change, stability, and progress criticism. Pareto’s theoretical explanation provides us with a comprehensive comprehension of the dynamics of society change and stability. According to Pareto, stability is the existence of a dependable pattern of elite circulation rather than stagnation or the lack of change. This pattern guarantees that the structural elements of society do not change even when the actors (elitists) do. Because elitists are a necessary evil, their objectives must thus coincide with the long-term goals of the nation and society. If not, anarchy will engulf many, if not all, facets of existence until the cycle is repeatedly repeated and either the elitists or society are “replaced.”
After then, the system will once more establish balance and settle into a ruling class and society.
It’s interesting to note that he criticised linear advancement in his critique of progress. Pareto contends that the presence of elites in society does not imply that things have become better. Conversely, it’s just swapping out one ruling group for another. More upbeat conceptions of social development and progress, which contend that progress is intrinsic rather than progressive, are challenged by this point of view.