The Establishment

In sociology and in political science, the term The Establishment describes the dominant social group, the elite who control a polity, an organization, or an institution. In the praxis of power, The Establishment usually is a self-selecting, closed elite entrenched within specific institutions — hence, a relatively small social class can exercise all socio-political control.^[1]

In 1955, the journalist Henry Fairlie popularized the contemporary usage of the term The Establishment to denote the network of socially prominent and politically important people:

By the 'Establishment' I do not mean only the centres of official power — though they are certainly part of it — but rather the whole matrix of official and social relations within which power is exercised. The exercise of power in Britain (more specifically, in England) cannot be understood unless it is recognised that it is exercised socially.^[2]

Consequently, the term the Establishment became common usage in the press of London;^[3] The Oxford English Dictionary cites Fairlie's column originating the British usages of the term the Establishment, as in the established church denoting the official Church of England.^[4] Moreover, in sociologic jargon, an outsider is the person who is not a member of The Establishment.^[5]^[6]

^ “The Establishment”, The New Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought Third Edition (1999) Alan Bullock and Stephen Trombley, Eds., pp. 283–284.
^ Fairlie, Henry (23 September 1955). "Political Commentary". The Spectator. pp. 5–7. Retrieved 22 June 2022.
^ however, that usage already had occurred in the late 19th century, in 1882, when Ralph Waldo Emerson used the term as politics: “There are always two parties, the party of the Past and the party of the Future: the Establishment and the Movement.” See Fairlie, Henry (19 October 1968). "Evolution of a Term". The New Yorker. and Darrel Abel, Democratic Voices and Vistas (2002) p. 2.
^ Wodak, Ruth. "The “Establishment”, the “Élites”, and the “People”, Journal of Language and Politics 16.4 (2017): 551-565.
^ Elias, Norbert; Scotson, John L (1965). The Established and the Outsiders. OCLC 655412048.^{[page needed]}
^ Elias, Norbert; Martins, Herminio; Whitley, Richard (1982). Scientific Establishments and Hierarchies. Dordrecht: Reidel. p. 4. ISBN 978-90-277-1322-3. Those who are outsiders, in relation to a given establishment, as a rule, have on their part resources needed by the establishments' members. . . . Established and outsiders, in other words, have specific functions for each other. No established-outsider relationship is likely to maintain itself for long without some reciprocity of dependence. . . . Members of an establishment usually are very careful to maintain and, if possible, to increase the high dependence ratio of their outsider groups and thus the power differentials between these and themselves.

[1] “The Establishment”, The New Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought Third Edition (1999) Alan Bullock and Stephen Trombley, Eds., pp. 283–284.

[2] Fairlie, Henry (23 September 1955). "Political Commentary". The Spectator. pp. 5–7. Retrieved 22 June 2022.

[3] wever, that usage already had occurred in the late 19th century, in 1882, when Ralph Waldo Emerson used the term as politics: “There are always two parties, the party of the Past and the party of the Future: the Establishment and the Movement.” See Fairlie, Henry (19 October 1968). "Evolution of a Term". The New Yorker. and Darrel Abel, Democratic Voices and Vistas (2002) p. 2.

[4] Wodak, Ruth. "The “Establishment”, the “Élites”, and the “People”, Journal of Language and Politics 16.4 (2017): 551-565.

[5] Elias, Norbert; Scotson, John L (1965). The Established and the Outsiders. OCLC 655412048.^{[page needed]}

[6] Elias, Norbert; Martins, Herminio; Whitley, Richard (1982). Scientific Establishments and Hierarchies. Dordrecht: Reidel. p. 4. ISBN 978-90-277-1322-3. Those who are outsiders, in relation to a given establishment, as a rule, have on their part resources needed by the establishments' members. . . . Established and outsiders, in other words, have specific functions for each other. No established-outsider relationship is likely to maintain itself for long without some reciprocity of dependence. . . . Members of an establishment usually are very careful to maintain and, if possible, to increase the high dependence ratio of their outsider groups and thus the power differentials between these and themselves.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]