14 pages
Français

Sociology of Religion and Sociology of Elites. Elite and Sous-Elite in the Church of England / Sociologie religieuse et sociologie des élites. Elite et sous-élite dans l' Eglise d'Angleterre - article ; n°1 ; vol.38, pg 109-121

-

Obtenez un accès à la bibliothèque pour le consulter en ligne
En savoir plus

Description

Archives des sciences sociales des religions - Année 1974 - Volume 38 - Numéro 1 - Pages 109-121
Le champ des analyses de Weber et de Durkheim détermine encore étroitement les centres d'intérêt de la sociologie des religions. Cette fidélité aux précurseurs entraîne pour bon nombre de chercheurs l'ignorance de concepts et de démarches propres à d'autre domaines de la sociologie et le désintérêt, par exemple, pour l'étude des organisations religieuses en tant que telles. Ainsi s'explique le petit nombre d'ouvrages britanniques ou américains consacrés au pouvoir, à l'influence ou aux élites, domaines de recherche considérés comme extérieurs à la sociologie des religions. Notre analyse de la hiérarchie de l'Eglise d'Angleterre montre que la similitude de l'origine sociale ou scolaire des évêques et des archidiacres va de pair avec des différences notables au niveau des carrières ecclésiastiques. La promotion des archidiacres s'effectue à travers une hiérarchie de fonctions, alors que celle des évêques — dans sa phase pré-épiscopale — est bien moins caractérisée d'un point de vue organisationnel. On aboutit à la conclusion que si les évêques constituent une élite nationale, les archidiacres, en raison de l'estime et de l'influence dont ils jouissent en tant que managers du diocèse, et du pouvoir important, bien que local et purement administratif, qu'ils détiennent, forment ce qu'on pourrait appeler une « sous-élite ».
13 pages
Source : Persée ; Ministère de la jeunesse, de l’éducation nationale et de la recherche, Direction de l’enseignement supérieur, Sous-direction des bibliothèques et de la documentation.

Sujets

Informations

Publié par
Publié le 01 janvier 1974
Nombre de lectures 27
Langue Français
Poids de l'ouvrage 1 Mo

Alan Bryman
Sociology of Religion and Sociology of Elites. Elite and Sous-
Elite in the Church of England / Sociologie religieuse et
sociologie des élites. Elite et sous-élite dans l' Eglise
d'Angleterre
In: Archives des sciences sociales des religions. N. 38, 1974. pp. 109-121.
Résumé
Le champ des analyses de Weber et de Durkheim détermine encore étroitement les centres d'intérêt de la sociologie des
religions. Cette fidélité aux précurseurs entraîne pour bon nombre de chercheurs l'ignorance de concepts et de démarches
propres à d'autre domaines de la sociologie et le désintérêt, par exemple, pour l'étude des organisations religieuses en tant que
telles. Ainsi s'explique le petit nombre d'ouvrages britanniques ou américains consacrés au pouvoir, à l'influence ou aux élites,
domaines de recherche considérés comme extérieurs à la sociologie des religions.
Notre analyse de la hiérarchie de l'Eglise d'Angleterre montre que la similitude de l'origine sociale ou scolaire des évêques et des
archidiacres va de pair avec des différences notables au niveau des carrières ecclésiastiques. La promotion des archidiacres
s'effectue à travers une hiérarchie de fonctions, alors que celle des évêques — dans sa phase pré-épiscopale — est bien moins
caractérisée d'un point de vue organisationnel. On aboutit à la conclusion que si les évêques constituent une élite nationale, les
archidiacres, en raison de l'estime et de l'influence dont ils jouissent en tant que managers du diocèse, et du pouvoir important,
bien que local et purement administratif, qu'ils détiennent, forment ce qu'on pourrait appeler une « sous-élite ».
Citer ce document / Cite this document :
Bryman Alan. Sociology of Religion and Sociology of Elites. Elite and Sous-Elite in the Church of England / Sociologie religieuse
et sociologie des élites. Elite et sous-élite dans l' Eglise d'Angleterre. In: Archives des sciences sociales des religions. N. 38,
1974. pp. 109-121.
doi : 10.3406/assr.1974.2043
http://www.persee.fr/web/revues/home/prescript/article/assr_0335-5985_1974_num_38_1_2043Sc soc des Rel. 38 1974 109-121 Arch
Alan BRYMAN
SOCIOLOGY OF RELIGION
AND OF ELITES
Elite and Sous-Elite in the Church of England
étroitement Le champ les des centres analyses intérêt de Weber de la et sociologie de Durkheim des détermine religions encore Cette
fidélité aux précurseurs entraîne pour bon nombre de chercheurs igno
rance de concepts et de démarches propres autre domaines de la socio
logie et le désintérêt par exemple pour étude des organisations reli
gieuses en tant que telles Ainsi explique le petit nombre ouvrages
britanniques ou américains consacrés au pouvoir influence ou aux
élites domaines de recherche considérés comme extérieurs la sociologie
des religions
Notre analyse de la hiérarchie de Eglise Angleterre montre que
la similitude de origine sociale ou scolaire des évoques et des archidiacres
va de pair avec des différences notables au niveau des carrières ecclésiasti
ques La promotion des archidiacres effectue travers une hiérarchie de
fonctions alors que celle des évêques dans sa phase pré-épiscopale
est bien moins caractérisée un point de vue organisationnel On aboutit
la conclusion que si les évêques constituent une élite nationale les
archidiacres en raison de Vestirne et de influence dont ils jouissent en
tant que managers du diocèse et du pouvoir important bien que local
et purement administratif ils détiennent forment ce on pourrait
appeler une sous-élite
RONICALLY the sociology of religion has many points of resemblance to
religious sect Unlike many areas of sociology it has number of journals
and yearbooks at its disposal in which like-minded individuals write articles for
each other which they expect will meet with the approval of their brothers in the
field The sacred texts are enshrined in the writings of Weber and Durkheim for
we are still living off the conceptual capital of these two names These cha
racteristics are formative of fairly strong sense of self-identification and
consequently of clear boundaries 2)
The reliance on Weber and Durkheim or the restriction of issues to ones
in which they were interested has correspondingly led to bounded belief-system
The sociologist of religion is primarily attuned to the inter-related issues of beliefs
Roland ROBERTSON Review article Sociology vol 1967 93
Bryan WILSON Religious Sects London Weidenfeld Nicholson 1970 30
109 ARCHIVES DE SCIENCES SOCIALES DE& RELIGIONS
behaviour and commitment and their implications for society at large The
thrust of the research enterprise is accordingly geared to the investigation of
religious affiliation adherence and attitudes the three Issues such as
these are regarded as crucial in that they are indispensable to the solution of the
central question of the sociology of religion what is the role of religion in our
society Just as the sectarian is motivated by the quest for the answer to his
all-important question what he must do to be saved so the sociologist is
propelled toward the search for the solution to his central problem
Like most closed belief-systems that of the sociology of religion has been
rather impervious to outside influences It has frequently been slow to permit the
intrusion of approaches and notions from other areas of sociology For certain
purposes sociology can be characterised crudely as consisting of two types of
sociology there are sociologies of chunks of social life e.g sociologies of reli
gion science politics industry the military and perspective e.g
sociologies of organizations occupations knowledge and phenomenological
sociology The extent of theoretical and methodological interchange between the
chunk sociologies is almost bound to be minimal The objects of study differ
and so tend to require differing concepts and research strategies Sociologies of
the second type the perspective sociologies cut straight across the chunks
The sociology of organizations for example involves the application of concepts
and procedures which at least in principle are applicable to organizations in
each of the spheres covered by the chunk sociologies religious political
industrial and so on Similarly it is recognised that the sociology of knowledge
can be usefully applied to many spheres of social life such as religion 4) scien
ce and economics 6)
By and large perspective sociologies have made little headway in the
sociology of religion with the important and obvious exception of the appli
cation of the sociology of knowledge to religion by Berger and Luckmann
This enterprise has had great deal of influence upon sociologists of religion such
that many of them have been converted to this new truth It may well be that
the novelty of the introduction of new direction from outside the sociology of
religion has contributed to its popularity But in many ways the novelty is
more apparent than real for the particular brand of sociology of knowledge
proposed by Berger and Luckmann is highly congruent with the sociology of
focus upon beliefs behaviour and commitment They write
The sociology of religion is an integral and even central part of the sociology
of knowledge Its most important task is to analyze the cognitive and normative
apparatus by which socially constituted universe that is knowledge about it
is legitimated 9)
This diverts attention back to the issue of beliefs whilst commitment and behaviour
are given new treatment in terms of their location outside institutional Christia-
Susan BUDD Sociologists and Religion London Collier-Macmillan 1973 vii
BERGER and LUCKMANN Sociology of Religion and Sociology of Knowledge
in Roland ROBERTSON ed. Sociology of Religion Harmondsworth Penguin Books 1969
pp 61-73
R.G.A DOLBY The of Knowledge in Natural Science in Barry BARNES
ed. Sociology of Science Harmondsworth Penguin Books 1972 pp 309-20
WE On Economic Knowledge New York Harper and Row 1970
BERGER and LUCKMANN op cit see also BERGER The Social Reality of Religion
London Faber 1969 and LUCKMANN The Invisible Religion London Macmillan 1967
The popularity of the Berger-Luckmann approach is evident in the pride of place it is
often given in text-books e.g Michael HILL Sociology of Religion London Heinemann
1973
BERGER and LUCKMANN op cit. 69
110 SOCIOLOGY OP ELITES
nity Moreover Berger and avowed intellectual debt to Weber and
Durkheim may have been instrumental in enhancing their popularity
Berger and orientation has done much to sensitize sociologists
of religion to the problems involved in studying religion as though it were syno
nymous with church religion an approach which involves accepting the official
definition of what constitutes religion so that non-church religion is systemati
cally eliminated from examination Many sociologists of re gion have taken this
view to mean that the organizational framework of religion is irrelevant to their
purview This can be attributed to two key elements in the Berger-Luckmann
approach
They are extremely critical of what they variously refer to as parish socio
logy or religious sociology much of which is funded by religious bodies This
sort of research is basically problem-solving endeavour though it is not this
to which they object per se Religious sociology is problematic insofar as it means
that the funding agency defines both the problem and the boundaries of the
investigation which would suggest that the sociologist is not being true to his
craft It is not just that the sociologist loses any trace of objectivity for he must
inevitably identify with the body which defines his research problem) but that
he is not really bringing sociology qua discipline rather than sociology qua metho
dology to bear on religion The second way in which they divert attention away
from the organizational fabric of religion is to argue that the institutional location
of religion in specialized institutions is characteristic of Christianity but not to
such an extent elsewhere This argument is backed up with one that have
already mentioned that sociologists have concentrated upon church-oriented
religion to the exclusion of forms of religiosity outside the churches e.g priva
tized religion The combined effect of these two prongs of attack is to divert the
sociologist of attention away from the organizational aspect of religion
Berger and Luckmann have done much to alert sociologists to the problems of
studying church religion as though it were religion tout court but an over-zealous
interpretation of this point runs the risk of eliminating the organizational aspect
of reîigion as legitimate area of research in its own right Above all the socio
logist who is familiar with their perspective is likely to feel guilty if he contem
plates research into religious organizations for he is liable to feel that he will be
studying an ersatz form of religion
This guilt may be unnecessary because it may well derive from an emphasis
in Berger and writings which summon the sociologist to turn his
attention away from institutional aspects of religion But this slant does not in
fact preclude the study of these of For example Berger and
Luckmann advocate an analysis of both the institutionalized and the non-
institutionalized aspects >- of the cognitive and normative apparatus by which
socially constituted universe. is legitimated 10 Luckmann who is probably
more extreme in his admonition not to focus exclusively on church-oriented reli
gion is nonetheless prepared to recognise the plausible potential of religious
organisations as legitimate areas of study when he writes of the trend toward
functional rationality in the churches 11) an area of the sociology of
organizations which Berger has commented upon as having been neglected by
sociologists 12 Consequently the Berger-Luckmann perspective does not
necessarily exclude the study of the organizational fabric of religion though some
writers perceive it as implying its elimination from the hori
zon 13)
10 Ibid. 69
11 LUCKMANN op cit. 95
12 BERGER op cit. 210
13 e.g Harvey Cox The Feast of Fools New York Harper and Row 1969 pp 171-3
Ill DE SCIENCES SOCIALES DES RELIGIONS ARCHIVES
It does seem to be the case that sociologists have not been greatly interested
in religious organizations It would be foolhardy of course to attribute this to
the influence of Berger and Luckmann alone for the neglect of religious organiza
tions pré-dates their writings by many years Nor is it the case that all religious
organizations have been disregarded since great deal of work has been undertaken
in the context of the church-sect typology However as Demerath has pointed
out our reliance on the typology has led to inordinate work on
sects but very little on churches themselves 14 This conclusion is congruent
with that of Hadden and Heenan who in the context of reappraisal of the
sociology of religion pointed out that the religious organizations as institutions
or complex bureaucracies have for the most part been neglected by sociolo
gists 15 It is interesting that the year 1959 witnessed the publication of two
seminal and oft-quoted works Bryan paper on sects and their develop
ment 16 and Paul organizational analysis of the American Baptist
Convention 17 but in spite of the esteem in which both are held the amount
of research on sects which has been stimulated by Wilson grossly exceeds the
comparative influence of Harrison
It has been remarked that the sect is to the sociologist of religion what the
tribe is to the social anthropologist But why should the over-worked sect-
church typology have led to much more work at the sect end of the continuum
Demerath suggests that sects are exotic and erotic and that this makes
them particularly attractive subjects for study 18 There is almost certainly
some truth in this assertion but there are probably at least two other significant
factors at work Sects fit in very neatly with the preoccupation of many sociolo
gists with religious beliefs behaviour and commitment This is evident in
contention that
The importance of sects to sociologists is that they provide by far the most
numerous examples of self-conscious attempts by men to construct their own
societies not merely as political entities with constitutions but as groups with
firm set of values and mores of which they are conscious 19)
On the other hand the study of churches as organizations would necessitate the
introduction of concepts and techniques from outside the sociology of religion and
since as have argued they would not easily fit into the prevailing perspective
revered in this area progress has been slow 20)
ELITES AND THE SOCIOLOGY RELIGION
In the preceding section have tried to suggest that sociologists have tended
to ignore the organizational framework of religion with the important exception
of sects) such that large religious bodies have not been regarded as legitimate
14 N.J DEMEBATH III In Ear Reply to Goode Journal for the Scientific
Study of Religion vol 1967 83
15 Jeffrey HADDEN and Edward HEENAN Empirical Studies in the Sociology of
Religion an Assessment of the Past ten Years Sociological Analysis vol 31 1970 159
16 Bryan WILSON An Analysis of Sect Development American Sociological Review
vol 24 1959 3-15
17 P.M HAKBISON Authority and Power in the Free Church Tradition Princeton Princeton
U.P. 1959
18 DEMEBATH op cit. 83
19 WILSON Religious Sects op cit. 22
20 Exceptions are Kenneth THOMPSON Bureaucracy and Church Reform London
Oxford U.P. 1970 and SCHNEIDEB and D.T HALL Organizational Climates and Careers
London Seminar Press 1973
112 SOCIOLOGY OF ELITES
subjects for examination One important consequence of this is that there has
been very little study in Great Britain of structures of power and influence in
religious organizations and in particular of elites The study of power
and elites within the context of religious organizations would do much to align
the sociology of religion with other areas of sociology such as the sociology of
science industrial sociology political sociology urban sociology which generally
regard these phenomena as legitimate subjects for research However even in
these areas of sociology the extent of recent research on power and influence has
not been great As Gouldner has commented
In the however interest in oligarchy waned among sociologists
there is now little pessimism and in fact little concern shown about it either as
political or theoretical problem Nor for that matter has anyone indicated
belief that the facts have changed and that organizations are now growing demo
cratic What has happened rather is that the fact of oligarchy has simply ceased to
be value-resonating problem for most sociologists There has been an intellectual
accommodation to the existence of oligarchy which largely takes the form of
neglect 21)
He adds in Michelsian fashion that practically all organizations are oligar-
chical 22 Churches are almost certainly not exceptions to rule
yet there has been very little research into elites in the context of religious organi
zations
There has been some research in England into the social backgrounds of
Anglican bishops and the results of these studies are well known 23 they are
drawn largely from the middle and upper classes though they are increasingly
rarely drawn the upper class they have usually attended public school
often one of the better ones and they have usually attended Oxford or
Cambridge In addition during the period 1860-1960 an increasing proportion of
bishops were sons of clergy 24) fact which has led Worsley to comment
Like the Army as the Church has become less attractive to the upper classes it
increasingly finds its new recruits from within specifically churchly fami
lies 25)
There has been tendency to look at the recruitment of bishops almost
exclusively in terms of their social origins and education rather than placing
such factors in the context of career paths further tendency has been that of
identifying bishops as the sole group worthy of elite status In the rest of this
paper shall seek to identify some of the differing social and career experiences
of those men who were diocesan bishops and archdeacons in 1968 word of
clarification is necessary here there is no attempt to argue that archdeacons are
equal in eccleciastical stature to bishops History and common sense would deny
the credibility of such an assumption However it is frequently pointed out
that elite and non-elite cannot be analytically distinguished with great facility 26)
21 Alvin GouLDNEK The Coming Crisis of Western Sociology London Heinemann 1971
299
22 Ibid
23 By far the best study is D.H.J MOBGAN The Social and Educational Backgrounds
of Anglican Bishops Continuities and Changes British Journal of Sociology vol 20 1969
pp 295-310 Morgan also refers to number of studies which have dealt with the social back
grounds of bishops See also D.L MUNBY God and the Rich Society London Oxford U.P. 1961
pp 162-3
24 MORGAN op dt
25 WOBSLEY The Distribution of Power in Industrial Society in John URRY and
John WAKEFOBD eds. Power in Britain London Heinemann 1973 253
26 Anthony GiDDENS Elites in the British Class Structure Sociological Review vol 20
1972 pp 345-72
113 ARCHIVES DE SCIENCES SOCIALES DES RELIGIONS
This introduces the possibility of grades of elite status whether the criterion
of what constitutes an elite be in terms of standard of excellence or in terms of
power or influence In terms of the contention that there are grades of elite status
it is argued that archdeacons may be regarded as sous-elite since they have
considerable influence and that consequently the types of men who become
bishops rather than and the routes by which they attain these posi
tions are legitimate areas of concern for the study of elites
good deal is known about the bishop and his duties and powers but very
little about the ancient office of archdeacon The following quotation indicates the
origins of the office and its expanding influence
The office of archdeacon ... appeared the fourth century in origin the
functions were to distribute the offerings of the Church for the
relief of the poor for the maintenance of the clergy and for church repairs From
this simple beginning and from the close association of the archdeacon with the
bishop the office has accumulated considerable powers and duties 27)
Every diocese except for Sodor and Man has at least two archdeaconries the
areas of over which archdeacons have jurisdiction Whereas the bishop
is prominent figure at both national and local levels the influence
is largely local in nature
To the many boards and committees of which he is member he brings
unique contribution essential to the proper administration of diocese Coming
and going as he does often informally he becomes as it were collector of lay
opinion within his archdeaconry and can thus act as direct link between his
bishop and those members of the outer circle of Anglicans and beyond who fight
shy of the incumbent and from whom the diocesan is isolated 28)
The influence seems to largely derive from his important administra
tive and managerial duties Consequently he is very much the business man or
manager of diocesan area 29 characature may not be far from the
ways in which archdeacons themselves define their role An archdeacon in inter
view with colleague of mine described himself as the assistant managing
director of the diocese with the bishop presumably the managing director
The potential for the exercise of considerable influence in the diocese
is apparent from the delineation of his duties in the above job descriptions
Further in their research in large Midlands diocese Bryman and Hinings found
that the archdeacons were perceived by clergy and laity alike as the most in
fluential office-holders in the diocese except for the bishop 30 Their perceived
influence was good deal greater than that of the suffragan position
which has been described by Paul as little more than an episcopal curate 31)
There does then seem to be some justification for treating archdeacons as
sous-elite in terms of their considerable influence and important duties in
diocese The research which is summarised here is based upon all 43 diocesan
bishops and all 104 archdeacons in England in 1968 The data were gleaned from
Who Who Crockforïs and Burkens Peerage Wherever
possible the reliability of the data was cross-checked One problem with the two
samples is that eleven of the 43 bishops had been archdeacons i.e although one
27 Guy MAYFIELD The Church o/England London Oxford U.P. 1963 40
28 op cit. 41
29 Leslie PAUL Church By Daylight Lnodon Geoffrey Chapman 1973 137
30 Alan BRYMAN and Robin HININGS <i Participation Reform and Ecumenism the
Views of Laity and Clergy in Michael HILL ed.) Sociological Yearbook of Religion in Britain
London SCM Press 1974 17
31 PAUL op cit. 144
114 SOCIOLOGY OF ELITES
person does not appear in both samples the characteristics of the two groups
over-lap slightly In spite of this there appear to be some interesting features
which distinguish the two samples
TABLE
Educational backgrounds and percent with fathers and fathers-in-law who were clergy
Archdeacons Bishops
School
24 6.9
Other public schools ................. 58.6 48.8
Private Independent 2.3 2.4
Other..................... ........ 32.2
University
Oxford ............................. 32.7 39.5
Cambridge .......................... 28.8 51.2
7.7 4.7
Durham ........................... 12.5 2.3
Other................................ 8.6
îone 10.6 2.3
Fathers clergy ...................... 29.8 48.8
Fathers-in-law clergy ................ 9.6 20.9
No data on schooling for 17 archdeacons and bishops
Table indicates that the educational backgrounds of the two groups are
fairly similar Public schools contributed 73 of the bishops and 66 of the
archdeacons This compares with 81 of the judicial elite in 1970 32) 83 of
the British Army elite in 1959 33) 33 of Vice-Chancellors heads of colleges
and professors of all English and Welsh universities 91 of the 1963 Conservative
Cabinet 71 of directors of prominent firms and 77 of directors of the Bank
of England 34 Both bishops and archdeacons resemble elite groups in society
at large in the proportion of men who went to public school However bishops
are clearly more likely to have attended one of the nine Clarendon Schools
Eton Winchester Westminster Charterhouse St Merchant
Harrow Rugby and Shrewsbury which merited special attention by the
Clarendon Commission 1861-1864)
Similarly very large proportion of both groups attended one of the older uni
versities Only one-tenth of archdeacons do not appear to have had university
32 GoLDSTEiN-JACKSON <i The Judicial Elite New Society 14 May 1970
33 C.B OTLEY The Public Schools and the Army in UKKY and WAKEFOIID eds.)
op cit. 242
34 Public Schools Commission The contribution of the public schools ibid.
pp 230-31
115 ARCHIVES DE SCIENCES SOCIALES DES RELIGIONS
education However bishops are considerably more likely to have goneto Oxford
or Cambridge than archdeacons 91 and 62 respectively These proportions
compare with 76 of the judicial elite in 1970 35) 71 of Cabinet and other
ministers 68 of senior civil servants 50 of directors of the Bank of England
50 of the directors of the Big banks 35 of the directors of City
firms and 38 of the directors of insurance companies the last six percentages
in were terms for of 1958 attendance 36 The at bishops Oxford and the Cambridge archdeacons and at resemble public schools these elite There groups has
always been close connection between Anglican clergy and Oxbridge such that
during the nineteenth century sons of clergy and prospective ordinands were
given preference for entry to some Cambridge colleges 37 Even today there is
evidence of bias in selection procedures for the Anglican ministry toward public
school and Oxbridge applicants 38 Even so both bishops and archdeacons
constitute extremely unrepresentative groups in these respects vis-a-vis the
clerical body as whole
Bishops are more likely to have had close churchly connections than arch
deacons Virtually 50 of bishops are sons of clergy as opposed to 30 of
archdeacons Similarly just over one-fifth of the former have fathers-in-law who
were clergy as against one-tenth of archdeacons Although the extent of self-
recruitment in the clerical profession has been declining for quite few decades 39)
very large proportion of bishops are internally recruited
TABLE
Theological colleges attended
Archdeacons Bishops
Ridley Hall Cambridge .................... 7.7 14.0
Oly 16.3
Cuddesdon Oxford ........................ 15.4 14.0
Wycliffe Hall ..................... 4.8
Wplle 8.7 90
Other...................................... 44.2 18.5
oiie 2.9 2.3
Table confirms the frequently encountered finding that certain theological
colleges are particularly prone to producing bishops The same seems to some
extent to be true of archdeacons The fact that four of the five colleges are based
at Oxford and Cambridge is not coincidence As Mayfield has pointed out
Those near to Oxford or Cambridge are especially sought after since they
can provide their students with opportunities to attend faculty lectures and to
catch something of the atmosphere of the ancient universities Ordinands already
at Oxford or Cambridge naturally prefer to go to one of these colleges with the
result that other ordinands who have had experience only of civic university or
35 GOLDSTEIN-JACKSON Op cit
36 Torn LUPTON and C.S WILSON The Social Background and Connections of top
decision-makers in UKBY and WAKEFORD eds.) op cit. pp 190-91
37 Sheldon RoTHBLATT The Revolution of the Dons London Faber 1968 pp 63-5
38 A.P.M CoxoN An Elite in the Making New Society 26 November 1964 24
39 R.K KELSALL Self-Recnritement in Four Professions in GLASS ed. Social
Mobility in Britain London Routledge Kegan Paul 1954 pp 308-20
116 SOCIOLOGY OF ELITES
of no university at all may miss the unique contribution that these colleges
offer 40)
So it seems that not only are Oxford and Cambridge graduates likely to go to
Oxbridge theological colleges but also the latter are held in high esteem
TABLE
Number of curacies and incumbencies held
Archdeacons Bishops
Number of curacies
................................. 4.7 53.8 69.8 40
5.8 3+..................................
Number of incumbencies 5.8 18.6 19.2 20.9 43.3 39.5
81.7 21.0
Relates to the number of curacies and incumbencies held by an archdeacon before his
first appointment as archdeacon and to the number of curacies and incumbencies held by
bishop prior to his first appointment as bishop
Table indicates tendency for archdeacons to be more solidly entrenched in
the parochial system No archdeacon was found who had not held at least one
curacy whereas there were two bishops who had not done so Archdeacons are
also more likely than bishops to have held more than one curacy similar set of
results are obtained with regard to the number of incumbencies 41 held by
each of the two groups Bishops are more likely than archdeacons never to have
been an incumbent and less likely to have held more than two incumbencies
TABLE
Academic and intellectual achievement
Archdeacons Bishops
Academic excellence .................... 2.9 46.5
1.0 16.3
Teacher at theological college ............. 2.9 51.2
Principal/Warden/Sub-Warden of theological
f11f yf& 00 2.9
Publications of books
NTrkTïf 91.3
or ............................. 3.9 11.9
or more .......................... 31.0
Defined tenns of having gained first-class honours degree and or fellowship after
graduation
40 MAYFIE op cit. 76
41 An incumbency is an ecclesiastical benefice
117