In The Power Elite, C. Wright Mills defines elites as those who make decisions of significant impact and occupy important positions in the decision-making process. They are capable of advising those in direct control of power and are considered leaders of the dominant hierarchies. C. Wright Mills, a modern sociologist known for his study of elite groups, emphasizes two key concepts in his definition: influence and the dominant hierarchies. He also specifically stresses that “history is not … shaped by a series of small decisions, none of which are thought out”. When it comes to the process of decision-making, Mills argues that “it is an attempt to delimit the social areas within which that process, whatever its character, goes on. It is a conception of who is involved in the process”.
Of course, C. Wright Mills' definition is not necessarily entirely accurate. I personally prefer a more concise one: in real-world society, elites are the dominant class with both influence and willpower. Compared to Mills’ definition, I added the “willpower” element. While this may carry ontological undertones, it actually holds greater objective and practical significance in real-world society.
Social stratification is an objective reality, and such hierarchical differences are often the result of self-selection and self-actualization. Human beings are never fixed at a single level; each individual is inherently different. This reflects the dynamic nature of objective processes. To assess outcomes without considering the processes that produce them is fundamentally misguided, and the same goes for the assertions about what “should be” or “should not be”. The value and status of elites are determined by the extent to which they lead and contribute to society. In the pursuit of life paths, individual autonomy serves as the decisive factor. Some choose to pursue material wealth, while others commit themselves to ideals. It is precisely these divergent choices that ultimately shape differing objective outcomes.
In Chinese society, the cultivation and development of elites is, in fact, of even greater importance, yet it has long been neglected and in some cases, it is even disparaged for various reasons. The consequences of this neglect are significant. Just as any military force must consist of a small number of generals alongside a majority of soldiers in order to function, a society also requires a competent elite to provide leadership and direction. More critically, once a society becomes detached from its elite class, the standards by which individuals measure success tend to be reduced merely to the accumulation of possessions and wealth. In such a context, everything becomes transactional, and all things are viewed as purchasable with money. It is evident that under such conditions, society becomes especially prone to corruption.
In reality, elites are indispensable. Chinese society differs significantly from American society in its structural form. China follows a pyramidal social structure， an ultra-stable system in which the base comprises the largest portion of the population, while only a small minority occupies the apex. In such a highly inertial society, there is a greater reliance on elite leadership. In contrast, American society resembles more of a rectangular structure characterized by relative balance, where the differences between elites and ordinary citizens are less pronounced, and social mobility between groups is more feasible. As a result, the Chinese social structure is inherently more dependent on the elite class. Without the guidance of elites, various social problems are likely to emerge.
Many have assumed that accumulating a great amount of wealth can make one highly influential. Yet in Chinese society, the ultra-wealthy have never traditionally been regarded as part of the true elite. Anything that can be purchased with money is, by definition, not essential to elite status. Indeed. an obsession with wealth itself is often a marker of non-elite identity. In reality, the wealthy occupy a position beneath the elite; they are, in essence, ordinary individuals with more financial resources. As things stand, their success is often shaped or enabled by the leadership and vision of the elite class. However, the wealthy frequently fall into a deceptive illusion: that the accumulation of capital grants them unlimited power or elevates them to the role of social leaders, akin to, or even capable of replacing, the elite. Contemporary Chinese society still remembers figures such as the billionaire Hui Ka Yan, who is the chair of the real estate developer China Evergrande Group, and Jack Ma, the cofounder of the Alibaba Group. Both of them serve as illustrative examples of this dynamic.
Some also believe that elites are simply those who possess greater power or public recognition, that fame alone signifies significance. This, too, is far from the truth. In the face of fundamental social order and institutional norms, personal fame holds little real value. The current tendency in Chinese society to equate visibility with importance is largely a product of a transitional period marked by a degree of social disorder. It is within this context that "attention-seeking" has become something of a social epidemic. In truth, elites are not synonymous with the privileged; the latter might enjoy a certain position, but they might not be exactly that powerful.
It is worth noting that the idea of “bloodline”, i.e., the elites themselves are descendants of former generations of older elites, is long outdated. Being a notion that is both disheartening and alienating, it often evokes a sense of stagnation due to its closed-loop logic. In China, given the country’s long history of feudal society, this idea has been particularly easy to accept blindly. However, it reduces and distorts the refined definition of “elite” by replacing it with a simplistic and crude boundary. Only those who habitually look upward from a lower position tend to interpret the world through the lens of bloodline. In reality, many children of high-ranking officials have been investigated and penalized in China’s ongoing anti-corruption campaigns, clear evidence that bloodline offers no immunity. In today’s society, bloodline may still influence one’s upbringing and values within the family and educational context, but the modern elite is, by nature, an open and evolving system. It has the capacity to absorb individuals with genuine resilience, willpower, and ability, thus maintaining its vitality and adaptability over time.
A common question is whether intellectuals, particularly those deemed “high-level” intellectuals, constitute part of the elite class. The answer is no. Professional credentials and disciplinary expertise represent specialization within a limited domain; they bear little inherent connection to broader cultural cultivation or the kind of intellectual will and ethical orientation that defines elite status. The occurrence of misconduct and ethically questionable behavior among academicians and professors is far from rare, a clear sign of the gap between technical knowledge and true elite character. Only those who demonstrate substantive contributions in the realm of public knowledge and who exhibit a well-developed cultural perspective along with a commitment to public values can meaningfully be regarded as part of the elite. Without such qualities, the notion of leadership or societal guidance becomes untenable. Public figures who engage primarily in criticism for its own sake should not be mistaken for elites. Their rhetorical posture often functions more to assert personal visibility than to advance the public good. Such individuals tend to operate within narrowly defined fields and lack the constructive, forward-looking engagement that is characteristic of genuine elite participation in public life.
Elites possess a remarkable resilience in matters of ideology, an essential expression of their willpower. What distinguishes them is readily apparent: they remain composed in the face of popular praise, indifferent to what the masses desire, and firmly committed to their principles. It is precisely this adherence to inner boundaries and convictions that grants them a sense of moral nobility and integrity. After the fall of the Qing dynasty, former aristocrats could often be seen in Beijing having fallen into poverty and integrated into the lower strata of society. Yet despite their difficult circumstances, many of them never abandoned their inner dignity. Wherever they went, they thought of themselves as “ye”, a term derived from the Manchu word ejen, meaning "master" or "noble one". The colloquial expressions of old Beijing, where people frequently addressed one another as "ye", reflect this cultural heritage. A notable example is Prince Yan Sen of Keqin, one of the hereditary princely peerages of the Qing Dynasty. He would rather pull a rickshaw on the streets of Beijing than serve as a puppet nobility in the Japanese-controlled state of Manchukuo. His refusal was a conscious act of dignity and moral clarity. This kind of resilience, rooted in inner willpower and expressed through dignity and self-respect, is precisely what sets the elite apart. Their true nobility lies not in privilege but in this fortitude.
It must be acknowledged that anti-elite sentiment has, in fact, become mainstream in contemporary society. However, such sentiment is rooted in a tradition largely shaped by Christian cultural values and is particularly prominent in the United States. Generally speaking, when egalitarian discourse becomes dominant, it often relies on fabricated or exaggerated narratives to portray elites as morally inferior or ethically suspect. In reality, many of these stories are either highly embellished accounts or relate not to genuine elites, but to pseudo-elites. Elites have always been an integral part of the superstructure of society. While they undoubtedly belong to the upper echelons, this does not imply that they are omnipotent or morally flawless.
If we were to conceptualize the defining characteristics of the "new-generation elite" in contemporary society, several traits may be considered emblematic. They tend to eschew excessive reliance on mobile technology, preferring instead the intellectual engagement of reading. They are marked by strong logical reasoning, strategic thinking, and a broad, long-term perspective. While they are not motivated by wealth or power, they possess a clear and nuanced understanding of power relations. Culturally, they exhibit refined taste, high levels of aesthetic judgment, and intellectual discernment. They place great emphasis on proper upbringing and personal discipline, while often maintaining a measured detachment in social relationships. Deeply attuned to political affairs and the broader sociopolitical climate, they form their own independent analyses and convictions. While many may be proficient in English, they do not necessarily hold advanced academic degrees. What truly defines them is not credentialism but experiential cultivation. As in the case of the Grand Tour, a traditional component of aristocratic education in Britain from the 17th to 19th centuries, akin to modern-day field research or cultural immersion, personal development through real-world experience is regarded as their most valuable form of capital. They demonstrate a resilient commitment to principle and integrity, even if their outward behavior may occasionally appear unrestrained or nonconformist. Most importantly, they are idealists who committed not merely to personal advancement, but to broader visions of cultural and societal transformation.
Final analysis conclusion:
For China, in an era when cities are rapidly undergoing ruralization, over 600 million people have migrated in a short span of time from dispersed rural communities into densely populated urban centers. This massive shift has created a state of social flux, amounting to a reset and reboot of the national social structure. At this developmental stage, many aspects of society are marked by ambiguity, with blurred boundaries and competing narratives. In such a state of disorder, if the dominant class is itself unclear or disoriented, it poses a significant threat to social order. History has shown that moments like these often coincide with periods of cultural revival, signaling the dawn of a new generation of elites. It is precisely in such moments of uncertainty that the emergence of a renewed cultural and intellectual leadership tends to begin.
