The Established and the Outsiders is considered a key work of figurational sociology and a seminal study for explaining social inequality and exclusion at the group level. Building on Elias’ theory of civilization, Elias and Scotson analyze how, in a small English community, differences in power and mechanisms of denigration develop and become entrenched between two formally equal population groups. The study offers a subtle model for understanding stigmatization, social control, and group processes—and remains highly relevant for today’s debates on integration, marginalization, and social cohesion.
Scholarly and Historical Context
The study was conducted in the early 1960s in the English town of “Winston Parva” (a pseudonym for a typical middle-class settlement). Its goal was to empirically investigate how social inequality emerges in the form of group status even when objective economic differences are minor. Norbert Elias, known for The Civilizing Process, developed the research design together with sociologist John L. Scotson to examine the everyday relations between two groups—the Established and the Outsiders.
Core Question
Why and how do established groups succeed in maintaining their dominant position—even when there are only minor objective differences in wealth, education, or income? Elias and Scotson show that social superiority is not based purely on material resources but on symbolic orders, control over norms, and narrative authority.
Key Points
The Established and the Outsiders by Elias & Scotson
Main Authors: Norbert Elias (1897–1990) & John L. Scotson (1920–1980)
First Published: 1965
Country: United Kingdom
Core Idea / Thesis: Social inequality and exclusion can emerge between groups with minimal material differences through symbolic denigration, moral judgments, and control over local norms. The “Established” maintain power through collective identity and stigmatization of “Outsiders.”
Key Concepts:
- Figuration: Dynamic networks of interdependent people shaping norms and power relations.
- Symbolic Capital: Status based on moral authority, reputation, and social networks.
- Pars-pro-Toto Principle: Attributing the “best” traits to one’s own group and the “worst” traits to the outsider group.
- Structural Stigmatization: Self-reinforcing processes of exclusion and moral denigration.
Key Relevance: Sociology of stigma, migration studies, social control, policing, community studies.
Foundation for: Figurational sociology, research on group dynamics, theories of social exclusion and inequality.
How does Outsider denigration emerge?
The Established group maintains social dominance not through material resources but through symbolic capital: long-term settlement, moral self-discipline, dense networks, and conformity to local norms. Outsiders are devalued through rumors, moral discrediting, and stereotypical labeling, branding them as “unreliable,” “incapable of proper upbringing,” or “immoral.”
This process is collective: Deviant behavior is generalized, with individuals standing in for the entire group. The result is structural stigmatization that becomes self-reinforcing, including through institutional exclusions.
Comparable dynamics can be seen in contemporary debates about integration, social milieus, or youth delinquency. Elias’ analysis offers a framework for understanding the symbolic production of inequality that extends far beyond the local case he studied.
Although The Established and the Outsiders does not explicitly address the persecution of Jews under National Socialism, parallels can be drawn to early mechanisms of exclusion: moral denigration, blanket stereotyping, and social isolation. Elias himself, as a Jewish scholar who experienced persecution, offers here an analytical tool for interpreting collective processes of violence.
Established and Outsiders: Two Groups, Unequal Power
The Established are a long-settled group defined by a strong sense of “we,” internal solidarity, and moral coherence. They share a common history, hold higher reputation, and have the authority to define what is “normal” or “respectable” behavior. Outsiders, by contrast, are more recently arrived, less well-networked, and more diverse in their lifestyles. They are excluded from central positions through rumors, evaluations, and social pressure. Despite similar material conditions, a stable power imbalance develops.
Established–Outsider Configuration
The distinction between Established and Outsiders is central to Elias and Scotson’s analysis. They demonstrate that social inequality emerges even where there are hardly any objective material differences. What matters is not merely possession of economic resources, but control over interpretive power, moral standards, and social networks. Elias and Scotson write:
As the investigation in Winston Parva taught, an established group tends to ascribe to the outsider group as a whole the ‚worst‘ characteristics of the ‚worst‘ section of its own anomic minority. Conversely, the self-image of the established group is shaped more by the minority of its ‚best‘ members, its most exemplary or ’normative‘ section. This opposite-direction pars-pro-toto distortion enables the established to justify their beliefs to themselves and others: they always have evidence ready that their own group is ‚good‘ and the other is ‚bad‘. (Elias & Scotson, 1993, p. 13)
This mechanism can also be observed in current social debates—for example, in discussions about migration and cultural belonging.
From “Goethe” to “Welfare Scrounger” – Pars-pro-Toto Thinking in Current Debates
A central finding of The Established and the Outsiders is the so-called pars-pro-toto principle: Established groups tend to define themselves by their “best” members while perceiving Outsiders through their “worst” members—regardless of how representative these individuals actually are.
This distortion can also be seen in contemporary debates. In the context of migration and integration, reference is often made to the “German cultural canon”—evoking poets and thinkers like Goethe or Schiller, technological excellence, or economic success.
At the same time, migrants—especially those marked as Muslim—are frequently associated with negative exceptions such as extremist threats, “clan crime,” or welfare fraud. This creates a symbolic imbalance that not only justifies existing power and status differences but reproduces them.
What Elias and Scotson analyzed at the neighborhood level can thus be seen on a much larger scale in modern migration societies—as a mechanism of denigration under the guise of cultural difference.
Established groups possess high social prestige, long-standing local roots, and strong internal norms. They shape the dominant discourses about order, decency, and belonging—thus symbolically distinguishing themselves from others. Outsiders are often newcomers, more socially fragmented, and less influential. They are stigmatized through rumors, blanket judgments, and symbolic devaluations.
The following table compares key features of the Established–Outsider configuration. It shows that this is not a singular case study but a structurally recurring pattern of social inequality that remains relevant in contemporary societies.
| Feature | Established | Outsiders |
|---|---|---|
| Central dimension of group comparison | Established see themselves as morally superior norm-setters. | Outsiders are viewed as morally inferior and deviant. |
| Historical duration of community residence | Emphasize their long-standing membership and local roots. | As newcomers, they lack collective history and recognition. |
| Internal cohesion and group identity | Strong internal cohesion reinforces a shared 'we-feeling'. | Weak internal ties make them more prone to social isolation. |
| Degree of conformity to established norms | Conformity signals civilized self-control. | Norm deviation is often blanketly assumed. |
| Interpretive power over moral and social standards | They define what is considered normal, respectable, or deviant. | They are negatively labeled by the established group. |
| Nature and function of intra-group communication | Rumors cement social status and protect group boundaries. | Rumors serve to devalue and socially control them. |
| Access to societal resources | Better networks secure influence and privileged access. | They face barriers to power and influence. |
| Level of public presence and influence | Established groups shape public space and dominate discourse. | Visibility is often interpreted as confirming prejudice. |
Theoretical Foundations: Figuration, Self-Restraint, and Social Control
The study is deeply rooted in Elias’ theory of social figurations. SocietyA group of individuals connected by shared institutions, culture, and norms. consists of dynamic networks of interdependent people—so-called figurations. Within these relational webs, power balances, collective norms, and behavioral expectations develop. The Established are marked by high levels of self-restraint—a form of “civilizational capital” that grants them moral superiority and social control.
Contemporary Relevance and Social Context
The study’s findings can be applied to many current social conflicts—such as tensions between majority and minority groups, between long-settled and newly arrived populations, or between different urban milieus. The model is also relevant in policing and public order contexts, where established professional cultures, group dynamics, or devaluation of out-groups (e.g., marginalized youth) can be analyzed using Elias’ approach.
Comparable Study: The Unemployed of Mariental (1933)
The famous Austrian study by Jahoda, Lazarsfeld, and Zeisel examined the effects of long-term unemployment on a community’s social life. Like Elias and Scotson’s work, it demonstrates how disintegration, loss of norms, and social marginalization can be amplified by collective dynamics—an early example of empirical social research with a figurational perspective.
Conclusion
With The Established and the Outsiders, Elias and Scotson produced a theoretically rich and empirically grounded study that explains social inequality beyond economic categories. Its value lies in linking group analysis, civilization theory, and research on stigmatization—offering an analytical toolkit that remains highly relevant for understanding processes of structural exclusion in contemporary societies.
References
- Elias, N., & Scotson, J. L. (1994). The Established and the Outsiders. London: Sage.
- Elias, N. (2000). The Civilizing Process. Oxford: Blackwell.
- Jahoda, M., Lazarsfeld, P. F., & Zeisel, H. (1971). Marienthal: The Sociography of an Unemployed Community. Chicago: Aldine-Atherton.
