lecture 2 Flashcards
The concept of a theory
= a systematic explanation of empirical data
The concept of power
Politics defined as power
Power versus authority
The concept of legitimacy and legitimation
Politics defined as power
Politics connected with „the production, distribution and use of
resources in the course of social existence” (Heywood, 2013,
p.10)
„politics can therefore be seen as a struggle over scarce
resources, and power can be seen as the means through which
this struggle is conducted” (ibid.)
Power versus authority
POWER = „the ability to achieve a desired outcome”
In politics, „the ability to influence the behaviour of others in a manner not
of their choosing”
AUTHORITY = „a legitimate power”, „based on an acknowledged duty to
obey”
(Heywood, 2013, pp.4–5)
At its broadest, politics concerns the production, distribution and use of
resources in the course of social existence. Politics is, in essence, power: the ability
to achieve a desired outcome, through whatever means. politics is about diversity and conflict, but
the essential ingredient is the existence of scarcity: the simple fact that, while
human needs and desires are infinite, the resources available to satisfy them are
always limited. Politics can therefore be seen as a struggle over scarce resources,
and power can be seen as the means through which this struggle is conducted
Authority
Authority can most simply be defined as ‘legitimate power’. Whereas power is the ability to influence the behaviour of others, authority is the right to do so. Authority is therefore based on an acknowledged duty to obey rather than on any form of coercion or manipulation. In this sense, authority is power cloaked in legitimacy or rightfulness. Weber (see p. 82) distinguished between three kinds of authority, based on the different grounds on which obedience can be established: traditional authority is rooted in history; charismatic authority stems from authority stems from personality; and legal– rational authority is grounded in a set of impersonal rules.
Power
Power, in its broadest sense, is the ability to achieve a desired outcome, sometimes seen as the ‘power to’ do something. This includes everything from the ability to keep oneself alive to the ability of government to promote economic growth. In politics, however, power is usually thought of as a relationship; that is, as the ability to influence the behaviour of others in a manner not of their choosing. This implies having ‘power over’ people. More narrowly, power may be associated with the ability to punish or reward, bringing it close to force or manipulation, in contrast to ‘influence
The concept of legitimacy
LEGITIMACY = „rightfulness”, „transforming power into
authority”
– For political philosophers „a moral or rational principle”, referring
to the question: „on what grounds government may demand
obedience from citizens”, focusing on the claim to legitimacy
– For political scientists (sociologists) „a willingness to comply with
a system of rule regardless of how this is achieved”, interested
more in the fact of obedience
Three kinds of authority (Weber)
- Traditional authority
- Charismatic authority
- Legal - rational authority
sought to understand the transformation of society itself,
contrasting the systems of domination found in relatively simple traditional
societies with those typically found in industrial and highly bureaucratic ones.
Traditional authority
■ „based on long-established customs and traditions”
■ traditional authority considered legitimate (just) „because it has always
existed”
■ „sanctified by history”
■ „fixed and unquestioned customs”
■ Patriarchalism, gerontocracy, hereditary systems of power and privilege
(Heywood, 2013, p.81)
Weber’s first type of political legitimacy is based on long-established customs
and traditions (see p. 82). In effect, traditional authority is regarded as legitimate
because it has ‘always existed’: it has been sanctified by history because earlier
generations have accepted it. Typically, it operates according to a body of
concrete rules: that is, fixed and unquestioned customs that do not need to be
justified because they reflect the way things have always been. The most obvious
examples of traditional authority are found amongst tribes or small groups in
the form of patriarchalism (the domination of the father within the family, or
the ‘master’ over his servants) and gerontocracy (the rule of the aged, normally
reflected in the authority of village ‘elders’). Traditional authority is closely linked
to hereditary systems of power and privilege, as reflected, for example, in the
survival of dynastic rule in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Morocco. Although it is of
marginal significance in advanced industrial societies, the survival of monarchy
(see p. 292), albeit in a constitutional form, in the UK, Belgium, the Netherlands and Spain, for example, helps to shape political culture by keeping alive values
such as deference, respect and duty
Charismatic authority
■ Based on the power of an individual’s personality, on their charisma
■ CHARISMA = charm or personal power, „the capacity to establish leadership through
psychological control over others”
■ Charismatic authority „operates entirely through the capacity of a leader to make a direct
and personal appeal to followers as a kind of hero or saint”
■ „the ability [of a leader] to inspire loyalty, emotional dependence and even devotion”
(Heywood, 2013, p.82)
Weber’s second form of legitimate domination is charismatic authority. This
form of authority is based on the power of an individual’s personality; that is, on
his or her ‘charisma’ (see p. 83). Owing nothing to a person’s status, social position
or office, charismatic authority operates entirely through the capacity of a
leader to make a direct and personal appeal to followers as a kind of hero or
saint. Although modern political leaders such as de Gaulle, Kennedy and
Thatcher undoubtedly extended their authority through their personal qualities
and capacity to inspire loyalty, this did not amount to charismatic legitimacy,
because their authority was essentially based on the formal powers of the offices
they held. Napoleon, Mussolini, Hitler (see p. 47), Ayatollah Khomeini (see p.
167), Fidel Castro and Colonel Gaddafi are more appropriate examples.
However, charismatic authority is not simply a gift or a natural propensity;
systems of personal rule are invariably underpinned by ‘cults of personality’ (see
p. 302), the undoubted purpose of which is to ‘manufacture’ charisma.
Nevertheless, when legitimacy is constructed largely, or entirely, through the
power of a leader’s personality, there are usually two consequences. The first is
that, as charismatic authority is not based on formal rules or procedures, it often
has no limits. The leader is a Messiah, who is infallible and unquestionable; the
masses become followers or disciples, who are required only to submit and obey.
Second, so closely is authority linked to a specific individual, that it is difficult for
a system of personal rule to outlive its founding figure. This certainly applied in
the case of the regimes of Napoleon, Mussolini and Hitler.
Legal - rational authority
■ Authority linked to „a clearly and legally defined set of rules”
■ In most modern states the power of government determined „by
formal, constitutional rules, which constrain or limit what an
office holder is able to do”
■ Authority attached more to an office than to a person
(Heywood, 2013, p.82
Weber’s third type of political legitimacy, legal–rational authority, links
authority to a clearly and legally defined set of rules. In Weber’s view, legal–
rational authority is the typical form of authority operating in most modern
states. The power of a president, prime minister or government official is determined
in the final analysis by formal, constitutional rules, which constrain or
limit what an office holder is able to do. The advantage of this form of authority
over both traditional and charismatic authority is that, as it is attached to an
office rather than a person, it is far less likely to be abused or to give rise to injustice.
Legal–rational authority therefore maintains limited government and, in addition, promotes efficiency through a rational division of labour. However,
Weber also recognised a darker side to this type of political legitimacy. The price
of greater efficiency would, he feared, be a more depersonalized and inhuman
social environment typified by the relentless spread of bureaucratic (see p. 361)
forms of organization.
