Power and politics Flashcards
Types of power
To date, most sociologists agree that there are basically two types of power, namely authority and coercion. Authority is based on the concept that it is legal and accepted by all and there is ready obedience. Coercion exists when the authority is not seen as legitimate and force has to be used to secure the goals of those in charge. When speaking about authority and power, the sociologist Max Weber must be reviewed.
Weber on Power
To Weber, power can be based on a number of types of authority and leadership, namely charismatic, traditional and rational/legal. (see bureaucracy notes). Note however that these are ideal types and in reality one will find that leaders use different degrees and combinations of these to secure their goals.
Weber’s definition of power is “the chance of a man or a number of men to realize their own will in a communal action even against the resistance of others who are participating in the action”.
POWER
Weber’s definition of power had two assumptions built into it:
The constant-sum concept which assumes that there is a fixed amount of power that exists, so if some have power, other cannot.
People use power to further their own interests.
Stephen Luke on Power
Stephen Lukes is a pluralist who has put forward a radical view of power. He argues that there are three dimensions of power, not just one as Weber states. They are as follows:
Decision making: that is the ability to get your agenda to the forefront, such as lobbyists
Non-decision making: this is the ability to prevent issues from reaching the table (the ability to reduce viable options)
Shaping desires: this involves manipulating the desires of the group (with or without their knowledge)
Lukes says that power is exercised over people who are harmed or wronged by its use, regardless of whether or not they realize it.
The State
To Weber, the state is “a human community that (successfully) claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of force within a given territory”.
Anyone else who attempts to use force is outside of the law and is considered ‘rebels’, ‘hooligan’, or ‘anarchists’.
The state alone has the authority to make wars and imprison individuals.
The state consists of 4 groups:
government (legislature) who makes laws
police who enforce laws
bureaucracy (civil service) who implements decisions
armed forces who protect the state from outside threats
The question is whether or not there is the existence of alternatives to Weber’s definition of state. Three are to be considered.
Stateless societies like the Nuer society in Africa
Feudal state system that existed till the 17th Century when France consolidated power and exercised effective central control over its dominions
Modern state that is highly centralized.
Functionalist on power
The functionalists disagree with Weber’s assumptions.
Parsons:
Power is used to further the interests of society as a whole, it is “a generalized facility or resource in the society”. It is the ability to mobilize resources for the goals that are deemed ‘public’.
The greater the degree of efficiency of the social system at achieving their goals, then the greater the amount of power that exists in society. It is a value-sum concept of power as opposed to Weber’s constant-sum concept.
Value consensus is necessary for the survival of society and as such they will arrive at collective goals. (western materialism, as the std. Of living increases, so does the power in society).
The exercise of power means that everyone will benefit, thus it is the basis for co-operation and reciprocity in society.
Co-operation on a large scale necessitates some degree of co-ordination and control, and some are granted those powers. This power to control takes the form of authority, and is it perceived as legitimate as it is seen as furthering society’s goals.
To Parsons, power is analogous to a bank. The deposits are revocable at the next elections if the depositors are not satisfied with the performance.
The critique of this position is three-fold:
The view is naïve
He appears to be rationalizing (justifying) the position of those in power
Power is often used to further the interests of a minority (those in power) at the exclusion of the majority of the population.
Elite Theory
Elite theorists believe that power is monopolized by a few (ruling class). We will now look at two of the major proponents of this classical elite theory, Pareto and Mosca.
Pareto (1848-1923) and Mosca (1858-1911) saw the monopolization of power as inevitable, and thus saw no need to fight against the proletariat revolution as predicted by Marx.
Mosca believed that the elite was in a better position to rule as they were more organized.
They believed that the elite formed a cohesive group in the face of the fragmented and disorganized masses. They were able to impose their will even in the case of a democracy through propaganda and other tactics.
Pareto believed that the elite was in a better position to rule as they were more cunning and intelligent than the masses. Pareto’s theory followed that of Machiavelli (the Prince) and says that the rulers are made up of two groups, the lions and the foxes.
The lions ruled by force, they take direct action (military dictatorship)
The foxes rule by guile and cunning, they use diplomatic manipulation (Europe)
Note that both these assumptions are based on personal characteristics of the rulers
He believes that there is a circulation of elites, where one group eventually takes power from the other for awhile, then the cycle starts again. This is due to complacency and easy living on the part of the victors.
This occurs because each group lacks a vital component that the other group has, and this is needed to hold on to power in the long run. In other words, the foxes infiltrate the lion’s liar, and the lions throw out the foxes when they are in power.
History has no effective revolution, it is the eternal circulation of the elites. According to Pareto, “history is a graveyard of aristocracies”.
The critique of Pareto is three-fold:
He assumes that the masses are inferior and cannot rule themselves
Lions and foxes are merely his interpretation of the styles of the rulers
States that closed ruling parties lose vigor and eventually decay, this is not found in the Caste system of India.
Pareto believed that modern democracy is another form of elite domination.
Mosca believe that modern democracy allowed more people to participate, but it will never be a government by the people, even it is a government for and of the people.
More on elite theory
C. Wright Mills wrote his theory in the 1950s. He looked at American Society in particular.
He explained that the elite ruled in institutional terms rather than psychological terms like Pareto and Mosca.
Argues that there is no innate superiority of those who rule, it is just that the structure of the institutions is such that those at the top can monopolize power
Certain institutions occupy key pivotal positions in society, and these from the POWER ELITE:
major corporations
military
federal government
He states that U.S. capitalism is largely military capitalism, as the military production increased, the interest of the military and economic elites are served. Business and government are one entity in the U.S. he referred to the politic leaders as ‘lieutenants’ of the economic elite.
Elite unity
Due to the fears of global conflict there was an increase in military size and this led to a centralization of decision-making power. This power increasingly became concentrated in the hands of those who command posts in these institutions.
The common social backgrounds of the elite help cohesion in the group. They all go to the same schools, lime at the same clubs and have the same value system.
Note that individuals have footholds in more than one elite, for example, the general in the army may sit as a director in a private firm.
Elite dominance
Major decisions (dropping the Bomb, getting involved in WWII) were made without consideration of the masses. The rulers are not accountable for their actions.
The rise in the power elite has led to “the decline of politics as a genuine and public debate of alternative decisions”. All the parties are the same people so there is no effective choice of leadership (democratic or republican)
The masses are brainwashed, instead of dealing with the real issues, they are told what to think and how to feel. They keep themselves concern with issues of work, leisure and the family.
This leaves the elite free to pursue its own agenda: power and self-aggrandizement.
Conflict Perspective (Marx)
Similar to the elitist theorists, they see power as concentrated in the hands of the minority in society. The ruling class has different interests to the rest of society, and this produces a conflict situation. They see power being based on economic resources, whereas the elite theorists see it as being dependant on the holding of key positions in society. Marx and Engels said that those who owned and controlled the means of production (the ruling class) has all the power in society, and the communal ownership and control of the means of production is the only was for there to be real equality in society.
Engels said that kinship formed the basis of social grouping in primitive communism. Once one group became economically dominant (the advent of agriculture) then the state developed to hold the class antagonisms in check. As capitalism develops, there is less need for coercion and force to rule, with Democracy, everyone appears to have a vote, a voice and therefore equal power. In this system everyone perceives the system as legitimate and right, though this is but an illusion, they antagonisms are kept in check. The ruling class controls the state in two main ways:
It has the ability to bribe state officials to ensure that their interests are protected
The state borrows from the ruling class to pay its debts, and as such, loans can be withheld if their interests are not looked after.
Ralph Miliband
Ralph Miliband
He believes that power is derived from wealth. He refers to political equality as ‘one of the great myths of the epoch’, and states that genuine political equality is ‘impossible in the conditions of advanced capitalism’. His analysis is similar to Mills, but he states that the elite act in the interest of the capitalist and not for themselves only. Remember: those in elite positions are members of the bourgeoisie bourgeoisification’ of the top officials takes place as a result of common social and educational backgrounds state elite actions benefit the ruling class e.g. judges believe that the primary purpose of the law is to protect private property. He sees the massive indoctrination of the subject class as the ‘process of legitimation’. He states that advertisements seem to suggest that profits in the system are secondary interests of the capitalist. Instead issues of loyalty, innocence, community welfare are projected to the capitalists.
Neo-Marxism
Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937)
He believed that the economic infrastructure did not determine (to a large extent) what occurred in the superstructure of society. He believed that the situation was a relationship of reciprocity between the infra and super structure.
He divided the superstructure into two parts:
political society (police and army) who were concerned with the use of force (state institutions)
civil society (media, unions, political parties) who were concerned with persuasion rather then force (private institutions) “Hegemony” is achieved when the ruling class gain approval and consent from the members of society, and this cannot be achieved by force. This can only be achieved by making compromises with the subject class. Hegemony cannot be complete for three reasons:
classes are divided among themselves. No group on its own can maintain dominance of society, thus alliances have to be sought. These compromises show that there is no real hegemony. A successful alliance is called a “historic bloc”, but due to the different factions, it is always something of a compromise.
Concessions had to be made to the subject class, thus hegemony of one group is impossible. This is necessary if they are to rule by consent and not by force. The concept of ‘dual consciousness’ states that the subject class know (on some level) that the state is not looking after their interests, and that their interests would better be served by opposing and changing the system. He believes that revolution will come but not as a full frontal attack which he calls a ‘war of manoeuvre’. Instead he believes that it has to be done within the system which he refers to as a ‘was of position’. In this he advocates that intellectuals rise from within the subject class forming a new ‘historical bloc’ of the exploited capable of overcoming ruling class hegemony.
