Power and Authority Essay PDF

Preview

Summary

Essay...

Description

Formative 1 u1832407

In what ways can power be studied? Power is an essentially contested subject. The concepts of power extend from Platonic to Hobbesian and up to Weberian belief systems, with several different definitions and controversies surrounding it, however it remains a central topic in political analysis. Andrew Heywood describes power as “the ability to influence the outcome of events”, therefore power is said to be exercised “whenever A gets B to do something that B would otherwise not have done”. [1] This essay will talk about the ways in which power is studied using different concepts such as the three faces of power and power theories for example pluralism and elitism. These concepts will be supported by empirical evidence by theorists such as Robert Dahl, Bachrach and Bratz, and Steven Luke. First the essay will introduce the first face of power along with its limitations, it will then analyze the two other faces of power, exploring a deeper way in which power can be studied. Following that, I will investigate the ways in which power has been studied in the past along with its effectiveness, such as the reputational method and Michel Foucault’s theory.

This essay will start off by presenting the first face of power in terms of decision making which is considered by Robert Dahl, where power is thought to be broadly scattered, therefore essentially holding a pluralist view of power. Robert Dahls intuitive idea of power is: “A has power over B to the extent that he can get B to do something that B would not otherwise”. [2] Colin Hay explains this by giving a simple example “If Anna purchases Ben’s car for £500 when they both know that it is in fact worth £800 – by threatening, say, to put a sledge-hammer to it if her less than generous offer is refused – then Anna might be said to exert power over Ben” [3] Meaning, Anna (A) has power over Ben (B) because she made Ben agree to something he would not have otherwise

Formative 1 u1832407

agreed to, therefore her power shows Bens lack of power. This face of power allows for unproblematic methodology as it is based on observable behavior. As it is overt, power can be easily seen by which group or individual has more votes – consequently power will lie with the group or individual who have more votes. However, the first face of power ignores the complicated ways in which power can operate and can only measure those issues which are voted upon. Effects of power may be incidental as it is unclear if B’s actions were something B would have done otherwise, therefore A actually has no power over B. Consequently, the first face of power is narrow as it just considers decision making and not different variables, as some issues may be kept away from the public consideration and certain issues may be excluded. [4]

This essay will now turn to the second face of power called agenda setting by Bachrach and Baratz. This face of power takes into consideration that power is not always overt and may take place in a subtle manner. Bachrach and Baratz argue that certain policy issues may be kept away from public consideration, by individuals or groups who hold power. Therefore, even though power might be exercised when A effects the decision making of B, but it also takes place when A “devotes his energies to creating or reinforcing social and political values and institutional practices that limit the scope of the political process to public consideration of only those issues which are comparatively innocuous to A”. [5] Therefore, this view takes an elitist view rather than a pluralist view, as certain groups or individuals have the ability to avert decisions. An example of this was given by Cox and McCubbins (2005) who argued that the majority party in the US uses its leadership in its own favor by blocking certain bills and policies that could divide the party up, therefore the entire legislative body does not get the chance to consider policies that might not be desirable by the majority party. [6] The second face of power is useful because while retaining a base in behavioralism it also draws on to agenda setting. However, this has its own

Formative 1 u1832407

complications, Comparing the one-dimensional view to the two-dimensional view it is much easier to the understand the former than the latter. Many pluralists’ critiques concluded that the non-decision making was difficult to research due to its covert nature. [7] For example, Stephen Luke’s says that the second face of power is limited as it only focuses on observable conflicts, against its Luke also argues that power is exercised by influencing and shaping perceptions. [8]

The essay will now introduce and talk about the third face of power which is introduced by Stephen Luke’s, who gives the definition of power as ‘A may exercise power over by getting him to do what he does not want to do, but he also exercises power over him by influencing, shaping and determining his very wants’. [9] Therefore, the three-dimensional view of power distinguishes between an individual’s real interests and perceived interests, Luke claims that power takes place when these real interests are distorted and shaped in a particular way, with the individuals being prevented from having grievances. [10] This takes place because individuals will “see or imagine no alternative” to the existing system. [11] For example, the control of media on individuals minds and opinions as well as extensive advertising, shaping individuals wants and needs. However, Luke himself said that distinguishing between the real interests and the false interests is difficult. [12] In my opinion, it is almost impossible to know what an individual’s real interests are as he/she is not aware of it themselves, no agreed measure of this exists, hence being difficult to gather evidence. Nonetheless, this face of power widens the definition of power to all instances, therefore being an inclusive view.

The essay will now move on from the three faces of power to the other ways power is studied. The theory of power put forward by Michel Foucault is quite different from the ones discussed. He believes that power is not wielded by

Formative 1 u1832407

individuals or groups but rather it is imbedded within the structures of society, therefore “power is everywhere”. Moreover, he introduces the idea of ‘biopower’ which takes place when physical bodies are made to believe in certain ways in order to achieve social control, he studied this by investigating prisons and systems for administration. [13] I personally agree with this theory, believing that power is internalized and routinised and deeply ingrained into individuals and society.

Contrary to Michel Foucault’s theory, is the modern elite theory which believes power comes from individual’s institutional position in society, therefore power lies with a small minority who control key resources and make the major decisions. Floyd Hunter studies this by carrying out the “reputational method”. He did this by asking 14 people who informed about Atlanta to choose the top most 10 leaders from lists he had created which included a total of 175 names. He picked the top 40 and interviewed 27 out of those. All these 27 notably agreed to the list of the top leaders. Hence, proving the modern elite theory and introducing the popular “reputational method”. [14] He concluded that power is tied to the economic system in which the rich take control. However, there are certain drawbacks of such a theory, because there is no specific or objective answer to the question, who is the elite? This is because this varies from c ountry to country. Nonetheless, it is relatively easier to study the elite theory compared to for example, Michel Foucault’s theory, as it focuses on the behavior of actors, rather than the structures of society. [15]

It is rather impossible to discuss the many definitions and ways power is studied as it is an essentially contested subject, with neither theory having no drawbacks. It is important to recognize the development of the three-dimensions of power discussed in this essay from individual level to a more structural level, widening the definition of power further and further so that it encompasses

Formative 1 u1832407

almost everything, much like Michel Foucault’s theory. This essay has attempted to evaluate the methodologies and definitions of power to understand which one is the most applicable and realistic. Moreover, power is an ongoing subject and has a changing nature on changing circumstances, power now is different than it may have been several years ago. In my opinion, none of the theories discussed above fully clarifies what power encompasses and how it can be studied, rather a combination of all the theories is a better way to understand it fully.

Formative 1 u1832407

REFERENCES: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

15.

Heywood, A. (2014). Global politics. 2nd ed. Dahl, R. (2007). The concept of power. Behavioral Science, 2(3), pp.201-215. Hay, C. (2002). Political Analysis. Hay, C. (1997). Divided by a Common Language: Political Theory and the Concept of Power. Politics, 17(1), pp.45-52. Bachrach, P. and Baratz, M. (1962). Two Faces of Power. American Political Science Review, 56(4), pp.947-952. Anzia, S. and Jackman, M. (2013). Legislative Organization and the Second Face of Power: Evidence from U.S. State Legislatures. The Journal of Politics, 75(1), pp.210-224. Hay, C. (2002). Political Analysis. Lukes, S. (2005). Power. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Lukes, S. (2005). Power. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Hay, C. (2002). Political Analysis. Lukes, S. (1974). Power : a radical view. 1st ed. London: Macmillan. Hay, C. (2002). Political Analysis. Foucault, M. and Hurley, R. (2008). The history of sexuality. Camberwell, Vic.: Penguin. Domhoff, G. (2019). Who Rules America: Atlanta: Floyd Hunter Was Right. [online] Whorulesamerica.ucsc.edu. Available at: https://whorulesamerica.ucsc.edu/local/atlanta.html [Accessed 27 Nov. 2019]. Daloz, J. (2010). Elites and their Representation: Multi-Disciplinary Perspectives. Historical Reflections/Reflexions Historiques, 36(3), pp.1-6.

BIBLIOGRAPHY Anzia, S. and Jackman, M. (2013). Legislative Organization and the Second Face of Power: Evidence from U.S. State Legislatures. The Journal of Politics, 75(1), pp.210-224. Bachrach, P. and Baratz, M. (1962). Two Faces of Power. American Political Science Review, 56(4), pp.947-952. Dahl, R. (2007). The concept of power. Behavioral Science, 2(3), pp.201-215. Daloz, J. (2010). Elites and their Representation: Multi-Disciplinary Perspectives. Historical Reflections/Reflexions Historiques, 36(3), pp.1-6. Domhoff, G. (2019). Who Rules America: Atlanta: Floyd Hunter Was Right. [online] Whorulesamerica.ucsc.edu. Available at: https://whorulesamerica.ucsc.edu/local/atlanta.html [Accessed 27 Nov. 2019]. Foucault, M. and Hurley, R. (2008). The history of sexuality. Camberwell, Vic.: Penguin. Hay, C. (1997). Divided by a Common Language: Political Theory and the Concept of Power. Politics, 17(1), pp.45-52. Hay, C. (2002). Political Analysis. Heywood, A. (2014). Global politics. 2nd ed. Lukes, S. (1974). Power : a radical view. 1st ed. London: Macmillan. Lukes, S. (2005). Power. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan....