What do you understand by the term power in Sociology PDF

Preview

Summary

Compares and contrasts some of the main definitions of power through sociological lens. Using prominent sociologists such as Castells, Weber, and Foucault. Whole essay and bibliography....

Description

What do you understand by the term power? Compare and contrast some of the main definitions. Power is in no way a simple concept to define. According to Roderick Martin, ‘Power is one of the most central and yet problematic concepts in sociological theory’ (1971:240) If we look to conventional Oxford dictionary from the definitions from the twenty first century, it naively asserts it to be ‘the right or authority to do something… the ability to influence people or events’ (Oxford English Dictionary, 2005;704) However, theorists and sociologists have had conflicting ideas on the concept of power for decades and questions arise over authority, consent, influence and even who has the right to power? This essay will examine the difficulties in defining power and comparing three of the most revolutionary and detailed definitions of power from three principal sociologists Max Weber, Steven Lukes and Michael Foucalt. One definition that opens up the discussion of power is Manuel Castells from his 2009 book Communication Power, arguing that power “enables a social actor to influence asymmetrically the decisions of other social actors” meaning one man in society, under the right circumstances and turn of events, can impact on another man’s choices. Some may say an example of this was Adolf Hitler and the Nazi regime of the 1930’s and 40’s. Hitler was an incredibly powerful man, but also convincing and manipulating meaning men listened to him. As Castell’ describes, Hitler had the ‘power’ to influence the decisions of other social actors, which meant even for those who did not entirely agree with his regime, for example the murdering of Jews, they were vehemently encouraged they were doing the right thing and participation was mandatory. Castells often advocates his influence from Max Weber, a highly significant sociologist from the nineteenth century and holds several similarities with him in their definition of power. Weber’s book, published posthumously, Economy &Society, which is a translation of Wirtschaft & Gesellschaft (1922), is said to be one of his most important works. The definition of power offered by Max Weber in Economy & Society is said to be of central importance in political science and sociology. In Chapter One of the works, Weber’s exact definition of power provides us with a starting point for the discussion, stating it to be ‘one actor in a social relationship will be in a position to carry out his will despite resistance.’ (Weber, 1978) However, Weber’s famous definition of power has been translated in a number of slightly different ways. For example, in a recent translation of Part One of the book by Keith Tribe, puts it like this ‘Power (Macht) can be defined as the chance, within a social relationship, of enforcing one’s own will against resistance, whatever this chance might be based on.’ (Swedberg,2005) Similar statements that both explain that one man’s will can profoundly affect other actors participating in a communal action, even if they oppose you, very similar to Manuel Castells’. Weber expands on his definition of power, into different forms, coercive and legitimate. Coercive power is the right to use or threaten physical force, and is not based in any kind of law, written or unwritten. Through this one is coercing someone into doing something he would not otherwise do. For example, a parent threatening to punish a child if they do not do as they are told. On the other hand, legitimate power is the authority side, the right to enforce rules or give orders. It is based in law and tradition. For example, the MP’s in Britain are given the power to act on behalf of the country and have the official authority, and therefore power, to do so. They do not rely on economic rewards or use violence to carry out their wishes. Furthermore, Weber develops his definition further with Chapter III of his work and ‘The Three Pure Types of Authority’. Weber explains that there are three pure types of legitimate domination: traditional, charismatic and legal/rational. Firstly, Traditional grounds of authority are the purity of old age rules, traditions and powers, or as

Weber explains, ‘an established belief in the sanctity of immemorial traditions and the legitimacy of those exercising authority under them.’ (Weber, 1978:215) Often an unwritten form, these are influenced by the actions of our ancestors and how they behaved before us, passed down through generations. For example, the Royal Family possess traditional authority. Queen Elizabeth the II is only the queen due to her royal bloodline and that authority being passed down from father to child through coronation and succession. Secondly, Charismatic authority is legitimised by ‘a devotion to the exceptional sanctity, heroism or exemplary character of an individual person’ (Weber 1978:215). ‘Charismatic authority is unique in that it depends on the ability of the leader to inspire this devotion in his followers and manifest the divine or special nature of his mission’ (Theodorson, 1970:22) They often seem to possess supernatural qualities that the average person feels drawn to. This could be devotion towards a leader, for example, Barack Obama. His charm, captivating stage presence and appealing nature during his 2008 election campaign, was magnetic to people and became inspired by his mission. However, this charismatic authority does not have to be from a political or religious leader, like Hitler of Ghandi, it could simply be a child looking up to his parents. Finally, Rational/Legal authority is legitimised by a belief in the legality of enacted rules and the right of those elevated to authority under such rules to issue commands. (Weber 1978:215) In other words, ‘a belief in the validity of legal statute and functional competence based on rationally created rules.’ (Weber 1958:79) These are the written rules and laws, commonly approved by a majority. It is often associated with an office, such as president or prime minister, the state or government, and thus the individual only possess such authority as long as they occupy office. As we have seen, according to Weber, power is a finite concept, being organised and compartmentalised, whilst explaining some have power whilst others do not. Power is a conflict of wants, and involves actors doing something they otherwise would not do. One sociologist who disagrees with Weber’s definition of power is Michel Foucault. Foucault was a 20th century philosopher and sociologist who wrote several books on what power is and how it works in society. Although much of Foucault’s work discusses power, he was incredibly reluctant to define it directly, instead choosing to describe it in negative terms, more about what it is not, rather than what it is. Foucault’s definition of power is somewhat unorthodox from conventional definitions, and offers definitions that are directly opposed to more traditional liberal and Marxist theories of power. ‘Power in the substantive sense, ‘le’ pouvoir, does not exist … In reality, power means relations, a more-or-less organised, hierarchical, co-ordinated cluster of relations’. (Foucault 1980:198) According to Foucault, unlike Weber, power is not a ‘thing’ but a relation, and ‘power is exercised rather than possessed, not the privilege, acquired or preserved of the dominant class’. (Foucault (as cited in Bernauer & Carrette 2004:23). It is not concentrated in one institution, and operates on all levels of social interaction. Unlike Weber who systematically organises who possesses power, Foucault argues, it is not a commodity, that one group possess and another does not, it is a quality that flows through all social relationships. Power is not simply property of the state either, but of all social actors operating on even the most micro level of social relations. To expand on his definition of power, Foucault uses the term ‘power/knowledge’ to signify that power is constituted through accepted forms of knowledge, scientific understanding and ‘truth’. To Foucault knowledge as a discourse is a practice of power. The term power-knowledge is understood as control over the construction and operations of the code of meaning that define objects, ideas and meanings as knowledge. (Ransom,2010:255) For Foucault, this is the kind of power most desired by social actors.

Foucault was inspired by Jeremy Bentham’s Panopticon. His book, Discipline & Punish: The Birth of The Prison, describes Foucault’s investigation into western prisons in the modern era.

Bibliography

Martin, Roderick, The British Journal of Sociology: The Concept of Power: A Critical Defence (Volume 22), Wiley on behalf of The London School of Economics and Political Science, 1971. Castells, Manuel, Communication Power, Weber, Max, Economy & Society: An Outline of Interpretative Sociology, University of California Press, California, 1978. Swedberg, Richard, The Max Weber Dictionary: Key Words and Central Concepts, Stanford University Press, 2005. Theodorson, George, Achilles, A Modern Dictionary of Sociology , Taylor & Francis, 1970 Weber, Max, The Protestant Ethic and The Spirit of Capitalism, Scribner, New York, 1958 Bernauer, James William & Carrette, Jeremy R., Michel Foucault and Theology: The Politics of Religious Experience, Ashgate Publishing Ltd, Surrey, 2004. Foucault, Michel, Power/Knowledge: Selected Interviews and Other Writings, Pantheon Books, 1980. Ransome, Paul, Social Theory For Beginners, The Policy Press, 2010....