What do we understand by the term power - Essay Example

? What do we understand by the term power? Harrison view of the concept power Harrison p.4) observes that power refers to the capacity to affect the way individuals conduct their behaviors through the use of threats or real punishment and rewards. Power is exercised among individuals or groups of people by providing them with what they value or by threatening to withhold the valued commodities. The values in society include physical safety, wellbeing and health; wealth and material possession; jobs and means to livelihood, knowledge and skills; social status, recognition, and prestige; love, affection, and acceptance by others, as well as self respect and a satisfactory self image. Therefore, to exercise power in society, control must be exercised over the things valued by people. Power can be viewed from various dimensions. The first dimension is that power is a unique form of influence on individuals. The influence on individuals is meant to produce intended results. The individuals who can produce intended results in society by use of any means can be said to be highly influential. On the other hand, the individuals capable of producing intended effects by the use of real or threatened rewards and punishment can be said to be powerful (Harrison 2010, p.4). The second view point is that power lies on various resources found within the society. The exercise of power in society assumes many forms, which either depend on the providing or holding back of many different values in society. As individuals get material wealth, the more they are motivated to pursue power within the society. The basis of power in society is in most occasions interdependent. This means that individuals who posses and control certain valued resources in society may control other resources. Within the society, some valued resources such as the economic power, wealth, prestige, political influence, recognition, education and respect are tied to one another (Harrison 2010, p.4). Power is also viewed as unequally distributed in society. Therefore, it can be said that power is absent in societies where individuals hold equal powers. For power to be exercised in society, those who hold power must control certain values. Control means that individuals holding power in society should provide values as rewards to individuals or threaten to withdraw those values from other individuals. Power in society is viewed as a relationship among individuals, groups and institutions within society. Power is not in the possession of one individual, but is a relationship in which certain individuals in society exercise control over resources valued by others (Harrison 2010, p.4). In society, power is vested on the elitist groups while those who lack power constitute the majority, who are ruled by the elites. The elites in most societies are few and control valued resources in societies and use the resources to control and shape the lives of the masses. The masses comprise the majority, whose lifestyles are shaped by institutions, events, and the powerful leaders, over whom they have little or no control (Harrison, p.5). Max Weber’s views of the concept of power The concept of power by Weber is amorphous because it covers many situations and qualities; therefore, the concept of domination is more precise (Swedberg and Ola 2005, p.205). According to Weber, domination is the probability that certain provided commands are to be obeyed by a given group of individuals. Thus, domination does not constitute every mode of exercising power or influence over other individuals. Domination, which is perceived to be synonymous with authority, is based on compliance by the majority. Authority is also seen to be interrelated with the notion of legitimacy, moral and legal right, obligation and moral obedience (Haley 1991, p.13). In societies, genuine forms of authority are based on obedience by individuals, but not economic resources to establish authority. The general rule of domination is the establishment of an outstanding group of individuals, who execute certain commands and policies. The members of the administrative staff are bound to be obedient to their superiors through effectual ties, customs, and ideal motives or by a complex of material interests (Weber 1978, p.212). The domination in society is determined by ideal motives, the advantages of material interest and effectual ties. The relationships in groups and institutions are governed by customs and the calculations of material advantages. Apart from the elements of custom, effectual ties, personal advantage or ideals motives of solidarity needed for domination, legitimacy is another crucial element (Weber 1978, p.213). The legitimacy of a system of domination from a sociological view point is the probability that attitudes will prevail to a certain degree, and the corresponding practical conduct will yield results. However, the submissiveness of an individual is not dependent on beliefs alone; loyalty may be stimulated hypocritically by certain individuals or the whole group on grounds that can be considered as opportunistic or in pursuant of material interest. Individuals can also submit to authority because of helplessness and weakness as they lack other acceptable alternatives (Weber 1978, p.214). The concept of obedience is a common element in authority. Obedience means that individuals’ actions must be in line with certain command; thus, command forms the basis of individual actions. Obedient also means the formal obligation of an individual with the disregard of the actor’s attitude towards the command given (Weber 1978, p.215). Weber identifies three forms of pure authority that can be found in society. The validity of the claims to legitimate authority is based on rational, traditional and charismatic grounds. The rational ground is based on established rules of behavior that guide the behavior. The rational grounds give rise to legal authority. The traditional grounds rest on beliefs established in society, which provide legitimacy to those having powers in society. The traditional grounds constitute the traditional authority. The charismatic ground is based on an individual sanctity, outstanding character of an individual, heroism and the normative patterns. The charismatic grounds provide a basis for charismatic authority (Weber 1978, p.215). The most influential figure in the definition of the term power is Max Weber. Weber defines power as the chances of an individual or group of individuals to realize their will in a communal action despite any resistance by other individuals participating in the action. This dimension highlights that power can exist in any social relationship and should not be limited to political activities. The state in any society is the only institution that possesses a monopoly of using force legitimately within any given territory (Nash 2009, p.3). Karl Marx view of the concept power Karl Marx analyzed the state in three distinct perspectives on how state contributes to the reproduction of the economic power of the bourgeoisie, as well as the reproduction of the capitalistic systems. The first perspective is the instrumental model, which emphasizes the use of force by the state. The state uses force to counter any resistance from the working class; thus, it exists to protect the interest of the bourgeoisie. In the instrumental model, the economic power is translated into political power, whereby the dominant bourgeoisie rules over the subordinate classes through the liberal state (Nash 2009, p.5). The second perspective that Marx identifies is the arbiter model. In this model, Marx presents the modern state as free from the influence of the bourgeoisie. Marx argues that the modern state has grown strong and does not support the bourgeoisie. In cases where the bourgeoisie want to dominate the other classes, they have to struggle. In cases where an arena of competing interest arises, the state moves in as a mediator and at times may limit the powers of the bourgeoisie. However, the state only mediates on class interests represented on the political level, and the economic power of the bourgeoisie will in most cases determine how the state power is utilized. Despite the autonomy of the modern state, the economic power is translated into political powers because the state requires the material support of the bourgeoisie. Thus, the state works to ensure the bourgeoisie get economic advantage (Nash 2009, p.5). The third perspective that Marx suggests is the functionalistic view. In this model, the state is represented as a superstructure, which is mostly determined by changes in societies’ economy. The government, state apparatus and the legal structures operate in such a way that optimizes the conditions necessary for accumulation of capital disregarding how the bourgeoisie manages the government institutions and the balance of forces in society. Thus, this model represents the state political powers as inconsequential and only exists to perpetuate the economic interest of the bourgeoisie (Nash 2009, p.5). In the modern society, most working class organizations comprise of various positions and each position has a clearly defined function. This calls for individuals with specialized knowledge, which leads to a monopoly of knowledge. Marx notes that the specialized individual is a source of power, and a monopoly over knowledge can lead to individuals exercising powers over others. Marx concludes that bureaucratization (if not properly checked) can bring a real division between managers and workers in organization (Mandel 1990, p.60). There are three dimensions of power within the society, which can be regarded as influential; they include the one dimension view, two dimensions and three dimensions view. The one dimension perspectives conceptualize power within a process of decision making. This perspective takes democracy and voting as synonymous because various discussions of democracy revolve around the decision making process. In the one dimension view, individuals voted by the majority then get the power to control the voters. The one dimension of power provides a limited perception of power since the decision making process represents only a small portion of the power dynamics (Simon 1995, p.51). The one dimension view of power states that A has power over B to the extent that A can instruct B to perform a given task, but B can not instruct A. Power involves an attempt by individual A to make B perform a given act he would not do. The one dimension is concerned with observable and concrete behavior of individuals. The one dimension of power relates to visible political conflicts and the individual can enforce decisions on behalf of a group. The concept of one dimension of power is also known as pluralistic or behaviorist view of power (Kauth 2008, p.1) The two dimension view of power includes covert ways to affect to the decision making process, thus broadening one dimension view. For instance, power is manifested in the actual process of decision making as well as non-decision making areas such as agenda setting, which is controlled by the leaders of society’s organizations. The individuals who control the decisions that appear on the agenda exercise a degree of power (Simon 1995, p.52). The three dimension view provides a further analysis of power, which includes the different ways in which potential issues can be eliminated from politics. This is through the operations of social forces, institution practices or through individual decisions. The third dimension of power operates at a level where covert activities keep potential issues away from the forum of decision making. In the third dimension, the question of whether certain items should be placed on the agenda does not exist (Simon 1995, p.52). Power is viewed as the ability of powerful individuals to realize their will over the powerless individuals. Power is also seen as the ability to make the powerless individuals to do the things they are unwilling to do. Power is also viewed as a possession by individuals and individuals, who are powerless, to try and avoid the control by those in powers. Foucault criticizes this view of power in society and argues that power is performed like a strategy than a possession. Foucault says that power should be viewed as a verb rather than a noun, which means that power helps individuals to act as opposed to being possessed by people (Mills 2003, p.35). Foucault’s view of the concept power Foucault emphasizes that power has to circulate and function in the form of chains. Power is employed and exercised in society through a network of organizations. The individuals found in these institutions are the vehicle of power. From these words, power is conceptualized as a chain or a net; this means that power is made up of many relationships in society, as opposed to a system of relationships between the oppressor and the oppressed. The second point is that individuals should be viewed as areas where power is enacted and resisted as to areas where power is received. Therefore, Foucault’s conceptualization of power is concerned with the role individuals perform in power relationships as well as power dimensions in society (Mills 2003, p.35). The old form of power is characterized by use of force to bring about domination in the society, whereas the modern forms of power influence the thought. The power relationship ends when force is used, and absolute domination is achieved, and there is no more resistance from the dominated. Power in society is achieved by shaping identities, regulating individual’s views about the world and introducing subjectivity. Power in the society depends on the interaction of individuals, whether there is active participation or passive engagement (Chambon and Allan 1999, p.192). References List Chambon, A. S. et. al. (1999). Reading Foucault for Social Work, Columbia, Columbia University Press. p.192 Haley, J. O. (1991). Authority without Power: Law and the Japanese Paradox, Oxford, Oxford University Press. p. 13 Harrison, B. C. (2010). Power and Society: An Introduction to the Social Sciences, 12th Edition, London, Cengage Learning. pp. 4-5 Kauth, V. (2008). Power in Society: Comparison of "Power and the Social" by Sallie Westwood and Steven Lukes' "Power: A Radical View", Berlin, GRINVerlag. p.1 Mandel, E. (1992). Power and Money: A Marxist Theory, New York, Verso. p.60 Mill, S. (2003). Michel Foucault, London, Routledge. p. 35 Nash, K. (2009). Contemporary Political Sociology: Globalization, Politics and Power, 2nd Edition, New York, John Wiley & Sons. pp.3-5. Simon, T. W. (1995). Democracy and Social Injustice: Law, Politics, and Philosophy, New York, Rowman & Littlefield. p.51-52 Swedberg, R. and O.A. (2005). The Max Weber Dictionary: Key Words and Central Concepts, Stanford, Stanford University Press. p.205 Weber, M. (1978). Economy and Society, California, University of California Press, pp. 212-215 Read More