Sociological Approach to Power - Assignment Example

Sociological Approach to Power The main aim of this paper is to focus on the different sociological approaches to power, compare then and establish their importance in the modern society. Taking a look into the basic concept of power we see that it is deeply rooted into two different aspects of subjection and stratification. Subjection is the nature to articulate power in order to have control over different subjects while stratification is the expression of power within managerial hierarchies that is mainly based on asperity of different resources. Such interpretations if further argued shall help to restate and restructure research programmes on different grounds of structural, historical and commissioning of elites with relation to class differences and status. Literally, the word power mainly denotes vested authority in order to act on a given case. It is the result of casual impacts. In the societal version, power is seen to be a voluntary use of casual effects so as to influence the act of others. However in order to establish the meaning of power there has been several of those ideas that crept up. One school of thoughts follow the mainstream views which try to focus on the absolute use of control and in the process making the subject perform which would otherwise not be possible. (Scott, 1996) Marx discussed about social class and power. Both class and power are interconnected. Both these factors are said to be different in their respective aspects in societal terms. Class actually represents the system of the society where wealth is generated and differentiated among its members. Therefore, one can define power as political as well as economical expressions within a society. (Mandel, 1992) The class system determines the parameters related to the structure of a society. The class system acts as a motivational factor in comprising the agency, which constitutes the class actors, within the society. Now in that case, the various forms of power define the characteristic feature of the agency. Based on these structural characteristics, groups or individual class actors pursue their ambitions. Therefore in this societal framework both class and power go hand in hand in order to present the crucial features comprising of structure and agency, remaining within a complex and varied society. It is seen from various aspects of study that whenever an individual or group possesses power in the form of economical or political sense then these elements try to focus on making people work against his or her wishes and desires. This remains adverse to the political and economical ideas and interests or desires. The elite class of the society does apply power upon the poorer sections. (Giddens, 1981) Marxist philosophy regarding power highlights the sense of power in economic terms. He elegantly accomplished the nature of power in terms of money. He elucidates that power indicates having enough money. Money represents identity of an individual and subsequently the extent of power is also determined by the extent of money he possesses. This possession of money signifies the amount of power. He establishes his argument in this regard that an individual is never known by his existence or in regard to his physical characteristics. According to him an individual might be ugly looking but can buy the most beautiful woman. This ugliness thus gets nullified by the power exerted by money itself. Thus he justified that money can surely represent power. Money has made a lame person move, a clever to be a cleverer, a poor to be a rich. Therefore after such abundance of property, money is all that is required to enhance capabilities in humans. Even Shakespeare too stressed upon the impossibilities that are shouldered by money itself. It is the sole power in simple economic terms. Marx also illuminates the concept of the demand for money by a person in order to live life. He suggested that his demand is merely a demand to fulfill his existence rather than being objective. The difference between fulfilling existing daily needs and the fulfillment of one’s passion, needs and wishes mainly lies in the different ways of thinking. Money generates the power to develop imagination into reality. (Mandel, 1992) Weber in his terms differed slightly from that of Marx. Marx’s view on the society was mainly influenced by the conflicts that take place between classes of the society with reference to dynamic social structures constructive relations. In contrast to Marx, Weber concentrated on the various roles of the actors with their actions combined to represent in mutual orientation pertaining to particular socio-historical contexts. Weber viewed the society in terms of two different forms or levels. According to him the society is broken up into two segments basically between the ‘haves’ and ‘have-nots’. This forms the base for social conflicts thus giving rise to power within the society. When one has all the means of production this leads one to exercise political power in direct or indirect form. He advocated that in modern capitalist conditions, exercise of economic power is in arbitrary form. Simultaneously he objected to it saying economic power is the result of power that depended on other factors. (Scott, 1996) By power, Weber demonstrated the act of a man or a group of men in order to realize their own communal interests even after receiving resistance from other elements of the society. He states that the event of power that takes place lies on some foundation. This foundation has historical and structural relevance. The source that gives rise to power becomes the only question for Weber. In contrast to Marx, Weber puts his argument that power in the form of economic power is exercised and valued even for the sake of man himself. (Gerth and Mills, 2003) The modern era of bureaucratic coordination led Weber to concentrate on the operative features of modern large scale establishments. He marked that bureaucratic collocation of several activities has brought about the beginning of the modern era. Offices within this societal system have are mainly based on hierarchical managerial structures and have their authority divided among different levels. This authoritative co-ordination within a particular system among different subjects plays a dominant role in modern organizational structures. These systems of administration facilitate larger planning options. There remains the possible choice for a state to head towards mobilization and centralization of political power. During the period of the feudal system, such practices were almost absent. Administrations that follow bureaucratic style of authority are regarded to be technically more superior compared to other forms. (Gerth and Mills, 2003) Hegemony, conceptualized by Antonio Gramsci, meant a political coercion exercised on one state by other. The word was previously used by the Marxists, i.e. Lenin in order to describe the political leadership that was dominant among the working group. Gramsci mentioned the term ‘hegemony’ in order to describe the act of proletariat in overthrowing the bourgeoisie. Moral leadership accompanied with intellectual leadership by which the dominated sections gave consent towards accepting a position, supposed to be imposed forcibly, refers to hegemony. It was a process of dominating the factors of production exercised by the dominant sections. The dominant sections mainly constitute the capitalists or the owners of production and also the employers who used to provide wages to the laborers. (Fontana, 1993) The practice of hegemony is related to the ideological concept of power. Ideologically power can be considered as differential power that is possessed by a group or an individual. This, when practiced, distorts the actual scenario where people tend find themselves into. If we look into the theories of Gramsci we would find that he modifies his conception on the ideas that were dealt by Marx. According to him no regime in spite of its strong authority could sustain itself only through state organized force and power. In the future, in order to sustain its stability it is mostly required to have popularity and legitimacy. He also indicated that hegemony is the transition of values, beliefs and ethics within the entire system. Hegemony is also defined as ‘organizing principle’ dispersed by practice of socialism into daily life activities. On behalf of Marxist idea of ‘superstructure’ Gramsci divided the following concept into coercive ones and the non-coercive ones. The coercive ones constitutes the governmental organizations and legal bodies, whereas, the non coercive elements are the schools, unions of trade, parties to politics, clubs, etc. Thus, for Gramsci the society comprises of relationship between production, the political society and the civil society. Moreover Gramsci in his theory of ideological hegemony supported Marx’s idea of capitalism and that it acted as the motivational force towards the struggle which constitutes the subordinate class and the class that rules. (Fontana, 1993) Gramsci had the view in terms of the working class wanting to build up a society and culture that would have the ideas of the bourgeois values overthrown and subsequently would certainly attract dominated classes towards the proletariats. Classes that want to dominate the modern culture and conditions should move beyond its normal interests in order to publicize intellectual and moral strategies of leadership and form further alliances with number of different forces. In that case they also need to make compromises in order to strengthen their position. Mills also found that two different levels of power exist within the American society. The dominated section comprise of the ordinary mass of people that remain largely unrecognized, ill informed and are virtually vested with limited or with no powers. These factors are mainly manipulated and controlled by the above three. (Paxman, 1990) Is there a ruling class today? In simple words one can surely say that ruling class still does persist today. Though the feudalistic pattern of administration is not present these days but today’s world experiences the power of the ruling class in some form or the other. The ruling class remains to be the upper class with widespread influence over other classes. It bears the optimal amounts of material wealth and in some sense political power too. Even in terms of sociology this class refers to the power elite consisting of the political leaders, bureaucrats and the authorities within the military system. (Keller, 1991) In the developed nations the political regimes’ features differ in various aspects but there are certain devices lying within the political control that give rise to bureaucracy and subsequently in order to minimize its effect allows participation into decision making processes. One can even say that the major landowners, industrialists, the various financiers and also the merchants had been enjoying the elite society in 1930s by forming capitalist business class. This continues till date. This class numbers to around 43, 500 people and own approximately 7% of the Britain’s wealth. (Dearlove and Saunders, 2000) These people enjoy a high profile status and companies gaining market these days brings in more profit for the class. Nowadays, the ruling class comprises not only the elite groups but also the military and the bureaucratic leaders as well. Both military and other bureaucrats maintain hierarchy in their approach to domination. The hierarchical efficiency of power can be better understood when we look into the bureaucratic style followed among corporations and the military organization. It is a source of effective power that never equals to the human history. The national power now vests completely upon the economic, political as well as military domains. (Brown, 1991) The Power Elite In his writings Mills have described about the world in a theoretical way that is highly influenced by Max Weber. A holistic view has been portrayed by Mills to the entire sociocultural systems. These systems are independent in nature and have thoughtful effects on the values of human, his thought process and his behaviour. In ‘The Power Elite’ it was made explicit by Mills about power that insists on showing less vigor in these days than in the past. In the historic past, the West had been experiencing enough violence. It increased extremely. In the process organizational degree has been enlarged and made centralized to become more efficient as never before. Mills emphasized that there remains a power elite in the modern day societies. Bureaucracies have centralized and enlarged the organizations’ owners and the results of their decisions have become more widespread and stronger than before. According to Mills the power elite comprises of three major institutions that run the modern society namely, economy, government and military. It is seen that the elite has occupied the top most position of leadership. They remain in the bureaucracy so as to dominate the modern culture and society. It is the position where the effective and efficient sources of power are located. He even argues that this very approach is not a conspiracy but rather a social structure that bears a centralized and enlarged system of decision making process. The very system, after this, was handed over to different persons having similar social background and sense of outlook. All the other bigger organizations have almost diminished in the attempt to gain access to power. Thus it can be said that it is largely due to their backgrounds that the elites enjoy unity among them. Mills moved further ahead to explain the elite groups. He states that major portion of the elite is from one third of the income and other occupational hierarchies. They belong to the upper class. They are educated from similar preparatory schools and universities. They enjoy the similar club culture of the gentleman’s class. Their interconnection is mainly based on intermarriage. Co-ordination does come from exchange of personnel among the three hierarchies. There also exists a close relation between the corporate houses and the officials at the government level. He further asserts that a greater part of the process of co-ordination generally comes from the growth of structural integration of different organizations that remains dominant. (Calhoun, Rojek, and Turner, 2005) Concluding remarks: Changes in power Amidst organizational change there has been a professional force that supports the changes in power. In a given state with its military and society, there is interpenetration of different social spheres that brings a change in the organizational structure. This would provide significant implication to provide support to the relationships of power across different spheres. It also helps to gear up the efficiency level of the organizations. A state is composed of the ruling elite that determines the legislation and formulates the policies for the nation. It also observed that the social sphere that includes the citizens and leaders are not directly involved in decision making processes. There remains a gap between the policy makers and the societal elements at large. It can also be said that the state plays an important role to extract its resources like human and material. There is collaboration between the civil authority and the private and also the capitalistic industry in order to maximize financial revenues and assets. In that case, bargaining remains a tool that is used by the power structure in each of these spheres, so as to attain the maximum power that might not opt to endanger the existence of the three. (Sampson, 2005) References 1. Scott, J., 1996. Stratification and power: structures of class, status and command. Illustrated. Wiley-Blackwell. 2. Calhoun, C., Rojek, C. and Turner, B., 2005. The Sage handbook of sociology. Illustrated. SAGE. 3. Paxman, J., 1990. Friends in high places: who runs Britain? Michael Joseph. The University of Michigan. 4. Sampson, A. 2005. Who Runs This Place? The Anatomy of Britain in the 21st Century. Illustrated. John Murray. 5. Giddens, A. 1981.The Class Structure of the Advanced Societies. London: Hutchinson. 6. Gerth, H.H. and Mills, C.W. 2003. From Max Weber: essays in sociology. USA: Routledge. 7. Fontana, B. 1993. Hegemony and power: on the relation between Gramsci and Machiavelli. Minneapolis: U of Minnesota Press. 8. Mandel, E., 1992. Power and money: a Marxist theory of bureaucracy. UK: Verso. 9. Keller, S.I., 1991. Beyond the ruling class: strategic elites in modern society. New Jersey: Transaction Publishers. 10. Dearlove, J. and Saunders, P., 2000. Introduction to British politics. Edition: 3. UK: Wiley-Blackwell. 11. Brown, R., 1991. Church and state in modern Britain, 1700-1850. Taylor & Francis. Read More