Political Sociology: Power and Authority in Politics and Society - Literature review Example

POLITICAL SOCIOLOGY: POWER AND AUTHORITY IN POLITICS AND SOCIETY [Unit] [Date] One of the main questions in sociology is to understand how some people control other people’s actions effectively. Such is the question in regard to power. In the sociology of politics, such issues on how power is exercised and the means that makes power legitimate, right or just is very important. Authority, in regard to the legitimate right of some people to control the behaviour of other people is another important concept of political sociology. In his definition, Lukes (1987) explains that when people choose to accept other people’s will as right or legitimate, then such a relationship can be referred to as authoritative. Power is often thought to be legitimate and in our daily lives, we deal with agencies or individuals who are in attempts of exercising power over us. That is, they make us do what they want us to do. Giddens (1989), views power as a fundamental concept in regard to social sciences. He refers to power as a transformative capacity or the ability to make a difference in the globe. In his view, when an individual carries out any social (action where we understand any action based on an intention), the individual is said to be making a difference in the world. He adds that the consequences as a result of social actions may be against the vested interests of other individuals. Moreover, the amount of power of an individual is associated with resource. Such resources are of two distinct types: allocative and authoritative resources. Allocative resources involve control over tangible or physical things for instance, owning of a firm. Authoritative resources involve control over people’s activities such as being at a higher position in an organisation. According to Weber authority is referred to as the legitimate use of power. He adds that individuals usually accepts as well as act on given orders because they believe that accepting and acting upon such orders is the legitimate or the right thing to do (Weber 1978). This article discusses the relevance of power and authority in the society and in politics as well as how power is legitimized in authority. Authority and power in politics and society There are various theories that explain the relevance of authority and power in politics and society. In his approach to power, Weber (1978) connected power to concepts of rule and authority. He saw power as a probability that the one using power in social relationship will be able to carry out his or her will irrespective of the resistance to it. According to him, the organisational power of bureaucracy is a threat to the freedom of human spirit. Dahl Robert (1956) is another theorist who tried to understand power within the community boundaries. Based on his theory of community, he found out that a particular concrete individual exercises power in a community while at the same time, other individuals are obscured from doing what they prefer doing. In such as case, power is exercised with an aim of making the one subjected to it to follow the preference of the ones possessing the power. Thus, within a society, power sometimes becomes a production of obedience to the interests of others. Giddens (1990) in his structuration social theory believed that power is a very important component in regard to social structure. The exercise of power is done by the agents of human but it is created by them where it later influences and limits them. Thus, power becomes a social factor which influences components of human society and it is created by the society. A state has been seen as a societal institution that is most powerful and has interests of its own. It also acts independently in order to bring a social change. This means that the society does not have any force that can push the state in a particular direction. Thus, sources of social powers include the political, economic, ideological and the military (Mann 1986). A state in this case is represented by certain individuals who occupy offices and then authorise them to make and also apply decisions that build upon the segments of the society. In his argument, Nordlinger (1981, 11) viewed state as an independent body of the society that is increasingly gaining power due to the emergence of the welfare state, built upon the techniques for the intervention of the government in the society. This is done with an aim of improving the living as well as working conditions of the society. Based on the ideas of power in politics and society, power is seen to affect not only personal relationships but also it shapes larger dynamics such as governments, social groups and professional organisations. Although the government uses power to control its citizens, this is not just limited to the own countries alone but the governments use power to control other states. Such cases include using power in different countries by joining forces to fight various challenges for instance, terrorism. Power in the society may also lead to issues such as abuse, exploitation and violence while on the other hand, some may use the same power to bring a positive change (Acton, 2010). As Weber (1978) refers to authority as power in which people have agreed to follow, he adds that within the political world, people usually listen to the figures in authority because they have a feeling that these individuals are worth to be respected. Based on legitimacy, Weber further divided authority into traditional, charismatic and rational-legal authority. On the basis of the power of traditional authority, Weber says that such authority is accepted given that it has been the case traditionally. This means that the legitimacy of such an authority exists because people have been accepting it for a long period of time. Such a situation is the authority exercised by Queen Elizabeth of Britain where her position is based on traditional rules for the inheritance of the monarchy succession. In most conditions, people accept the traditional authority based on the fact that they were invested in the past and everyone has an obligation of continuing it. Thus, the one who disseminates the authority does not use force because success mainly depends on the society’s respect (Weber, 1978). In addition, Eisenberg (1998, 84-88) adds that traditional authority has a modern form referred to as Patrimonialism which a domination that is facilitated by military and an administration of purely personal master’s personal instruments. In such as case, an official to for exercising the authority is a personal favourite that is appointed by the ruler but has no rights because their privileges can be augmented or withdrawn based on the leader’s caprices. Authority can also be intertwined with gender, race or class. For instance, in most societies, men have more privileges as compared to women and they find themselves holding roles of authority. In other situations, members of upper-class families may also win respect, for instance, a certain family may have generated prominent leaders. Based on the power of charismatic authority, Weber (1978) state that such an authority is accepted because the personal quality of the leaders draws the followers. A charismatic leader may use authority to make the society to make sacrifices that are unusual or make them to persevere in very great hardships. Politicians use their charismatic authority at times when there are crisis in the society in order to offer radical solutions. Such is the situation that Hitler used to raise in power in Germany during the economic depressions of post-war. Weber adds that such leaders usually hold power for a short time because as they are heroic, they are also likely to be tyrannical. Weber (1978) also referred to rational-legal authority as the power that is made legitimate by written rules and regulations as well as laws. The vesting of power in such a situation follows a particular rationale or system and it might not necessarily be in the person entitled for implementation of the doctrine’s specifics. Such an authority is practice by every nation that adheres to a constitution. In the community level, such authority may be exercised in the place of work through various standards for the employees. Legitimacy of power Legitimacy involves the beliefs of people in regard to a political authority as well as political obligation. Based on his sociology, Weber (1964, 20) stated that for a political regime to be legitimate, it means that the participants or the society requires to have certain faith or believe in regard to the regime. Thus, he adds that the base of every system of authority as well as the corresponding willingness to obey the authority is a belief by virtue of the one who is exercising the authority. Weber differentiates three sources of legitimacy, thus, is understood as both authority acceptances as well as of the need to follow or obey its commands. Such sources include tradition given that the authority has been in existence for a long time, charisma given that people have faith in the rule, and rationality of the law (1978). In contrast to Weber’s concept, Rawls (1993) argues that the concept of political legitimacy involves justification of political power or acceptability benchmark or authority. Legitimacy gives an explanation of why political power is used in a particular body such a government, state or a democratic collective such as is it permissible and why there is a moral duty for obeying its commands. Under such circumstances, if it is not possible to meet the legitimacy conditions, then the exercise of power by the political institutions will be unjustifiable and the produced command may not consist of any obligation to follow or obey. In a narrower view, legitimacy is connected not to creation but the moral justification of political authority. Political bodies, for instance, the states may be effective authorities but not being legitimate. Such institutions claim to the right to rule as well as to create obligations that needs to be obeyed. It is worth noting that as long as such claims are met sufficiently, they are authoritative. In this view, there is a difference in legitimate authority from the effective authority given that it creates political obligations as well as holding the right to rule (Raz 1986). Simmons (2001) provides an opposing view that there is justification of political authority without being legitimate stating that only legitimate authority that give rise to political obligations. Based on another narrow view, legitimate authority is even not enough for creation of political obligations. In regard to this, the thought is based on the argument that a political authority, for instance, a state may be allowed to give commands that their citizens are not obligated to follow or to obey (Dworkin 1986, 191). Thus, an authority that is legitimate will generate a political obligation only if there is a satisfaction of additional normative conditions (Buchanan 2002). Use of the concept of descriptive legitimacy is criticised as it involves neglect of the second order beliefs of the people in regard to legitimacy. That is, their beliefs are not just a particular institution’s actual legitimacy, but also about justifiability of such institution. Thus, power relationship is referred to as illegitimate not because people believe in its legitimacy, but it is due to the fact that it can be justified in regard to the terms of the people’s beliefs (Beetham 1991, 11). There are also critics in regard to the concept of normative legitimacy on the basis that it is being used limitedly in understanding of legitimating actual processes. This is on the grounds that there is more focus on general conditions that are necessary for justification of political institutions while there is neglect in the historical actualisation of the process of justification. Thus, every general theory in regard to justification has remained abstract in a peculiar way in relation to historical form of the domination of legitimacy (Habermas 1979, 205). There are three sources that can be identified for political legitimacy: consent, beneficial consequences, and public reason and democratic approval. Based on a strong voluntary line of thought in regard to the philosophy of Christian politics, consent became one of the main sources of the legitimacy of politics. The works of various philosophers led to creation of the main turning point. This gradually resulted to replacement of the theories of divine authority and natural law (Hampton 1998). Tuck (1993, 193) state that based on the fact that there are various ways of living, the same is the way in which people may make choice in regard to the form of government that they please. It was the theory of social contract that led to the elevation of consent to a level of the main source of the political authority legitimacy. According to Raz (1995, 356), there are three ways in which legitimacy of political authority and consent can be understood. First, the consent of the ones government becomes a necessary legitimacy condition for political authority. Second, the consent cannot be referred directly as a legitimacy condition, but the condition of authority legitimacy is such that it is the political authority that only enjoys the consent of those governed. Finally, the conditions of the authority of the political legitimacy are such that the ones that are governed by such authority are under a consent obligation. The second source of the legitimacy of politics is beneficial consequences. Based on the utilitarian view, the authority of legitimate politics should be based on the utility principle. Such legitimacy conception is usually a moralized concept, that is, the political authority legitimacy depends on what is required in morality. Christian Thomasius may be viewed as a precursor in regard to utilitarian approach to the legitimacy of the politics. This is because, Christian rejected voluntarism and instead, he brought up an idea that the legitimacy of politics depends on the principles of natural prudence. It is in the attempt of Thomasius in identification of source of legitimacy that is neither legal nor moral, but distinctively political. This philosopher led to development of the decorum idea in regard to the theory understanding how people are supposed to interact with others in political context. Thus, he came with the ideas that treating other people the way you would want or expect them to treat you. This was in his foundations of the law of nations and nature. As he differentiated legitimacy from justice and legality, Thomasius took up an approach which was regarded as considerably ahead of time (Schneewind 1998, 160). Bentham rejected the Hobbesian idea that stated that creation of a political authority is by a social contract. Based on his argument, he stated that the possibility of binding contracts is created by the state and he also proposed that the dependency of legitimacy should be based on whether a certain law contributes to the citizen’s happiness (Binmore 2000). When referring to the defence of liberty rights, Mill argues that liberty restriction is illegitimate unless a harm principle allows it. That is, it will be legitimate when the actions that are suppressed by the restriction will harm others. In his view, the instrumental value of democracy is expressed as follows on the basis of liberty: despotism is referred as the government’s mode of dealing with barbarians given that the end will be their improvement and the means are justified by affect that end. Mill also adds that deliberation is important due to his belief that in what is regarded as the power of ideas. This is also referred as the force of argument. Such deliberation would lead to keeping partisan interests which may later lead to threatening of legitimacy through undermining of general happiness. This would lead to a balance that is preserved between the personal interests and more distant and comprehensive views (Ten 1998). The third source of the legitimacy of politics is public reasons as well as democratic approval. An important legacy in regard to the consent theory in modern thought is shown in accounts that attribute to a legitimacy source either to an idea of public reason or theory of democratic approval. Rawls (2001, 41) presents a treatment of the legitimacy of politics based on political liberalism. Rawls makes a combination of the idea of public reason with an account of democratic values. For instance, he answers the question: if in the light of what values and reasons, can citizens exercise legitimately coercive power over one another? He proposes the solutions to the problem which states that political power is only legitimate when it is exercised according to written or unwritten constitution essentials of which every citizen, as rational and as reasonable can approve in the light of the citizen’s human reason. The above conception of legitimacy as expressed by Rawls is also linked to his conception of justice. Based on Rawls, in justice as fairness and also in many other liberal perceptions, the guidelines of the public reason’s inquiry and also its legitimacy principle are in the same grounds as that of the principles of justice. The common ground between legitimacy and justice is formed by the basic idea which underlies the theory of justice for Rawls as fairness and that Rawls sees an implicit in regard to the democratic societies’ political culture. That is, the idea of citizens as equal and free persons, the society as fair cooperation system and the idea of political justification and basic structure. It is worth noting that saying that legitimacy and justice share a common ground in regard to fundamental values does not mean that the two impose the same demands or one of them reduces the other. Rawls rather argues that legitimacy is a weaker idea as compared to justice, thus, specific political institutions as well as decisions made within these institutions may be legitimate but they may not be just (Rawls 1995). Conclusion Power is referred to as the ability to exercise one’s will over other people while authority is the legitimate use of power. There are many theories and approaches to power which explains the relevance of power and authority in politics and society. Some of them include Weber’s theory, Dahl Robert’s community theory and Gidden’s structuration social theory among others. Based on different theories, people use authority and power in the society and in politics in order to carry out their will. Power and authority in the society and politics affect both personal and shapes larger dynamics which include the governments as well as social groups. The government uses power and authority to control its citizens as well as addressing other issues in other countries such as terrorism. Power in the society may also lead to positive change while on the other hand it may lead to other issues such as abuse, exploitation and violence. Authority is the power in which people have agreed to follow. In the political world, people usually listen to the figures in authority because they have a feeling that the individuals are worth to be respected. Authority can be divided into three in regard to legitimization: traditional, charismatic and rational-legal authority. Based on the power of traditional authority, authority is accepted given that it has been the case traditionally. This means that the legitimacy of such an authority exists because people have been accepting it for a long period of time. Based on the power of charismatic, authority is accepted because the personal quality of the leaders draws the followers. On the basis of rational-legal authority, the power is made legitimate by written rules and regulations as well as laws. The three sources that can be identified for political legitimacy include consent, beneficial consequences, and public reason and democratic approval. References Acton, L. 2010. Essays on Freedom and Power. Auburn, AL: Ludwig von Mises Institute. Beetham, D. 1991. The Legitimation of Power. Basingstoke: Palgrave. Binmore, K. 2000. “A Utilitarian Theory of Legitimacy.” In Economics, Values, and Organization, Ben-Ner, Avner and Louis G. Putterman (eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 101–132. Buchanan, A. 2002. “Political Legitimacy and Democracy.” Ethics 112(4): 689–719. Dahl, R. A. 1956. A Preface to Democratic Theory, Chicago: Chicago University Press. Eisenberg, A. 1998. “Weberian Patrimonialism and Imperial Chinese History.” Theory and Society, 27(1):83–102. Giddens, A. 1989. Sociology, Cambridge: Polity. Giddens, A. 1990. The consequences of modernity, Cambridge: Polity Hampton, J. 1998. Political Philosophy. Boulder: Westview Press. Lukes, S. 1987. Perspectives on authority in Pennock, J and Chapman, J (eds), NOMOS XXIX: authority revisited, New York University Press: New York. Mann, M. 1986. The sources of social power, Cambridge: cambridge University press Nordlinger, E. 1981. The autonomy of the democratic state, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press Rawls, L 1993. Political Liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press. Raz, J. 1986. The Morality of Freedom, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Raz, J. 1995. Ethics in the Public Domain: Essays in the Morality of Law and Politics. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Schneewind, J. B. 1998. The Invention of Autonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Simmons, A. J. 2001. Justification and Legitimacy: Essays on Rights and Obligations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Ten, C. L. 1998. “Democracy, Socialism, and the Working Class.” In The Cambridge Companion to Mill, Skorupski, John (ed.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 372–395. Tuck, R. 1993. Philosophy and Government 1572–1651. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Weber 1964. The Theory of Social and Economic Organization, Talcott Parsons (ed.), New York: Free Press Weber, M. 1978. Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology, Berkeley: University of California Press. Read More