SOCIOLOGY - POLITICS AND SOCIETY
Concept of Power
Power implies the ability of an individual or a group to influence or change the behavior of other individuals
or groups. Weber define power as the chance of a man are a number of men to realize their own will even
against the resistance of others who are participating in the action. “Power may be defined as the capacity
of an individual, or group of individuals, to modify the conduct of other individuals or groups in a manner
in which he desires, and to prevent his conduct being modified in the manner in which he does not”.
Power and Authority
When power acquires legitimacy or justification it is understood as authority. Authority receives voluntary
obedience. A person who has authority may exercise command or control over other persons. Take the
example of a senior bureaucrat who assigns tasks to his/her subordinates and may even transfer some of
them to another city. This is because, the bureaucrat has the authority to do it by virtue of his/her position
and status in the government machinery. In formal organizations authority is clearly specified, and
dispensed through rules and laws, of the organizations. Power may, therefore, be executed in formal
organizations as institutionalized authority and as institutionalized power in informal organizations.
Power and Prestige
E.A. Ross (1916) drew attention to prestige as the immediate cause of the location of power. It was said that
the class which has more prestige will have most power. Prestige, therefore, is an important source of
power. It is not appropriate to associate prestige with power because prestige is usually not accompanied
with power. In itself power becomes the basis of prestige i.e., when a person has power, he / she has prestige
but when a person has prestige, he / she may not have power.
Power and Influence
Power commands obedience and submission; influence is persuasive rather than coercive. Power calls
for intended control, which is usually executed through sanctions while influence does not involve the use
of sanctions or punishment. Influence, is not essentially accompanied with power. Newton, for example
was a man of influence but not power. A policeman may have power but not influence. In the same vein,
the Prime Minister of the country is a person with both power and influence.
Power and Dominance
Power exists and expresses itself in inter-group relations. It is associated with status that people occupy in
formal organizations while dominance is associated with one’s personality and may be treated as a
psychological concept. Power, on the other hand, is associated with the structure of society itself and may
be treated as a sociological concept (Bierstadt, 1982).
,Sociological Theories of Power
Karl Marx:
Karl Marx: Class and Power
Marx (1954, 1955) is known for his conception of class and class struggle. More specifically, he identifies
two classes: the bourgeoisie (or the ruling class) and the proletariat (or the working class) in the capitalist
society. He says that the bourgeoisie rules and commands obedience from the proletariat.
Marx does not give a clear definition of power, for him, power means coercion. Marx views power to be held
by a particular group in society at the expense of the rest of the society. According to him the source of
power in society lies in economic infrastructure and those who own the modes of production i.e. the
dominant group uses power to further its own interest and there by exploiting those who subject to power.
The relationship between the two classes is one of exploitation in which the ruling class gains at the
expense of the wage laborer’s constituting the proletariat.
Marx argues that although from time to time dominant classes do have to resort to naked force to maintain
their power and supremacy, the absence of such obvious coercion should not be taken to signify an absence
of exploitation. Lack of naked oppression does not mean that domination is not taking place. It is only that
the dominated are unaware of their condition, because of the effectiveness of the ideologies into which
they have been socialized.
Dominance and Subordination
In terms of Marxian theory, the relationship of dominance and subordination in the infrastructure is justified
and legalized by the super structure. For example, in capitalist society the unequal relationship between
employees and employers will be reflected and legitimated in the legal system.
Marx views power as to be held by a particular group (dominant class) in society at the expense of the rest
of the society (subordinate class). This is a constant sum concept of power since a net gain in the power
of the dominant group represents a net loss in the power of the next society.
For Marx the source of power in society lies in the economic infrastructure. The basis of dominance or
power is the ownership of forces of production.
The only way to return power to the people is communal ownership of the forces of production. Since
everyone will now share the same relationship to the forces of production, power will be shared by all
members of society. Here Marx's concepts of false consciousness and class-consciousness are of
importance. When the subordinate class subscribe to dominant ideologies which obscure the real nature of
class society from their gaze, their picture of the world and their place in it is false. When the exploited
,class realizes their exploited status and start recognizing themselves to belonging to the same class, there
originates class consciousness among them. It is the emergence of a class consciousness by a subordinate
class that is the key which unlocks the revolution which overthrows the existing power structure of the
society to replace it with one which suits to the new economic arrangements.
Engels believed the state was necessary to ‘hold class antagonism in check’. The exploited majority had
to be held down to prevent them from asserting their interests and threatening the position of the ruling
class. The simplest way the state could control the subject class was through the use of force or coercion,
and the police, the prisons and the army were seen as state-run institutions used to repress the exploited
members of society. Engels described ‘democracy’ as the ‘highest form of state’ as all members of the
society appear to have equal political power, which was just an illusion. Marx and Engels did not believe
that the state would be a permanent feature of society. Also, Engels pointed out that in some monarchies of
17th and 18th century Europe, the landowning aristocracy and the rising bourgeoisie were in opposition to
each other and both were equally powerful. In this situation, the state could take an independent line, since
the warring classes effectively cancelled each other out.
Ralph Miliband saw the state as being run by a number of elites who ran the central institutions - these
included the cabinet ministers, MPs, senior police and military officers and top judges. Together they acted
largely to defend the bourgeoisie. All elites shared a basic interest in the preservation of capitalism and the
defense of private property. Many who occupy elite positions are themselves members of the bourgeoisie.
The other elites will also tend to come from a similar background as the bourgeoisie and share a similar
outlook and follow policies which support bourgeois interests. Even those from working-class backgrounds
who make it into the elite will have to have adopted bourgeois values to get there.
He also observes that the economic power of the ruling class enabled them partly to shape the beliefs and
wishes of the remainder of the population. This took place through the process of legitimation, which
indoctrinated the public into the acceptance of capitalism. In particular, advertising is used to promote
consumerism and PR is used to promote the view that the major concern of big business is public service
and welfare of the community.
Gramsci believes that the working class does have some power to influence the actions of the state.
Evidence to support Marxism:
The effects of decisions – Vestergaard and Resler argued that power can only be measured by its results. If
scarce and valued resources are concentrated in the hands of a minority, that group largely monopolizes
power in society
, Concessions to the working class - it has been seen that the reforms have left the basic structure of
inequality unchanged, and there has been little redistribution of wealth. Measures have only served
to defuse working-class protest and prevent it from developing in more radical direction.
Non-decision making - John Urry, in criticizing Dahl argues that he ignores the process by which
certain issues come to be defined as decisions and others do not. Only safe decisions, that do not, in
any fundamental way, challenge the dominant position of the bourgeoisie, are allowed.
Ideology - Westergaard and Resler argued that ruling-class ideology promotes the view that private
property, profit, the mechanisms of a market economy and the inequalities which result are
reasonable, legitimate, normal and natural. False class consciousness among the working class has
been produced by this. Policies are justified using the underlying assumption that the interests of
capitalists are the same as the interests of the population as a whole.
Critique of Marxism:
It could not explain why the state became stronger rather than wither away in communist countries.
Marxists fail to take account of the possibility that there are sources of power other than wealth.
Catherine Mackinnon sees the state as reflecting male power rather than the power of capitalists.
Anthony H. Birch suggests that Marxist evidence shows only that ‘the perceived need to maintain
economic growth places serious constrains on govt policy’
However, many see economic growth as important, and it is plausible to claim that most of the
population benefit from rising living standards.
Neo - Marxist Perspective:
Antonio Gramsci did not believe that the economic infrastructure determined to any great degree what
occurred in the superstructure of society. He talked of ‘reciprocity b/w structure and superstructure’,
although the infrastructure could affect what took place in the superstructure, the reverse was also possible.
He divided the superstructure of society into two parts - political society and civil society. Political society
was primarily concerned with the use of force by the army, police and legal system to repress troublesome
elements within the population. Civil society consisted of those institutions normally thought of as private,
particularly the Church, trade unions, mass media and political parties.
Gramsci claimed ‘the state = political society + civil society’.
If the ruling class maintained its control by gaining the approval and consent of members of society, thus it
had achieved what Gramsci called hegemony (domination). Here, he stressed the importance of ideas in
society.
Concept of Power
Power implies the ability of an individual or a group to influence or change the behavior of other individuals
or groups. Weber define power as the chance of a man are a number of men to realize their own will even
against the resistance of others who are participating in the action. “Power may be defined as the capacity
of an individual, or group of individuals, to modify the conduct of other individuals or groups in a manner
in which he desires, and to prevent his conduct being modified in the manner in which he does not”.
Power and Authority
When power acquires legitimacy or justification it is understood as authority. Authority receives voluntary
obedience. A person who has authority may exercise command or control over other persons. Take the
example of a senior bureaucrat who assigns tasks to his/her subordinates and may even transfer some of
them to another city. This is because, the bureaucrat has the authority to do it by virtue of his/her position
and status in the government machinery. In formal organizations authority is clearly specified, and
dispensed through rules and laws, of the organizations. Power may, therefore, be executed in formal
organizations as institutionalized authority and as institutionalized power in informal organizations.
Power and Prestige
E.A. Ross (1916) drew attention to prestige as the immediate cause of the location of power. It was said that
the class which has more prestige will have most power. Prestige, therefore, is an important source of
power. It is not appropriate to associate prestige with power because prestige is usually not accompanied
with power. In itself power becomes the basis of prestige i.e., when a person has power, he / she has prestige
but when a person has prestige, he / she may not have power.
Power and Influence
Power commands obedience and submission; influence is persuasive rather than coercive. Power calls
for intended control, which is usually executed through sanctions while influence does not involve the use
of sanctions or punishment. Influence, is not essentially accompanied with power. Newton, for example
was a man of influence but not power. A policeman may have power but not influence. In the same vein,
the Prime Minister of the country is a person with both power and influence.
Power and Dominance
Power exists and expresses itself in inter-group relations. It is associated with status that people occupy in
formal organizations while dominance is associated with one’s personality and may be treated as a
psychological concept. Power, on the other hand, is associated with the structure of society itself and may
be treated as a sociological concept (Bierstadt, 1982).
,Sociological Theories of Power
Karl Marx:
Karl Marx: Class and Power
Marx (1954, 1955) is known for his conception of class and class struggle. More specifically, he identifies
two classes: the bourgeoisie (or the ruling class) and the proletariat (or the working class) in the capitalist
society. He says that the bourgeoisie rules and commands obedience from the proletariat.
Marx does not give a clear definition of power, for him, power means coercion. Marx views power to be held
by a particular group in society at the expense of the rest of the society. According to him the source of
power in society lies in economic infrastructure and those who own the modes of production i.e. the
dominant group uses power to further its own interest and there by exploiting those who subject to power.
The relationship between the two classes is one of exploitation in which the ruling class gains at the
expense of the wage laborer’s constituting the proletariat.
Marx argues that although from time to time dominant classes do have to resort to naked force to maintain
their power and supremacy, the absence of such obvious coercion should not be taken to signify an absence
of exploitation. Lack of naked oppression does not mean that domination is not taking place. It is only that
the dominated are unaware of their condition, because of the effectiveness of the ideologies into which
they have been socialized.
Dominance and Subordination
In terms of Marxian theory, the relationship of dominance and subordination in the infrastructure is justified
and legalized by the super structure. For example, in capitalist society the unequal relationship between
employees and employers will be reflected and legitimated in the legal system.
Marx views power as to be held by a particular group (dominant class) in society at the expense of the rest
of the society (subordinate class). This is a constant sum concept of power since a net gain in the power
of the dominant group represents a net loss in the power of the next society.
For Marx the source of power in society lies in the economic infrastructure. The basis of dominance or
power is the ownership of forces of production.
The only way to return power to the people is communal ownership of the forces of production. Since
everyone will now share the same relationship to the forces of production, power will be shared by all
members of society. Here Marx's concepts of false consciousness and class-consciousness are of
importance. When the subordinate class subscribe to dominant ideologies which obscure the real nature of
class society from their gaze, their picture of the world and their place in it is false. When the exploited
,class realizes their exploited status and start recognizing themselves to belonging to the same class, there
originates class consciousness among them. It is the emergence of a class consciousness by a subordinate
class that is the key which unlocks the revolution which overthrows the existing power structure of the
society to replace it with one which suits to the new economic arrangements.
Engels believed the state was necessary to ‘hold class antagonism in check’. The exploited majority had
to be held down to prevent them from asserting their interests and threatening the position of the ruling
class. The simplest way the state could control the subject class was through the use of force or coercion,
and the police, the prisons and the army were seen as state-run institutions used to repress the exploited
members of society. Engels described ‘democracy’ as the ‘highest form of state’ as all members of the
society appear to have equal political power, which was just an illusion. Marx and Engels did not believe
that the state would be a permanent feature of society. Also, Engels pointed out that in some monarchies of
17th and 18th century Europe, the landowning aristocracy and the rising bourgeoisie were in opposition to
each other and both were equally powerful. In this situation, the state could take an independent line, since
the warring classes effectively cancelled each other out.
Ralph Miliband saw the state as being run by a number of elites who ran the central institutions - these
included the cabinet ministers, MPs, senior police and military officers and top judges. Together they acted
largely to defend the bourgeoisie. All elites shared a basic interest in the preservation of capitalism and the
defense of private property. Many who occupy elite positions are themselves members of the bourgeoisie.
The other elites will also tend to come from a similar background as the bourgeoisie and share a similar
outlook and follow policies which support bourgeois interests. Even those from working-class backgrounds
who make it into the elite will have to have adopted bourgeois values to get there.
He also observes that the economic power of the ruling class enabled them partly to shape the beliefs and
wishes of the remainder of the population. This took place through the process of legitimation, which
indoctrinated the public into the acceptance of capitalism. In particular, advertising is used to promote
consumerism and PR is used to promote the view that the major concern of big business is public service
and welfare of the community.
Gramsci believes that the working class does have some power to influence the actions of the state.
Evidence to support Marxism:
The effects of decisions – Vestergaard and Resler argued that power can only be measured by its results. If
scarce and valued resources are concentrated in the hands of a minority, that group largely monopolizes
power in society
, Concessions to the working class - it has been seen that the reforms have left the basic structure of
inequality unchanged, and there has been little redistribution of wealth. Measures have only served
to defuse working-class protest and prevent it from developing in more radical direction.
Non-decision making - John Urry, in criticizing Dahl argues that he ignores the process by which
certain issues come to be defined as decisions and others do not. Only safe decisions, that do not, in
any fundamental way, challenge the dominant position of the bourgeoisie, are allowed.
Ideology - Westergaard and Resler argued that ruling-class ideology promotes the view that private
property, profit, the mechanisms of a market economy and the inequalities which result are
reasonable, legitimate, normal and natural. False class consciousness among the working class has
been produced by this. Policies are justified using the underlying assumption that the interests of
capitalists are the same as the interests of the population as a whole.
Critique of Marxism:
It could not explain why the state became stronger rather than wither away in communist countries.
Marxists fail to take account of the possibility that there are sources of power other than wealth.
Catherine Mackinnon sees the state as reflecting male power rather than the power of capitalists.
Anthony H. Birch suggests that Marxist evidence shows only that ‘the perceived need to maintain
economic growth places serious constrains on govt policy’
However, many see economic growth as important, and it is plausible to claim that most of the
population benefit from rising living standards.
Neo - Marxist Perspective:
Antonio Gramsci did not believe that the economic infrastructure determined to any great degree what
occurred in the superstructure of society. He talked of ‘reciprocity b/w structure and superstructure’,
although the infrastructure could affect what took place in the superstructure, the reverse was also possible.
He divided the superstructure of society into two parts - political society and civil society. Political society
was primarily concerned with the use of force by the army, police and legal system to repress troublesome
elements within the population. Civil society consisted of those institutions normally thought of as private,
particularly the Church, trade unions, mass media and political parties.
Gramsci claimed ‘the state = political society + civil society’.
If the ruling class maintained its control by gaining the approval and consent of members of society, thus it
had achieved what Gramsci called hegemony (domination). Here, he stressed the importance of ideas in
society.
