Critically Examine The Main Theory Of Power

Chirag Patel

Critically Examine The Main Theory Of Power

A broad distinction can be made between two types of power:

Authority is power that is accepted as legitimate – e.g. the power of Parliament to pass laws in a society where citizens accept the political system.
Coercion is based upon the imposition of power using force, or the threat of force, against people who do not accept it as legitimate.

Weber defines power as the ability of people to get their own way despite the opposition of others. He distinguishes three different types of authority:

Charismatic authority is based upon what are believed to be the special qualities of an individual.
Traditional authority is based upon a belief in the rightness of accepted customs.
Rational-legal authority is based upon the acceptance of an impersonal set of rules, e.g. an exam system or a legal system.

These are ideal types (idealised, pure forms of authority) which in reality will tend to be mixed together.

Lukes (1974) provides an alternative, radical view of power. He sees Weber’s views as being largely based upon decision making (the first face of power). The second face is non-decision making, where some issues are prevented from reaching the point where decisions are made. The third face power is ideological power, where people are persuaded to accept the exercise of power over them even when it is against their interests – e.g. women accepting patriarchal power.

A problem with this definition is determining what is for or against somebody’s interests if it is not base on the opinion of the person concerned.

Parsons argued that all societies require a value consensus based on shared goals.
To Parsons, power is used to achieve collective goals such as material prosperity.
Everybody therefore benefits from the exercise of power (a variable sum view of power). In more conventional views of power, some benefit at the expense of others (a constant sum view of power).
Authority in society is usually accepted as legitimate because it helps to achieve collective goals.

Critics argue that Parsons is wrong to see the exercise of power as benefiting everyone rather than being used to further sectional interests.

Classical pluralists accept a Weberian (constant-sum) definition of power and, unlike Parsons, do not see society as having a value consensus. They accept that there is some agreement in countries such as USA about the basic features of the democratic system, but they believe that industrial society is differentiated into a plurality of social groups and sectional interests.

This is a preview of the whole essay

Divisions are based not only on class, occupation, age, gender, religion and ethnicity, but also on many other specific interests e.g. whether you own a car, pay a mortgage, use public libraries or have children. Societies need to prevent a tyranny of the majority in which a single interest group always outvotes minorities. A number of studies have been used to support pluralist views. They have compared government decisions with the wishes of different interest groups. Classic studies by Dahl (1961) in the USA, and Hewitt (1974) and Grant and Marsh (1977) in the UK appear to show that no one sectional interest gets its own way all the time. The ‘New Labour’ government of Tony Blair can be seen as balancing business interests (e.g. by allowing private involvement in public services) and worker/union interests (e.g. by introducing minimum wage legislation).

There have been many criticisms of classical pluralism:

Marxists argue that pluralists fail to take account of the second face of power. Radical questions such as real redistribution of wealth never reach the point of decision making.
Westergaard and Resler (1976) argue that power should be measured in terms of the consequences of decisions. Despite lots of legislation designed to help the poor, there has been little real redistribution of wealth in Britain.
Some studies – e.g. which of Marsh and Locksley (1983) suggest that business interests have more influence than other groups.
Some promotional groups seem to have very little influence e.g. Hugh Ward (1983) argues that anti-nuclear campaigners have had little success.
Some interests may be unrepresented e.g. the unemployed lack a protective pressure group.

Some classical pluralists now admit that power may not be as equally distributed as the model originally suggested.

Elite Pluralism modifies and tries to improve on classical pluralism. Unlike classical pluralists, elite pluralists believe that there are some inequalities in power; they acknowledge that there are other faces of power and they see elites – the leaders of interest groups – as more influential than ordinary members.

Elite theory divides society into a ruling minority and the majority who are ruled. There are different versions of elite theory. Classical elite theory was developed by the Italians e.g. Pareto (1848-1923) – in opposition to Marxist theory. Pareto emphasised the importance of the psychological characteristics of elites which made them superior to the mass and which allowed them to gain and retain power.

Lions achieve power through incisive action and the use of force.
Foxes rule by cunning.

Elites tend to circulate, with lions being replaced by foxes, and foxes then being replaced by lions, and so on. Pareto can be criticised for simply assuming that elites are superior to the mass, ignoring the importance of wealth, and so on.

Modern elite theories offer more plausible views. C.Wright Mills in the 1950s in the USA argued that there were power elite which had power through holding key positions (command posts) in three institutions:

Major corporations
The military
The federal government

The three elites were connected through intermarriage, movement of individuals between elites, a similar educational background and membership of the same prestige clubs.

As a unified group they were able to exercise power over a divided and passive mass of the population who took little interest in most political issues.

Marxists argue that elite theory neglects the importance of economic power as opposed to the power based on positions held.

Like Elite theory, Marxist theories see power as concentrated in the hands of a minority.
Unlike elite theory, they see it as concentrated in the hands of a ruling class which derives its power from ownership of the means of production.

Marx and Engels argued that the ruling class used their power to exploit subordinate classes.

It was in the interests of the subject classes to overthrow ruling-class power, but the ruling class used the superstructure to try to prevent this.
The states, as part of the superstructure, were used to promote ruling-class interests.
Engels argued that the first societies were primitive communist ones which did not have a state. In primitive communism no surplus was produced, so it was impossible for class power to develop through the accumulation of a surplus. As the purpose of the state is to maintain ruling-class power, no state was needed.
As surplus was produced, wealth was accumulated, classes developed and states were born.
Early states were oppressive (e.g. the use of slavery in ancient Greece and Rome), but democratic states appear to be based on the will of the population.
Engels believes that in democratic states power stays with the ruling class: such states only create the illusion of democracy.
Corruption and the financial power of capitalists are used to shape state policies in capitalist democracies, ensuring that the state continues to further ruling class interests.
In the future communist societies, based on communal ownership of the means of production, the proletariat would temporarily take control of the state to defeat the ruling class. Once this was completed, classes would disappear and the state would ‘wither away’.

Marx and Engels describe the state as ‘but a committee for managing the affair of the whole bourgeoisie’. However, Engels accepted that the state could act independently e.g. when two classes were competing for domination of a society. In some studies Marx showed an awareness of divisions within states e.g. between industrial capitalists and financiers.

To support Marxism Westergaard and Resler (1976) argue that power can be measured in terms of effects rather than decision making. From this point of view, the continued concentration of wealth in the hands of capitalists provides evidence of this group’s power.
Westergaard and Resler argue that reforms such as the introduction of the welfare state, which appear to benefit the working class, have left the basic structures of inequality unchanged.
Sociologists such as Urry (1973) put forward evidence of non-decision making e.g. the way in which issues such as replacing capitalism are never considered.
Marxists put forward evidence that ruling class ideology makes use of the third (ideological) face of power to support its position.

Marxist views can be criticised:

For failing to explain why the state did not wither away in communist societies such as the Soviet Union.
For exaggerating the importance of economic power.
For failing to consider other possible sources of power.

Neo-Marxist views retain elements of Marxist theory but diverge from orthodox Marxism in a number of ways:

Gramsci (1891-1937) argued against economic determinism (the theory that the economy determined other aspects of society).
He believed that the superstructure could influence the economic infrastructure as well as vice versa.
He divided the superstructure into political society (essentially the state) and civil society (private institutions).
To keep control over civil society, the ruling class needed to achieve hegemony, or domination, by gaining the consent of the mass of the population.
To legitimate their role, the ruling class might need to make concessions to win the support of other classes or class factions.
Different sections of the capitalist class needed to be united.
Ruling class hegemony was never complete or total. A continuing process was needed to develop and maintain support and legitimate their position.
An alliance of groups which dominated society was called a historic bloc.
Opposition was always likely because people possessed dual consciousness. The experience of exploitation and oppression (e.g. at work) tended to make people radical, whereas the ideology promoted by the ruling class tended to make them more conservative.
Control over ideas was an important in maintaining or overthrowing ruling class hegemony as was control over the economy.
Many individuals are critical of the power of the rich.
Groups such as trade unions have some genuine power to change government policy.
To maintain hegemony, governments have to make some real concessions to the working class, and they have to try to incorporate class factions (e.g. the petty bourgeoisie) outside the ruling class.

Neo-Marxist views avoid the mistake of seeing wealth as the only source of power. However, they provide a clearly theory about the nature of power and do not clearly explain which non-economic factors sometimes take on more importance.

All the previous theories can be seen as society-centred: they examine the way in which society shapes the actions of the state.

State centred theories see the state as an independent actor, able to exercise power in its own right and pursue its own interests.

Skocpol (1985) argues that states have considerable autonomy, and their primary aim may be to increase their own power. They have administrative control over territory, the ability to raise taxes and the ability to recruit talented people to work for them.

States such as the communist regimes in China and Russia, and the Napoleonic regime in France, demonstrate the considerable power that states can possess.

Critics argue that such approaches may exaggerate state power. They also point out that some supposedly society-centred approaches recognise that the state has some independent power.