'Today's authority is the site of yesterdays struggle for power' (Barbara Goodwin). Explain and discuss.

‘Today’s authority is the site of yesterdays struggle for power’ (Barbara Goodwin). Explain and discuss.

It has been argued that power and authority are both very similar in essence as they both involve control or manipulation. “Power is the ability to influence the behaviour of others” (Politics, Heywood A., pg 5) whereas authority is the right to do so. The question is simply whether past events and previous use of power have caused any effects on today’s politics.

In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries the ‘contract theorists’ introduced the social contract theory. They believed that a contract is made by each member of the public to follow the authority of a state. This contract in return gives them the right to reject any government if they desire. In theory this social contract designates power to the government so that it can have authority over the nation. Thomas Hobbes a 17th-century English philosopher talked about the state of nature, which is basically the way society, would have developed and the ways we would behave without the rules and regulations of the government. Hobbes described society as ‘A continual war of all against all’, he believes that huge conflict would arise without a government, or some sort of authority. Further he illustrates that “In such a condition there is no place for Industry, …,and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; And the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.” In such an instance there would be no such thing as justice (Wikipedia, the free encyclopaedia). A mother could murder her child and not be prosecuted in any form. Hobbs believed there would have to be law, and an institution to enforce law in order for there to be justice. So if a crime was to be committed it would be fair because there are no laws. Hobbes is illustrating that society needs the government to act as an authority over the nation otherwise there would be complete chaos.

Revolutions can and have occurred within political systems, yet this is a very dramatic form of political change. Revolution is the overthrow and replacement of a system or government. The earliest revolutions began in the fourteenth century, however these were seen as ‘to revolve’, because they were more of a cyclical change (Political Theory An Introduction, Heywood, A) than a revolution. For example the American Revolution saw America go through dramatic changes, which led to independence and a new constitution. Nevertheless the Islamic revolution of 1979 contradicts the view that ‘today’s authority is the site of yesterday’s struggle for ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

The distribution of power has been interpreted in a number of ways. Firstly there is the power elite. This is where one small group holds all of the power or authority over everybody else. Corporatism is the incorporating organised interests into the processes of government, there are two types; authoritarian, associated with Italian fascism and destruction of trade unions, and secondly liberal corporatism; privileged access to policy formulation. Pluralism is another type of distribution of power. It is a belief in, or a commitment to, diversity or multiplicity (Politics, Heywood A.). This view can be broad or narrow, broadly it promotes argument and understanding, and narrowly it believes that power is not concentrated in the hands of the elite, and believes in group politics. Overall these forms of power distribution show that there is not just one single form of power and authority, nor one single meaning. It is therefore very difficult to answer the above question if the definitions for power distributions are unclear.

Power can be seen as the ability to affect the behaviour of an individual, this means that power involves being ‘pulled’ or ‘pushed’ against one’s will. (Political theory an introduction, Heywood, A.) Robert Dahl studied power, and was heavily critical of a ‘ruling elite’. He argues that power develops through reputation. Dahl had three criterias that needed to be fulfilled before a ‘ruling elite’ could be determined. First of all they had to be a well-defined group, as well as having a key decision power and preferences over other groups, and finally they must regularly prevail over other groups. It can be noted that Dahl’s view of power is about getting things done, which is reflected in decision making. Dahl believed that the distribution of power is a science, which he believed could be studied. The method of study was to select a number of ‘key’ decision making areas; identify the actors involved and discover their preferences; and, finally, analyse the decisions made and compare these with the known preferences of the actors. (Political theory an introduction, Heywood, A.). Dahl’s method of thinking and the type of study he used was greatly adopted by American sociologists throughout the 1950s and 1960s. The most famous study of this kind was actually by Dahl himself. He analysed the distribution of power in New Haven (Who Governs, 1963), focusing on local communities. Dahl claimed to have found evidence that different elite groups determined policy in different issue areas, ruling out any idea of a permanent elite. He concluded, “New Haven is an example of a democratic system”. Dahl research in New Heaven illustrates that there has never been a struggle for power, as the community does not want a power of authority. However Dahl has been criticised, as he solely concentrated exclusively on decision making, which means that only one side of power could have been analysed, and therefore the area of non-decision making would have been ignored.

Steven Lukes (1974) has suggested a theory that there are three faces of power (A Radical View' in Power). The first face or dimension is the 'decision making'; Lukes believed power involved making decisions over issues where different individuals or groups express different policy preferences. An example of this in practise would be the government proposing laws; it would be highly debated amongst politicians, however eventually the bill may become an Act. In this decision making process, power lies in the Government, and any groups of opposition would have to accept the outcome. The second face of power would be non-decision making. An example of Lukes' second dimension of power being used could be if a teacher decided to give the choice to the pupils of whether or not they should do homework. The pupils will believe that they have power, but in reality they haven't since the teacher still remains in total control. (Politics, Thompson, P.) This type of power is known as 'power behind closed doors', and the individuals or groups stay in control by limiting the amount of decisions that are possible for the person to make, leaving themselves in control. The third face of Lukes' view on power is about manipulation by the people in authority. Lukes’ believes that people in positions of power have the ability to shape and manipulate desires of different social groups. People can be manipulated into believing something is better for them, when it really is not, or the other way around. For example a powerful group wants to veto a particular policy, even though the majority of people stand to benefit from this policy, yet the powerful group would then manipulate public opinion and succeed in persuading most people that they should oppose a policy that would benefit them. Lukes’ faces of power show a negative side to power, legitimacy and obligation. These three faces show power and authority to be manipulative and deceiving and it clearly demonstrates that those in authority have hidden agendas.

In conclusion the quote ‘today’s authority is the site of yesterday’s struggle for power’ is true but only to a certain extent. The contract theorist’s view of power shows that the mass population of a community have always wanted authority, and in such an instance then YES today’s authority is the site of yesterday’s struggle for power. Examples such as the American Revolution and the ‘Great Revolution’ clearly demonstrate that struggles for power lead the way to authoritarian system. The question is what would America look like today if that revolution had not of taken place? Many struggles have taken place over power, within America there have been many smaller revolutions for power, for example the African Americans have fought for equal rights, which has allowed the way for some African Americans to have important political employment and more. Dahl on the other hand disagreed and found the above statement to be incorrect, as he believed that communities can be equally democratic; however his research did receive large of criticism, and thus his theories do not hold as much ground. Finally Lukes’ three faces of power show a more negative side to power and people in authority. Lukes’ talks of deceit, manipulation and lies, in his eyes, those in power are deceiving the state.