Sociological Theories of Power
Dowse and Hughes suggest that politics arises when there are differentials in power. Thus, any social relationship involving power differentials is political. Authority is a form of power accepted as legitimate - right and just - and therefore obeyed on that basis. Coercion, on the other hand, is a form of power not regarded as legitimate by those subject to it.
Weber defines power as the chance of a person or a group to realize their will in a communal action even against the resistance of others participating in the action. This is a constant-sum concept of power, implying that power-holders use it to further their own interests. He proposed three sources of authority:
Authority may stem from two or more sources, and a perfect example of any single type is unlikely.
Steven Lukes presents a radical view of power, suggesting three dimensions or faces:
Functionalist Perspective:
Parsons assumes that value consensus is essential for social system survival. Shared values derive collective goals, e.g., materialism leading to economic expansion and higher living standards. Power is generally used to further collective goals, benefiting both sides of the power relationship, fostering cooperation and reciprocity crucial for societal maintenance and well-being.
Parsons regards power differentials as necessary for effective pursuit of collective goals. Cooperation requires organization and direction, necessitating positions of command. Thus, some are granted power to direct others, seen as legitimate as it furthers collective goals.
In a democracy, political support is akin to a generalized grant of power, putting elected leadership in a position analogous to a centralized authority. Ultimately, power resides with society as a whole.
Critique:
Parsons fails to recognize power's frequent use to further sectional interests rather than benefiting society. His theory resembles rationalizations promoted by power-holders to justify their use of power.
Liberal Perspective:
The liberal theory of power traces back to social contract theorists like Hobbes and Locke. Society arises from voluntary agreement recognizing establishment of sovereign power as an arbiter protecting each citizen from fellow citizens' encroachment. The state is neutral, acting in the interests of society, with power dispersed among various social groups rather than an elite ruling class.
Pluralist theory elaborates this view, arguing that political power is decentralized, diffused, and shared among multiple groups, with competition between them being essential for representative government. Interest groups influence government decision-making, ensuring rough equality among organized groups and interests, fostering democracy.
The state, according to pluralists, represents institutionalized power, acting as the supreme guardian of representative democracy, balancing interests of competing groups, and coordinating major institutions.
Critique:
Pluralists focus only on the first face of power - decision-making - ignoring power's role in preventing certain issues from being decided or manipulating majority preferences. They overlook how preferences may be manipulated by those with real power and how some interest groups have more influence than others.
Elite Pluralism:
This theory views Western societies as fundamentally democratic, with power dispersed among various groups. However, it recognizes that not all members have equal power, with some interests temporarily unrepresented. Critics doubt the widespread dispersion of power suggested by pluralists.
Elite Perspective:
This perspective sees power monopolized by a small minority, the ruling elite, who exercise power through the state, while the majority is ruled. It believes elite rule is inevitable, based on the superior personal qualities of elite members.
Critique:
Critics doubt the superiority of elites and their ability to represent common interests. They overlook power's role in influencing the wishes of others and the possibility of elite monopolization and manipulation of power.
Marxist Perspective:
Marxists see power concentrated in the hands of the ruling class, used to further their interests through coercion and exploitation. Economic control forms the basis of power, with the state reflecting and serving ruling-class interests. They believe the state will wither away in a communist society, where power is more equally distributed.
Critique:
Marxists fail to explain why the state strengthens rather than withering away in communist countries. They overlook sources of power beyond wealth and fail to address other forms of oppression like gender-based power dynamics.
Neo-Marxist Perspective:
Neo-Marxists like Gramsci and Althusser argue that economic infrastructure doesn't wholly determine societal superstructure. They emphasize the role of ideas and institutions in maintaining ruling-class hegemony. The state is seen as relatively autonomous but still serving ruling-class interests, maintaining capitalist stability.
Critique:
Critics challenge the theory's structural determinism and lack of empirical evidence. They question the role of institutions like the family in the state and the theory of state autonomy.
State-Centered Theories:
These theories focus on the state's role in power dynamics. They suggest that states have considerable autonomy and capacity to pursue their interests, independent of societal pressures. Foucault highlights the link between power and knowledge, emphasizing power's exercise in contexts of freedom.
Critique:
Critics challenge state-centered theories' view of power's exercise, questioning the state's autonomy and the role of other societal institutions in power dynamics.