What is power

Weber’s definition of power

Weber’s definition of power in society has remained the starting point for many sociologists. He defined power as being:

“the ability of an individual or group to achieve their own goals or aims when others are trying to prevent them from realising them”

From this Weber identified power as being either authoritative or coercive. Authoritative power is exercising power which is seen as legitimate. By being legitimate it is effective because those who are subject to the power do so with consent. In contrast coercion is where someone exercises power through force – you’re forcing someone to do something against their wishes.

In contrast authoritative power isn’t coercive and Weber argues it manifests itself in three forms

Charismatic authority – this type of authoritative power is based on ‘charisma’ – for example the personal qualities an individual has in order to influence a group or person.

Traditional authority – this form of authoritative power comes from established customs passing power down on a hereditary basis  – for example British monarchy

Rational-legal authority – this form of authoritative power comes from certain groups having certain positions of power over  subordinate groups – for example a policeman telling you to move

Stephen Lukes’ perspective on power

Though Weber’s definition is accepted by many sociologists as their starting point in understanding power in society, many sociologists thought it was too narrow a definition. In 1974 Stephen Lukes’ put forward his ‘radical’ view of power.

Lukes perspective of power

According to Stephen Lukes there are three faces of power rather than one which is explained in accessible detail when applied to the family.

1.THE FIRST FACE OF POWER: SUCCESS IN DECISION MAKING

Pluralists have adopted this approach. Pluralist theories argue that power can be seen from the outcome of a decision making process. Whoever gets their way has all the power!

Example, A has power over B to the extent that he can get B to do something that B would not otherwise do.

Foucault and discourse

All the previous theories of the state are known as structural theories because it sees people as being controlled or determined by external structures; individual’s behaviour being determined by patriarchy (feminism) or ruling-class (Marxism).

In contrast to these ideas come post-structural theories of power (after structure) which have a variable-sum approach to power. Michael Foucault argued power doesn’t operate through structures but discourses. Foucault’s concept of discourse is best understood as the are ‘the way we talk about something’.

What Foucault argued was the words or phrases we use to construct these discourses originate from knowledge. This knowledge comes from dominant social figures such as judges, doctors, social workers, psychiatrists etc., who have the knowledge and subsequent authority to establish ‘conversations’ about a social issue.

For example are the poor people with problems or people who are a problem? Our established conversations about the poor are dominated by established knowledge of poor people being ‘feckless’ or ‘undeserving’ or ‘ lazy scroungers’ – these words or phrases create an established discourse regarding ‘the poor’ as being a problem. In other words, as discourse is the established ‘way of talking about the poor’ as being a problem and punitive social policies are implemented which reinforce this.

However if the established discourse was the poor are people with problems, then ‘kinder’ social policies would be implemented to help the poor as they have problems.

New Social Movements, are movements because they try to establish a new discourse or a ‘new’ way of talking about something. For example environmental movements like Greenpeace are trying to establish a discourse which places environmental issues first and foremost. Therefore when politicians discuss expanding the economy, the issue of what such an expansion would have on the environment must come first and foremost.

At times discourse and ideology seem to tread very similar paths. Yet whereas ideology is associated with a ruling group deliberately creating a false consciousness (a false truth)  in order to emasculate people. Discourses in contrast develop from knowledge and one discourse is no ‘truer’ than any other, as discourses are in constant battles of dominance. And this idea of dominance is critical, Foucault argues no one thing ever dominates, there are always endless opportunities for resistance, which is less likely than with Lukes’ ideas.

One example of Foucault’s concept of resistance is Ken Hinds. From being arrested by the Metropolitan Police using stop and search laws, he has been active in try to establish a new discourse on the use of stop and search. This process of resistance is less likely under Lukes’ fixed-sum approach to the concept of power.

Article Credit : http://sociologytwynham.com/