ADVERTISEMENTS:
In this article we will discuss about the analysis of social power.
Introduction to Social Power:
It is difficult to analyze the nature of social power for the simple reason that it cannot be perceived by senses. Indeed, we feel the existence of this power at all levels. The consequences that flow from the application of power are also evident. But it is not possible to define in precise terms the meaning of social power.
In this respect, it is comparable to electricity. There is no definition which can adequately bring out the essence of electricity. It has been described as ‘a fundamental entity of nature’. Its outward expression can be seen in the form of light, heat and motion.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
We are familiar with these outward manifestations, but not with electricity. Likewise, social power is an immanent feature of society. We can experience its outward manifestations in the form of order, force and authority, but not the phenomenon itself.
In all walks of life, such as educational institutions, family relationships, playfields, social groups and associations, power is expressed in one of these three forms. In fact, it is difficult to find any social relationships which are not in some way influenced by social power.
The only exception we can think of relates to what Simmel characterised as ‘polite acquaintance’. When, for instance, we meet somebody in a wedding reception for a very brief period, the social encounter does not apparently bear any trace of power. It will, therefore, not be an exaggeration to say that social power is a fundamental entity of society.
Max Weber’s views on Power: A Constant-sum View:
Max Weber defined power as “the chance of a man or a number of men to realize their own will in a communal action even against the resistance of others who are participating in the action”. Defined thus, power is, therefore, power over others and, as such, power is an aspect of social relationships.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Nobody can hold power in isolation. “This is a very broad definition of power since it enters into every aspect of social life. It extends from parents assigning domestic chores to their children to teachers enforcing discipline in the classroom, from a manager organising his workforce to a political party enacting legislation. In each case, an individual or group have power to the degree to which others comply with their will. Many sociologists argue that ‘political sociology’ is the study of power in its broadest sense”.
Weber’s definition of power represents a view which is sometimes known as a ‘constant-sum’ concept of power. The reason is that according to Weber’s definition those who hold power do so at the expense of others. If some hold power, others do not. The underlying assumption is that the amount of power is constant.
Views of Talcott Parsons: A Variable-sum Approach to Power:
Talcott Parsons, on the other hand, rejects the ‘constant-sum’ view of power. In his view, power does belong to an individual or a group but to the society as whole. This social power is utilized or employed for the attainment of goals of the society, for the furtherance of collective interests.
The power of the society is, thus, contingent upon the efficiency of the society in achieving its goals. The greater the efficiency, the greater is the power and vice versa. This view is sometimes known as a ‘variable-sum’ concept of power inasmuch as power is not constant or fixed, but variable in the sense that it may increase or decrease.
Parsons’ views on power are developed from his general theory of society. He assumes that consensus among members of society with regard to values is essential for social stability. The next step is to have common goals which they all share. The power of the social system lies in the extent to which the society is able to realise these goals.
The more able a society is to realise these goals, the greater is the power that resides in the social system. Parsons also assumes that seine goals are shared by the collectivity, the power of the society will be used toward the furtherance of the interest of the collectivity and not toward the furtherance of sectional interests.
Parsons’ analysis of the basis of political power in Western democracies provides a typical illustration of his views on the nature of power. ‘Political support’, he says, “should be conceived of as a generalized grant of power which, if it leads to electoral success, puts elected leadership in a position analogous to a banker. The ‘deposits’ of power made by constituents are revocable, if not at will, at the next election”.
Just as money is deposited in the bank, members of society deposit power in political leaders. Just as the depositor can withdraw his money from the bank, so the electorate can withdraw its grant of power from political leaders at the next election.
In this sense power resides ultimately with members of society as a whole. Finally, just as money generates interest for the depositor, so grants of power generate benefits for the electorate since they are used primarily to further collective goals.. In this way power in society can increase.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
Parson’s views on the nature and application of power have been criticised.
First, Parsons simply translates into sociological jargon the arguments which the holders of power in society advance by way of justifying their use and enjoyment of power.
Second, Parsons has failed to appreciate that power may not always be applied in furtherance of collective interest.
That power is not infrequently used in furtherance of sectional interest is common knowledge. Marxiasn analysis of power, emphasises this aspect.
A Marxian Perspective on Power:
The view that power is a social resource held in trust and applied by those in authority is rejected by Marxist writers. They argue that power is held by a particular group to the exclusion of all others, and applied by this group in furtherance of their class or sectional interest which may conflict with the interests of those who are subject to power.
Marxian concept of power is, thus, a ‘constant-sum’ concept of power in the sense that net accretion of power in the hands of the dominant group means a net loss of power for the rest. “This is very different from the picture presented by Parsons in which rulers and ruled pull together for the benefit of society as a whole, undivided by any fundamental conflicts of interest”.
From a Marxian point of view, the source of power lies in the economic infra-structure. Forces of production determine the relations of production. Those who emerge as economically dominant are able to grab power which they use in furtherance of their interest. According to Marxist theory, power of the ruling class extends beyond specific economic relationships, and pervades the entire super-structure.
Various Facets of Power:
In the foregoing paragraphs, we tried to understand and analyse the essence of power from three perspectives, viz., Weberian perspective, functionalist perspective of Talcott Parsons and Marxian perspective. In this section, different dimensions of power are briefly described.
Various meanings are often attributed to the term ‘social power’. Francis Bacon, for instance, said that ‘knowledge is power’. The term is also variously identified with prestige, influence, dominance, authority and even force.
E.A. Ross, the American sociologist, referred to the close association between power and prestige when he made the following observations. “The immediate cause of the location of power is prestige”. “The class that has the most prestige will have the most power”.
Undoubtedly, prestige is sometimes related to power in the sense that powerful groups tend to be prestigious and prestigious groups powerful. But the two phenomena are not identical.
The teachers enjoy considerable amount of prestige in society. They do not, however, enjoy power in the sense that they can impose their will on others. A police constable, on the other hand, enjoys power in the sense that, within limits, he can impose his will on others..
It follows, therefore, that prestige does not suffice to create power, and that the two phenomena, both sociologically important, are not identical and may or may not appear together.
Similarly, there is a very intimate connection between power and influence. But a line of distinction should be drawn between the two for the simple reason that the way an influential person uses his influence is different from the way a powerful person uses his power.
A writer may be very influential in the sense that he influences the thinking of those who read his works. He does not certainly impose his opinions on others against their will.
Marx, for example, was very influential. But he did not wield any power. Stalin, on the other hand, was very powerful in the sense that he was in a position to impose his will on others, often against their wishes. It is doubtful if he ever enjoyed influence in the sense that Marx did.
It is, therefore, necessary to distinguish the two phenomena because power is coercive while influence is persuasive. An eloquent speaker may be very influential because he is able to persuade his audience to his line of thinking by his oratory or reasoned arguments. Yet he is not in a position to make them accept his views against their wishes. He is influential, but not powerful.
The term ‘dominance’ is sometimes used to mean ‘power’. It is, however, relatively easy to distinguish power from dominance. Power is a sociological phenomenon, dominance a psychological. Power vests in an individual and also in groups, most often in the latter.
Power is a function of various factors which are mostly social. Dominance, on the other hand, is a function of personality or of temperament. It is a personal quality.
“A timid robber, who flaunts his gun, has more power than his unarmed victim, however dominant or aggressive the latter may be in his normal social relationships. Furthermore, and one of the most interesting facets of this distinction, dominant individuals play roles in powerless groups and submissive individuals play roles in powerful ones”.
It follows, therefore, that dominance is a problem in social psychology, power a problem in sociology.
We have distinguished power from prestige, from influence and from dominance. Two other distinctions are called for in order to make the meaning of power free from ambiguity. These are the distinctions between power and force and between power and authority.
Force may be defined as ‘manifest power’. When a robber armed with a revolver holds out a threat to his victim “Your money or your life”, he is apparently applying coercion or force and offers only two options to the victim. A robber armed with a revolver is certainly a powerful man. His power manifests itself in the force which he applies against his victim.
In this sense, force is a manifest power. We may look at the same thing from another perspective. Power may be viewed as a ‘latent force’. The robber in question has at his command force which he may apply if he wants to or if circumstances so require. Power and force are, thus, inextricably mixed.
While discussing the relationship between authority and power, it should be recognised that authority is by no means a purely political phenomenon in the narrow sense of the word. Authority appears, not only in the political organisation of society, but in every association in society, no matter how small or how temporary it may be.
Before discussing the nature of authority, it will be convenient if we distinguish it from two other phenomena with which it is sometimes confused. The first of these is competence.
Sometimes we describe a person as an authority on a certain subject when we actually refer to his competence in the subject. We voluntarily respect the competence of others, but authority requires submission. That is, competence exerts influence; authority exacts obedience.
The second phenomenon with which authority is sometimes confused is the phenomenon of leadership. In the opinion of some sociologists, Max Weber was mainly responsible for this confusion. He spoke of three types of authority: the traditional, the rational-legal and the charismatic. The first two may be regarded as genuine authority inasmuch as the decision-making power is conferred by the group or society.
In the case of the third, the essential attribute is leadership. “A charismatic leader is believed to be different from other men; he rises above them because he is touched with divinity; there is something of the celestial afflatus about him, and an almost tangible magnetism. He operates beyond the boundaries of legitimacy. He needs no extant organisation in society because he creates his own, a new and sometimes revolutionary one”.
Thus, Gandhiji and Lenin were charismatic leaders. But leadership, even charismatic leadership, is not authority. As in the case of a competent person, no one is required to follow involuntarily a leader’s directive or to satisfy his wishes. The situation with regard to authority is quite different. “A leader can only request, an authority can require”.
In the case of leadership, personal qualities of the leader are of crucial importance. In the case of authority, however, relationship ceases to be personal. One individual or a group, entrusted and recognized by the society to issue commands of a binding character, may be designated as authority.
“In a leadership relation the person is basic; in an authority relation personal identity is irrelevant”. Like competence, leadership is a species of influence. Authority, on the contrary, is a function of power. After having distinguished authority from competence and from leadership, we may proceed to discuss the locus of authority.
Authority is always a property of social organization. Where there is no organization, there is no authority. Moreover, “the exercise of authority never extends beyond the limits of the organisation or association in which it is institutionalised and which gives it support and sanction”.
Besides, authority is always attached to, statuses and never to individuals. An individual, for instance, exercises the authority of a Principal of a college only so long as he occupies that status and ceases to exercise it when he resigns, or when he is removed, or when his term of office expires. “The exercise of authority is wholly and indeed exclusively a function of associational status”.
It will be illuminating for an understanding of authority to examine the process in which an unorganised group is transformed into an organised one. First, informal procedures and patterns of interaction come to be standardised as statuses.
The institutionalization of procedures into norms and of roles into statuses results in the formal organisation of the association. Such institutionalization is necessary “in order that the stability of the association may be assured and its continuity guaranteed”.
We have now to answer a question: What sustains the authority exercised by some people over others? The answer is that the person who exercises authority is recognised as an agent of the group. He acts not in his own but in the group’s name. It is apparent that any disinclination to obey authority is “a threat not to a personal relationship but to the continued existence of the group”.
The next question is as to whether authority is a phenomenon exercised by coercion or by consent. That is, does a person who obeys the command of a superior authority do so because he has to or because he wants to? The answer is both yes and no, depending on the type of association we are concerned with.
In a voluntary association, membership is a matter of consent, and people voluntarily give their allegiance to it. In involuntary associations, on the other hand, voluntary withdrawal of membership is not possible and coercion is very much present in the exercise of authority in such associations.
It is, therefore, said that in voluntary associations authority is ‘institutionalised leadership’ and that in involuntary associations it is ‘institutionalised power’.
The solution is not very happy. In voluntary associations, an individual is free to join. If, however, he refuses to carry out the obligations of the association, he is simply asked to resign. Element of consent applies to the fact of membership and not to the acceptance of authority.
From this point of view, power phenomenon is not absent from institutionalised leadership. It seems desirable, therefore, to assert that authority is always a power phenomenon and to define authority as institutionalised power.