Key Takeaways
1. Power: Intentional Influence with Variable Attributes
Power is the capacity of some persons to produce intended and foreseen effects on others.
Defining power. Power, in its most general sense, refers to a person's capacity, skill, or talent to produce an effect on the external world or themselves. However, in social and political theory, it is more precisely defined as the capacity of one person or group to intentionally influence the actions or attitudes of others. This definition emphasizes both the deliberate nature of the influence and its actual effectiveness.
Latent influence. Power is not always overtly exercised; it can be latent or dispositional. This means individuals or groups can possess power even when not actively using it, as others may anticipate their potential reactions and adjust their behavior accordingly. This "rule of anticipated reactions" highlights that the subject's belief in the power holder's capacity and willingness to act is crucial, even if no direct command is issued.
Three key attributes. All power relations can be analyzed along three dimensions:
- Extensiveness: The number of people over whom power is exercised.
- Comprehensiveness: The variety of actions or "scopes" the power holder can influence.
- Intensity: The degree to which the power holder's commands can be pushed without resistance.
These attributes help compare different power structures, from a parent's comprehensive power over a child to a specialized bureaucrat's limited influence.
2. The Spectrum of Power: Force, Manipulation, and Persuasion
Force, manipulation and persuasion are classified here as forms of power, but all three lack certain of the generic characteristics of power discussed in the previous chapter.
Distinct forms of influence. Beyond general social control, power manifests in specific forms: force, manipulation, and persuasion. These differ in how they achieve intended effects and the degree to which they involve conscious interaction or latent influence. Unlike authority, these forms often exist only in their manifest exercise, lacking a significant "potential" aspect.
Force and manipulation. Force involves treating a human subject as a physical object, inflicting pain or restricting movement, or using non-violent physical obstruction. It is direct and often non-social. Manipulation, conversely, involves concealing the power holder's intent, influencing behavior without the subject's awareness. This can range from subtle suggestions to altering the subject's environment, often carrying a sinister reputation due to its covert nature.
Persuasion's unique role. Persuasion relies on presenting arguments, appeals, or exhortations, with the subject independently evaluating and accepting the content. While seemingly egalitarian, persuasive power is often unequal due to disparities in communication resources like mass media access or oratorical skill. It is a social relation but, like force and manipulation, primarily exists in its active, manifest form.
3. Authority: Command Rooted in Diverse Motivations
Authority is, as L. Stein defined it long ago, ‘the untested acceptance of another’s judgment’, whereas persuasion is the tested acceptance of another’s judgement.
The essence of authority. Authority is fundamentally the issuance of commands and their acceptance, where compliance is driven by the source of the communication rather than its content. It is a "theirs not to reason why" dynamic, distinguishing it from persuasion. This broad definition encompasses various motivations for obedience, making it a special case of power.
Coercive and inducement authority. Coercive authority relies on the threat of force, where subjects obey to avoid deprivations. Its effectiveness depends on the power holder's perceived capability and willingness to use force, often requiring occasional demonstrations to maintain credibility. Authority by inducement, conversely, offers rewards for compliance. While appearing as an exchange, repeated rewards can create dependence, making the threat of withdrawal feel coercive, thus blurring the line between inducement and coercion.
Legitimate, competent, and personal authority. Legitimate authority involves an acknowledged right to command and an obligation to obey, rooted in shared norms of a larger community. Compliance is voluntary from the collective perspective but mandatory for individuals. Competent authority stems from belief in superior knowledge or skill, where subjects trust the authority's expertise to serve their interests. Personal authority is based on a desire to please or serve another due to their unique personal qualities, often seen in charismatic leadership or intimate relationships.
4. The Dynamic Interplay of Power Forms
Each of the forms of power shows a somewhat different profile with regard to these several variables. Each is also subject to distinctive instabilities, which will be discussed at greater length later in this chapter.
Ideal types, mixed realities. The distinct forms of power are "ideal types" or analytical constructs; in reality, most power relations are complex mixtures. Human motivations for compliance are rarely singular, often blending duty, fear, love, self-interest, and status-seeking. This inherent multiplicity means that empirical power dynamics rarely fit neatly into one category.
Strategic diversification. Power holders benefit from being able to deploy multiple forms of power. If persuasion fails, they might escalate to inducement, then legitimate command, and ultimately coercion or force. This "ladder of escalation" allows for flexibility in securing compliance, especially in stable, long-term relationships with moderate comprehensiveness and intensity, such as parent-child dynamics or presidential influence.
Tendential laws of transformation. Power forms are not static; they tend to transform over time.
- Repeatedly successful persuasion can evolve into personal or competent authority as trust builds.
- Inducement can become coercive as subjects grow dependent on rewards, making their withdrawal a punishment.
- Force is often used to establish the credibility of a threat, leading to coercive authority.
- Legitimation is a continuous process of persuasion, reinforcing the authority relation.
These dynamic tendencies highlight the fluid nature of power in social interactions.
5. Coercion and Legitimacy: The Core of Political Power
Rousseau summarizes cogently the limitations of rule by force alone: ‘The strongest man is never strong enough to be master all the time, unless he transforms force into right and obedience into duty.’
From might to right. Historically, political power often originates from military conquest or superior force. However, rule by force alone is costly and unstable. To achieve stability, coercive power holders strive to convert "might into right" by inducing the defeated to acknowledge the legitimacy of their rule. This transformation reduces the need for constant vigilance and the risk of renewed conflict.
The state's dual nature. Max Weber's famous definition of the state as monopolizing the "legitimate use of physical force" highlights this duality. The state's authority rests on both its capacity for coercion and the acceptance of its legitimacy by its subjects. Law-abiding citizens legitimize the state's use of force against those who defy it, demonstrating that political power is a complex "fear-love mix" where different segments of the population are influenced by varying motivations.
The ultimate resort. Force is often seen as the "ultimate" form of power, the final recourse when other forms fail. This perspective, often associated with Machiavellian or realist views, acknowledges that the ability to apply force underpins all other forms of political influence. However, resorting to force can also signal a "failure of power," as it may erode legitimacy and provoke resistance, as seen in the "confrontation politics" of the 1960s.
6. Power's Foundations: Individual and Collective Resources
Organization, then, is a collective political resource that is at least as unequally distributed in the population as are the individual resources of wealth, prestige, expertise et al.
Resources as power bases. Power is rooted in the control of various resources, often termed "assets" or "value-bases." These can be broadly categorized as coercive (instruments of force), utilitarian (material rewards), and normative (symbols of legitimacy, prestige). The possession of these resources provides the capacity for power, but does not guarantee its exercise.
Individual vs. collective resources. Individual resources like money, reputation, or skills are generally "liquid," meaning they can be easily converted to political use by a single person's decision. Collective resources, however, are properties of groups. These include aggregated individual resources (e.g., pooled money, votes) and non-reducible "global" properties like group size, solidarity, and organization.
Solidarity and organization are fundamental. Solidarity (collective identity, shared commitment) and organization (division of labor, leadership) are the most crucial collective resources. They are prerequisites for mobilizing all other collective resources and for a group to act as a coherent political actor. The "liquidity" of collective resources is highly variable, with unorganized aggregates having low liquidity, while highly organized groups possess significant potential for influence.
7. Political Mobilization: Transforming Potential into Influence
The question ‘Who gets mobilized?’ can be broken down into a number of separate questions about the actual, latent or merely possible existence of collective resources and their role, whether direct or anticipatory, in influencing others.
The core of political sociology. "Who gets mobilized?" is a central question in political analysis, focusing on which groups successfully create and maintain collective resources for political ends. This involves understanding the conditions under which diffuse solidarity or latent interests transform into organized political action. Political mobilization aims to influence, control, or gain access to the state's decision-making agencies.
Criteria for full mobilization. A fully mobilized group typically exhibits:
- Strong solidarity and collective identity.
- Perception of shared goals conflicting with other groups or power holders.
- Awareness of the state's relevance to their interests.
- Specific social organization for political action.
These criteria distinguish politically active groups (parties, pressure groups) from mere social categories.
Mediating state and society. Political processes can be viewed through a three-tiered model: the state, mediating political organizations (parties, interest groups), and the substratum of politics (diffusely solidary groups, communities, individuals). Mobilization involves groups from the substratum forming mediating organizations to influence the state. The "resource mobilization" theory emphasizes that grievances don't spontaneously lead to action; rather, "issue entrepreneurs" and organizations actively define and manipulate them.
8. Numbers and Democracy: The Power of the Majority
Democracy grants to every individual person regardless of what other resources he or she may possess a specifically political resource, the right to vote.
Democracy's equalizing force. Political democracy, with universal adult suffrage, institutionalizes the power of numbers by giving every individual an equal political resource: the vote. This theoretically grants numerical majorities, often the lower classes, the potential to control the state and redistribute resources, a prospect that historically fueled both hope for egalitarians and fear among privileged classes.
Obstacles to majority rule. Despite formal equality, the lower classes often face significant challenges in fully leveraging their numerical advantage.
- Mobilization difficulties: It's harder to organize large, dispersed populations.
- Resource disparities: Minorities often control disproportionate wealth, status, education, media access, and political skills.
- Cost of participation: Active political engagement beyond voting is costly, favoring those with more resources.
These factors mean that influence differentials persist, even in democracies.
The democratic class struggle. The political landscape in democracies often features a "democratic class struggle," where conservative parties, despite representing a numerical minority, successfully compete by:
- Exploiting non-class cleavages (ethnic, religious issues).
- Adopting "Tory socialist" reforms to appeal to broader constituencies.
- Using nationalist sentiment to counter class divisions.
This dynamic creates a "leftward drift" over time, a spiral pattern where reforms are enacted, but the pace is slow, leading to both progress and frustration for those seeking greater equality.
9. The Enduring "Fear-Love Mix" in All Power Relations
The conclusion is unavoidable that there is something intrinsically unsatisfying and even painful in subjection to the authority of another.
Ambivalence in submission. All concrete authority relations, even the most benign, contain a "fear-love mix." This reflects Freud's "primal ambivalence," where dependent love coexists with underlying resistance. Subjection to authority is inherently unpleasant, frustrating aspirations for autonomy and self-determination, even when the authority is genuinely paternalistic.
The need for legitimation. Both power holders and power subjects experience a psychological need for legitimation. Rulers seek to justify their power morally, assuaging guilt and enhancing stability. The ruled, especially when helpless, develop a "will to believe" in the benevolence or justice of their dominators, accepting their subordinate position as inevitable or even deserved. This psychological dynamic helps convert coercion into legitimate authority.
Irreducibility of coercion. Despite legitimation efforts, an element of coercion, whether physical or psychic, remains in all authority relations. The unpleasantness of taking orders, even when accepted, can lead to latent resistance that may erupt when opportunities arise. Revolutionary situations, for instance, reveal a sudden "collapse of hierarchies" and a euphoric release from previously accepted burdens, demonstrating the underlying tension inherent in submission.
10. The Motivations for Power: Means, Ends, and Collective Goals
And the cause of this, is not always that a man hopes for a more intensive delight, than he has already attained to; or that he cannot be content with a moderate power: but because he cannot assure the power and means to live well, which he hath present, without the acquisition of more.
Power as a means, not an end. The idea of an innate "lust for power" is often oversimplified. Hobbes argued that men seek power not for its own sake, but as a necessary means to secure their existing possessions and ensure survival in a competitive world. This instrumental view suggests that power is a tool to achieve other satisfactions like security, wealth, or reputation, rather than an intrinsic source of delight.
Aggression and institutionalized power. While aggression is a fundamental human impulse (as Freud argued), its connection to institutionalized power is often indirect and sublimated. People with strong aggressive drives are more likely to be marginalized than to achieve positions of authority, which typically involve abstract decision-making rather than direct physical gratification. The exercise of power in modern bureaucracies is far removed from primitive aggressive release.
Orientations towards power. Individual motivations for seeking power can be classified:
- Power as a means to individual aims: For personal gain, wealth, or prestige (e.g., career politicians, glory-seekers).
- Power as an end-in-itself for individual aims: For the sheer gratification of imposing one's will (e.g., psychopaths, tyrants).
- Power as a means to collective aims: Wielded out of duty or commitment to a group's ideals (e.g., statesmen, activists).
- Power as an end-in-itself for collective aims: The perpetuation of collective power as the ultimate value (e.g., totalitarian party elites).
Most individuals exhibit a complex mix, but the desire for power as an intrinsic pleasure is less universal than the pursuit of material rewards or prestige.
11. Collective Power: A Resource for Society or a Zero-Sum Game?
For Mills the power of a group in a stratified society is necessarily exercised over and at the expense of a subordinate group whereas for Parsons power is a collective resource utilized to advance the goals of the entire community or the social system at large.
The "zero-sum" debate. A central debate concerns whether power is a "zero-sum" phenomenon (one group's gain is another's loss) or a collective resource that can benefit an entire community. C. Wright Mills argued for the zero-sum view, seeing power as inherently exercised by a dominant elite at the expense of subordinates. Talcott Parsons, conversely, viewed power as a societal "facility" for achieving collective goals, implying a net gain for the whole system.
Parsons's functionalist perspective. Parsons conceptualized power as a "generalized medium" (like money) for obtaining compliance with collectively acknowledged obligations. He focused on legitimate power, arguing it serves the goals of the entire social system. This perspective minimizes conflict and assumes an underlying consensus, often appearing as an idealized view of democratic capitalist societies where power is seen as a benign instrument for societal advancement.
Critiques of Parsons. Critics argue that Parsons's definition of power as necessarily legitimate overlooks the pervasive role of coercion and conflict. By focusing on "system effects" and collective goals, he downplays the "power over" aspect—the hierarchical relations where some individuals or groups command others. While collective power can achieve goals beyond individual capacities, its production and distribution are rarely neutral, often benefiting some groups more than others.
12. Power's Inescapable Presence and Structural Nature
To argue that permanent hierarchies of power relations are indispensable in any moderately complex society is not, of course, to stamp the seal of necessity on the power structures of particular existing societies.
The necessity of power. Power relations are indispensable for coordinating collective action and making discretionary judgments in complex societies. Whether it's lifting a piano or governing a nation, authority is needed to organize efforts and choose goals. This coordinating role often resembles "competent authority," where leadership is trusted for its expertise in achieving shared objectives.
Power as a "necessary evil." Despite its necessity, power is prone to abuse. Its inherent tendency to expand beyond legitimate "scopes" and its capacity to serve any purpose make it dangerous. The inequality inherent in power relations often creates feelings of inferiority and resentment among subordinates. Wealth and prestige, while distinct, often reinforce power, making it a more consequential aspect of stratification than other rewards.
Structural power and intentionality. Power is also embedded in social structures and institutions, which can exert influence independently of individual intentions. Bureaucracy, for instance, can be seen as "rule by Nobody," where routinized practices constrain individuals. While power is defined by intentionality, its exercise often produces significant unintended and unforeseen effects. Recognizing structural power does not negate individual agency but highlights how actions are shaped by enduring social arrangements.
Last updated:
