It should be a fare assumption, that most social scientists have an intuitive notion of what constitutes ‘power’. Nonetheless, academia has been unable to formulate a single defining statement for the concept of power, rigorous enough to be used interchangeably when studying various political or social phenomenon. Worse yet, the more attempts are made to define power, the more complex the concept becomes. Although the conceptual definition of power is difficult to pinpoint, its pervasive applicability, and on-going importance to political theorists is certainly not lost, as countless academics define and apply the concept of power in order to add depth to their work. Of these theorists, Robert Dahl, and Robert Michels are two. The field of Political Science has been host to a fierce debate, between those who assert that democratic societies are ruled by elite(s), and those who believe that the pluralist model is a more accurate description. Robert Dahl, who is arguably the most influential of the pluralists, attacks ‘elitists’ in his book Who Governs, by applying his own conceptualization of power to the American community of New Haven, empirically backing his beloved pluralist model. At the other end of the spectrum, Robert Michels’ Political Parties offers a different take on the nature of political and social organization. Standing in disagreement to Dahl’s conclusions, Michels uses a rather social/psychosocial approach, in order to demonstrate what he though was the true nature of governmental politics, the unavoidable elite-mass relation, and the inevitable sociological tendency towards oligarchy (Michels 1915, 384). Granted, both thinkers have the concept of power embedded at the core of their respective work, a brief analyt...
... middle of paper ...
...tinuing our search, in labouring indefatigably to discover the indiscoverable, we shall preform a work which will have fertile results in the democratic sense” (Michels 1915, 405).
In due course, what is demonstrated by both Dahl and Michels’ work is how research from a relatively similar project, can lead a philosopher to incredibly different conclusions. For Dahl, his specific focus into the inner political workings of New Haven led him to conclude that pluralism is alive and well in America. However, with a much broader realm of focus, Michels work steered him into quite the pessimistic view of modern day politics, arguing that oligarchy is unavoidable due to certain instinctive features in human organization. In the end, it seems that regardless of whether one chooses to believe Dahl, or Michels’ conclusions, the political machine will never stop chugging.
Mintz Eric, Close David, Croc Osvaldo. Politics, Power and the Common Good: An Introduction to Political Science. 2009. Toronto: Pearson Canada. 15,147,183.
Factions, or parties, are described in The Federalist No. 10 as groups of citizens “united and actuated by some common impulse of passion, or of interest.” According to Madison, these human passions divide the public into competing parties that are “much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good.” These parties often negatively impact the rights of other citizens as they pursue their own specialized goals, but it is “the nature of man” to create them. Thus, in order to protect the rights and voices of the people, a successful government must be committed to the regulation of these various factions. A pure (direct) democracy, argues Madison, cannot effectively do this because it offers every citizen a vote in serious public matters, and economic stratification alone prevents th...
Shapiro, Ian, Rogers M. Smith, and Tarek E. Masoud, eds. Problems and Methods in the Study of Politics. Cambridge ; Cambridge University Press, 2004.
Power is a key issue in separating the educated from the uneducated. One of the reasons that society is able to dictate the way people in mainstream society lives is through power. Society practically has power over every aspect of daily life. Society derives this power from the people whom make up mainstream America. Mainstream America has been trained over the years tha...
In discussing the problems surrounding the issue of factionalism in American society, James Madison concluded in Federalist #10, "The inference to which we are brought is that the causes of cannot be removed and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its effects." (Federalist Papers 1999, 75) In many ways, the nature of American politics has revolved around this question since our country's birth. What is the relationship between parties and government? Should the party serve as an intermediary between the populace and government, and how should a government respond to disparate ideas espoused by the factions inherent to a free society. This paper will discuss the political evolution that has revolved around this question, examining different "regimes" and how they attempted to reconcile the relationship between power and the corresponding role of the people. Beginning with the Federalists themselves, we will trace this evolution until we reach the contemporary period, where we find a political climate described as "interest-group liberalism." Eventually this paper will seek to determine which has been the most beneficial, and which is ultimately preferable.
Political science first emerged as an academic discipline towards the end of the 19th century and mainly focused on formal institutions, structures and organizations within government (Theodore Rosenhof, 1). However, at the mark of the 1920’s this approach towards institutions began to be revised. Soon a behavioral approach towards government surfaced which focused on electoral patterns and voting behavior (Theodore Rosenhof, 1). In using this approach, many academics recognized an alarming amount of movements and change across the state; resulting in a dynamic, rather than a stagnant, political network. These establishments and generalizations made by academics eventually culminated in what is presently known as the realignment theory (Theodore
The pluralistic scholar David Truman notes that “the proliferation of political interest groups [is] a natural and largely benign consequence of economic development” (Kernell 2000, 429). That is, as American economic development increases, in the form of industry, trade, and technology, factions are produced in order to protect special interests. Factions have a large platform on which to find support from various political parties, committees, subcommittees, and the courts, as well as federal, state, and local governments (Kernell 2000, 429).
Dye, T. R., Zeigler, H., & Schubert, L. (2012). The Irony of Democracy (15th ed.).
At this point, with an understanding of what power is, what it means, how it is created and the various means through which it is expressed, one can begin to conceptualise how it is that power functions within a given society. Symbolic, cultural, social and economic capital distribute and perpetuate power within a society, through a cycle of transformation whereby these capital resources can be interchanged and manipulated to the advantage of individuals who have
Pluralism is essentially a theory in favour of distributing power equally amongst individuals rather than having power remain within the hands of one individual (Heywood, 2003; Schwarzmantel, 1994; Dunleavy and O’Leary, 1987; Crowder, 1994). This theory is predominantly associated with Robert Dahl, who had researched how the state behaves and amongst whom power is exercised in New Haven (Heywood, 2007; Dahl, 1961). However, it has been argued that this theory is too idealistic, and that it is impossible for there to be an equal distribution of power because realistically power is likely to only be exercised by a minority, as in accordance with the elitist view (Heywood, 2007; Schwarzmantel, 1994).
Some theorists believe that ‘power is everywhere: not because it embraces everything, but because it comes from everywhere… power is not an institution, nor a structure, nor possession. It is the name we give to a complex strategic situation in a particular society. (Foucault, 1990: 93) This is because power is present in each individual and in every relationship. It is defined as the ability of a group to get another group to take some form of desired action, usually by consensual power and sometimes by force. (Holmes, Hughes &Julian, 2007) There have been a number of differing views on ‘power over’ the many years in which it has been studied. Theorist such as Anthony Gidden in his works on structuration theory attempts to integrate basic structural analyses and agency-centred traditions. According to this, people are free to act, but they must also use and replicate fundamental structures of power by and through their own actions. Power is wielded and maintained by how one ‘makes a difference’ and based on their decisions and actions, if one fails to exercise power, that is to ‘make a difference’ then power is lost. (Giddens: 1984: 14) However, more recent theorists have revisited older conceptions including the power one has over another and within the decision-making processes, and power, as the ability to set specific, wanted agendas. To put it simply, power is the ability to get others to do something they wouldn’t otherwise do. In the political arena, therefore, power is the ability to make or influence decisions that other people are bound by.
In the video Eric breaks it down for viewers for us to see how power is perceived and structured. At the beginning of the film Liu illustrates how power resides in the people. He goes on to say that those who really have power then turn evil because people may perceive it distinctively. Democracies and dictatorships show the contrast in how power is perceived and understood contrarily based on how it is defined in their civic life. His definition of power is essential in this video because it identifies the importance that it has on people and their abilities compared to others. I identified our class concept during this part of the video because people may have different perceptions of power and interpret it in a different manner. When organizing what we perceive we think about the stereotypes that are given to those with power, and those without it. We make generalizations upon these stereotypes. We also create personal constructs upon people we encounter who have more power because of the judgments that are constructed. Interacting distinctively with those of lesser, or higher power, is a norm for people who interpret the definition of
Power is defined in the course study notes as the “ability of individuals or groups to get what they want despite the opposition”. Power is derived from a variety of sources including knowledge, experience and environmental uncertainties (Denhardt et al, 2001). It is also important to recognize that power is specific to each situation. Individuals or groups that may be entirely powerful in one situation may find themselves with little or no power in another. The county Registrar of Voters, who is my boss, is a perfect example. In running the local elections office, she can exercise the ultimate power. However, in a situation where she attempted to get the county selected for a desirable, statewide pilot project, she was powerless, completely at the mercy of the Secretary of State. Power is difficult to measure and even to recognize, yet it plays a major role in explaining authority. In organizations, power is most likely exercised in situations where “the stakes are high, resources are limited, and goals and processes are unclear” (Denhardt et al, 2001). The absence of power in organizations forces us to rely on soley hierarchical authority.
...top positions in the governmental and business hierarchy from communal principles and beliefs. Majority come from the upper third of the salary and professional pyramids, their upbringings were from the same upper class, some attended the same preparatory school and Ivy League universities. Also, they belong to the same organizations. The power elite have the power to control programs and actions of important governmental, financial, legal, educational, national, scientific, and public institutions. The ones in power influence half of the nation’s manufacturing, infrastructures, transportation, banking possessions, and two thirds of all insurance possessions. The occupants take essential actions that could affect everyone’s’ life in American society. Rulings made in meetings of significant corporations and banks can influence the rates of inflation and unemployment.
Politics is the means for attaining valued things. Although, valued things are different in every society, the means of securing those things has never changed. The competition for power, authority and influence will always be the backbone of politics. Applying power, authority and influence to the valued things that support the public good, will produce the quality of life a society desires. In the present day, citizens in the United States demand certain valued things such as welfare, education, safe streets and healthcare. Through politics, citizens can apply their power in many different ways to get the things they want. Power is the ability to get someone to do something they may or may not want to do. Through the use of or the application of coercion, persuasion, manipulation and negotiation, power is used to influence the system.