Individual and Collective Power Based on Mosca and Weber
In literary works by Gaetano Mosca and Max Weber, the idea of "power" can be extracted and further understood by examining related notions of power such as the "ruling class" and "legitimate domination" presented in them respectively. In particular, through the analysis of power, the distinction between individual and collective contexts of power becomes evident. That is, a difference in the idea of power is apparent when in the hands of one versus many. In both Mosca and Weber, the general meaning of power itself is similar, however, in their discussions the applications of individual and collective power diverge. In "The Ruling Class," Mosca begins by stating that in all civilized societies, people are divided into two classes, "a class that rules and a class that is ruled" (Mosca 50). Given his characterization of each class, collective power can be described by the ruling class and individual power by the ruled. On the other hand, while discussing different forms of political domination, in Weber's "Charisma and its Transformations," collective power is associated with the public, while individual power with the leader. In "Bureaucracy" however, this distinction between collective and individual power is less defined.
To begin with, power presented in Mosca and Weber can be generally defined as an ability possessed by a person or group of people to influence others. In addition, putting aside definitions of power defined by previous authors such as Hobbes and Blau, power can be described as the ability to possess and preserve a value or tradition represented at the time. Expanding on this idea, individual and collective power, that is, power in the hand...
... middle of paper ...
...ajority with Nazi ideologies and goals that they devoutly serve the ruling minority.
Independent of physical size and relative strength between collective and individual power, it seems evident in Mosca and Weber (in charismatic domination) that collective power tends to be associated with the dominant force given the general definition of power as an ability to influence, possess, and preserve a value. This could perhaps be due to some human group tendency or phenomenon in having to give up a little for the 'greater good.' In bureaucracy however, guided by democracy, market economy, and 'dehumanization,' a pervasive equality prevented the distinction of collective and individual power. Nevertheless, all this depends on individual perception and implication, as the applications to "The Triumph of the Will" suggest, beginning from the basic concept of power.
What is power to a human? As time has gone by, there have been many forms of control and influence in the world. Many strive to achieve total rule over a society or group of individuals. Yet the question still presents itself to the average man. Why does man desire power so greatly even though there is visible trouble that follows? Shelley’s Frankenstein, Vonnegut’s “Harrison Bergeron”, and Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, whether through the situation or the character themselves, depict the evils and hardships due to an imbalance and poor management of power.
Part 1. 2009. The 'Secondary' of the Print. The. Landstreet, Peter. A. The “Power and Power Relations Lecture”.
Power. It is defined as the capacity or ability to direct or influence the behavior of others or the course of events. Throughout time, certain individuals have acquired power in their society as a way to govern and keep order among their community. Power is not a new concept; it was used in the past by many emperors, kings, and queens, and is still being used by presidents, prime ministers, and dictators. Although, it has been used to further progress societies into what the world is like today, not all power has been used for the best of mankind. But what goes awry to make power turn corrupt? In William Shakespeare's Hamlet, it is illustrated how power can turn corrupt, when authoritative figures, who possess power, abuse it for their personal gain, rather than for the common good of the society.
In analyzing the institution of power so closely, the author has brought to light a multiple
In an earlier century, Niccoló Machiavelli, wrote a document called, “The Prince.” This book was about what it takes to be a successful ruler, and the number one rule of course was: “Power is Everything.” How you acquire the power made no difference as long as you had it. Many people repulsed Machiavelli’s idea of power at all costs, but it would soon be the basis of the government in some countries.
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
Raven, Bertram, and John French. Jr. "Legitimate Power, Coercive Power, and Observability in Social Influence ." Sociometry Vol. 21.No. 2 (1958): 83. Web. 2 Aug 2010. .
They are not only its inert or consenting target; they are always also the elements of its articulation” (Foucault, “Two Lectures” 34). Power may take various forms, all of which are employed and exercised by individualsand unto individuals in the institutions of society. In all institutions, there is political and judicial power, as certain individuals claim the right to give orders, establish rules, and so forth as well as the right to punish and award. For example, in school, the professor not only teaches, but also dictates, evaluates, as well as punishes and rewards.
“Power is exercised only over free subjects, and only insofar as they are free. By this we mean individual or collective subjects who are faced with a field of possibilities in which several ways of behaving, several reactions and diverse compartments may be realized.” (Foucault)
According to Max Weber, there are three types of authority: traditional, legal-rational, and charismatic. Traditional authority is based on traditions and customs; for example, parents are a type of traditional authority since individuals are taught to respect and listen to their parents from a young age (Weber, 12). Legal-rational authority is based on relation to laws, rules, and the government; an example of a legal-rational authority would be the police due to its association with the government and its task of enforcing the law (Weber, 13). Unlike these two types of authority, charismatic authority is solely based on the personality of the leader such as the degree of charisma the leader has and how well his interpersonal skills are (Weber, 12). Charismatic authority may seem very simplistic as it is just based on personality, yet it is this very aspect that allows for the emergence of polar-opposite charismatic leaders. Furthermore, the simple basis allows for the leaders to guide the group towards any direction they desire, and this makes the distinction between certain charismatic leaders prominent. The contrast
Power has been defined as the psychological relations over another to get them to do what you want them to do. We are exposed to forms of power from the time of birth. Our parents exercise power over us to behave in a way they deem appropriate. In school, teachers use their power to help us learn. When we enter the work world the power of our boss motivates us to perform and desire to move up the corporate ladder so that we too can intimidate someone with power one day. In Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness Kurtz had a power over the jungle and its people that was inexplicable.
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.
Some theorists view social interactions as an exchange of objective and subjective power (Benford & Hunt, 1992, p. 3), with social movements being created for the purpose of restructuring an imbalance in social, political, and economic power, or the way in which such power is used (Lukes 1974, pp. 24-5). The dramaturgy theory agrees that the focus of a social movement is the amendment or transformation of power relations, and goes even farther by suggesting that leaders of said movements are responsible for developing new and alternate possibilities for current power relations, and must persuade members that they are capable of generating change (Benford & Hunt, 1992, pp. 3-6). Thus, the effectiveness, quality, and sustainability 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.
power, in a struggle between man and beast. This purpose of this paper is not