All societies have a form of political organisation which is defined as “the way power, as the capacity to do something, is accumulated, arranged, executed, and structurally embedded in society” (Haviland, Prins, Walrath, & McBride, 2013:291). There are four political systems identified by anthropologists. Certain society systems, like bands and tribes, do not have a centralised political authority as they are too small and there is no one single individual who is allowed to make choices for others (Haviland, et al, 2013:291). However, other society systems, like chiefdoms and states, have a centralised political authority as the society is more complex and needs governance to maintain social order (Haviland, et al, 2013:295). Uncentralised societies have leaders but no set of institutions, however these leaders do not force individuals to follow any set of rules and they only have moral authority because they are seen as the wise elders who are capable of making decisions (Haviland, et al, 2013:292). Decisions in these communities affect the whole community and are made collectively through agreements by adults who are regarded as wise and skilled in many areas of life (for example: hunting or medicine) (Haviland, et al, …show more content…
As societies grow in population size, develop in technological advancements, and increase production through specialisations of labour and trade networks; opportunities for power and control increase. In these societies’ political authorities can come from an individual (in chiefdoms) or from a group of individuals (in a state) (Haviland, et al, 2013:295). There are laws which are made and enforced by the authoritative member/members in these communities and there is social control. This, in some cases, is a disadvantage as it results in less freedom and more conflict, but governments can be an advantage as they can also help maintain social order (Wrong,
A longstanding debate in human history is what to do with power and what is the best way to rule. Who should have power, how should one rule, and what its purpose should government serve have always been questions at the fore in civilization, and more than once have sparked controversy and conflict. The essential elements of rule have placed the human need for order and structure against the human desire for freedom, and compromising between the two has never been easy. It is a question that is still considered and argued to this day. However, the argument has not rested solely with military powers or politicians, but philosophers as well. Two prominent voices in this debate are Plato and Machiavelli, both of whom had very different ideas of government's role in the lives of its people. For Plato, the essential service of government is to allow its citizens to live in their proper places and to do the things that they are best at. In short, Plato's government reinforces the need for order while giving the illusion of freedom. On the other hand, Machiavelli proposes that government's primary concern is to remain intact, thereby preserving stability for the people who live under it. The feature that both philosophers share is that they attempt to compromise between stability and freedom, and in the process admit that neither can be totally had.
During the last 5000 years the competition and contest of large, human communities or political systems, of which modern states are the pressing example, often was decided by a simple, `evolutionary' mechanism: war and force. However, the increasing destructive power of artifacts which are developed with the help of scientific knowledge seems to diminish the importance of this device—at least among communities with a somewhat rational leadership. For the mere use of modern techniques increases the risk of self-destruction even for that party which otherwise would be said to have won the `contest'. In this situation it would be desirable to have other, less violent criteria to check whether some political system is better than another one. If we could compare the quality of political systems in a purely conceptual way the practical competition among systems could be reduced to attempts at enlightening the citizens of the respective other system.
Why do we have government? Government may be defined as a set of institutions that regulate behavior within territorial boundaries thru the legitimate use of force. Go...
The article examines the need for various social controls in a society, for the society itself not to fall apart. Peter Berger believed that by using Social control it could bring its recalcitrant members back into line. He believed that all groups no matter how small needed social controls to survive. He explores three areas of control political and legal controls, economics pressures, and ostracism. With the Political and legal controls the ultimate and, no doubt, the oldest means of social control is physical violence. In the politely operated societies of modern democracies the ultimate argument is violence. With economic pressure, few means of coercion are as effective as those that threaten one’s livelihood or profit. Both management and labor effectively use this threat as an instrumentality of control in our society. But economic means of control are just as effective outside the institutions properly called the economy. A good example of an economic sanction would be for a minister. It may not be actually illegal for a minister to seduce his
Over the centuries, many political philosophers, historians, and thinkers have ventured to identify the ideal form of government: a theory which truly takes into account human nature as a whole and applies it accordingly. Human nature, when looked at holistically, is essentially good - men will not annihilate each other if left without a ruler, but motivation, protection, and some degree of rights must be accommodated in order to allow a state to thrive to its greatest capacity. Thus a ruler should be judged by his ability to protect the people and secure their rights, and he should come to power by the collective consent of the people. The perfect government is one in which the ruler has only the power which allows him to aid the people and the state, protect their rights, and ensure their protection. Society and the sovereign are reciprocally obliged towards each other, and they may only be content as long as both factions are appeased.
At an undetermined point in the history of man, a people, while still in the state of nature, allowed one person to become their leader and judge over controversies. This was first the patriarch of a family, then the wisest or fittest militarily of a tribe. These leaders ruled by wisdom and discretion, though neither they nor their followers were subject to any ratified laws. These rulers represented the earliest signs of an emerging hierarchical order, yet did not constitute a government in the formal sense.
According the Manuel Castells, "power is the structural capacity of a social actor to impose over other social actors" and throughout history we see that there will always be a counter power that goes against this power. In Littl...
Political institutions have been part of humanity since the beginning of societies. Institutions have developed in different organizational performances and have shaped in what they are nowadays. Institutions have shown us that they are necessary and essential for all societies around the world. We never realize how important and how essential they are for our daily lives, but more than that, we never realize how institutions affect or influence political outcomes. Whether institutions are federalist or centralists, they always vary in the types of outcomes and shortcomings, or if local governments function better than a federal government, or if state governments are better.
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.
The second idea is from the perspective of responsibilities of different actors in handling social and economic issues. And the boundaries between different actors in exercising their power an...
The American Political System The American political system is a federal system, which consists of
Throughout the semester we have studied the role political parties’ play in democracy. Scholars debate that without political parties countries cannot democratize. It is true that political parties play a prominent role in the development of democracy, however; I will argue that depending on how strong or weak the political party is in a given region, the more likely the party will spread democracy. In the following essay I argue that parties can have a role in strengthening but also weakening a democracy based on how well they are able to include all of its citizens.
Every government is power; the ability to influence others. How a government establishes and uses their power is how you determine the quality of the government. Based on the power a government has and how they choose to rule impacts the whole country and the quality of life for people. Governments greatly vary in how they operate but every government requires 3 key elements to be a government: they must have the right to rule; the authority to exercise its power; and the people must recognize the right of the government to exist. So although rulers come in and may take control, ultimately the people of the country must choose to follow someone for them to have any power.
Another aspect of social groups is political organization. According to Karl G. Heider the author of Seeing Anthropology through Film, political organization can be defined as the structure of a social unit in terms of the allocation of power among individuals, roles, and groups. (Heide, pg. 450) When defining the political organizations we can look at power as the ability to get other people to do things for them. In addition, actual power can be look at physical force, which implies the use or the threat of physical force and influence. Influence is the ability to talk people into doing things without the use of force. (Hiede, pg. 301) So, political organizations express power and authority; this power can be egalitarian
Society is an organization. Society is a network of relationship of human beings that possess this relationship as a result of interdependent goals and objectives. Some people may see society as a place where they are united to due to some common reasons and concerns about their policies, politics, culture, traditions, believes and values. However, one must view society as an essential part life, which they have to be a part of, as they cannot survive without that.