Power is a central concern amongst many sociologists, with many questions that arise such as; what is power? Who has power? And where is it located? (Stanbridge & Ramos 2010: 2–5). These questions have engaged different sociologists from diverse perspectives and persuasions. Many of the differences of opinion will never be resolved by some unifying theory, as power is an ‘essentially contested concept’ (Lukes 1974, 2005: 137). There is no one-way of understanding power because the meanings of power are diverse and often contentious. This paper will focus on two theorists and their approach to power, politically speaking, from the left of centre, Steven Lukes in comparison to the right of centre, John Locke. The first approach that will be examined …show more content…
Lukes and Locke are both social theorists concerned about the subject of power. Due to this interest both theorists have come up with their own approach to power, both becoming very influential political philosophers of their time. Although both Lukes and Lockes share this similar desire of wanting to understand power, both theorists are on opposite sides of the spectrum, which is why both differ strongly in perspective and have much more differences and very few …show more content…
By assessing power through the approaches of both theorists it can be concluded that power will always be a topic of debate and a concern for many sociologists and theorists. Although Weber has defined power, many theorists have used that as a starting point to further examine power and to express power through new theories and diverse approaches. Lukes believes that that there are three forms of power those being; observable decision-making and conflicts, the observable process of excluding certain issues and topic from discussion and lastly the hidden ability to set an agenda. On the other hand, Locke is a strong believer in natural law and that there is only one form of power that will benefit society for the good and that is power being controlled and divided. Thus, it can be reviewed that Lukes’ and Locke’s approach to power does not interrelate but are very opposing. By pinpointing the negatives and positives of the approaches it can be clearly seen that both theories have strengths and weaknesses but neither theories can define what power is because power is diverse and there is no one-way in understanding power but rather
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”.
a law made by God, called the Law of Reason. This law gives humankind liberty,
John Locke is considered one of the best political minds of his time. The modern conception of western democracy and government can be attributed to his writing the Second Treatise of Government. John Locke championed many political notions that both liberals and conservatives hold close to their ideologies. He argues that political power should not be concentrated to one specific branch, and that there should be multiple branches in government. In addition to, the need for the government to run by the majority of the population through choosing leaders, at a time where the popular thing was to be under the rule of a monarch. But despite all of his political idea, one thing was extremely evident in his writing. This was that he preferred limited
John Locke is considered to be one of the most prominent philosophical & political figures of the era known as the Enlightenment because of his immense contributions to modern-day government. Locke’s beliefs & radical views on how government should serve are expressed through much of his writings. He believed that the government has a moral obligation to serve its people through protecting their natural rights of Life, Liberty, & Property. The beliefs stated in his works contributed to much of the U.S. Declaration of Independence. John Locke played the greatest role in shaping modern-day government through his beliefs & contributions that laid the foundation for our current political system & constitution.
Locke believed that the government existed to promote public good, and to protect the life, liberty, and property of its people. For this reason, those who governed must be elected by the society, and the society must hold the power to establish a new government when deemed necessary. In his essay, Second Treatise on Government, Locke argues that if society is dissolved, the government will also dissolve. What makes a society (or community) is the agreement of many individuals to act as one body. If this agreement is broken, and the individual decides to separate “as he thinks fit, in some other society” then the community will dissolve. When a government no longer has its society, it too will dissolve. But when a Government dissolves with its society still intact, whether through “foreign force”
Classical Liberalism, the Enlightenment, was a political movement that has impacted countries and their policies over many generations. The Enlightenment emphasized the notion that men are inherently good by nature (Bentley). The Enlightenment gave people the idea that a king was not necessary to rule over the people because people are not inherently bad. If anything, the people need someone to guide them but not have absolute rule over them. Revolutions have been based off of Enlightenment ideals because they are used to benefit the majority not the rich elite.
Hobbes, an aristocrat who lived through the English civil war, had to flee England, watch his monarch’s execution, and observes the violence of human nature at its very worst. Given this experience, his central concern was the need for absolute power to maintain peace and prevent another civil war. On the other hand, John Locke lived and wrote forty years later, after the Glorious Revolution. His ideas developed in the context of a period in which individual’s rights and power were emphasized. He believed that individuals needed freedom from control to reach their full potential. Hobbes became an advocate for absolutism--the belief that because humans are naturally power seeking, a sovereign is needed to maintain peace, and the individual must completely submit to that power. In contrast, Locke advocated constitutionalism, the belief that all individuals have inherit rights, government should be based on consensus, and citizens must fight for their liberty in the face of an overpowering government. These philosophers and their ideas outlined the debate about where power should lie in society–with the individual or with the state.
Review this essay John Locke – Second treatise, of civil government 1. First of all, John Locke reminds the reader from where the right of political power comes from. He expands the idea by saying, “we must consider what estate all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons as they think fit.” Locke believes in equality among all people. Since every creature on earth was created by God, no one has advantages over another.
It is uncontroversial to declare complete equality is a basic feature of most (if not all) accounts of the state of nature. Not only that, but that this complete equality is what the state of natural ultimately comes down to. Like Hobbes, Locke agrees with this point in his Second Treatise of Government:
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
John Locke’s Views on Property and Liberty, as Outlined in His Second Treatise of Government
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.
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.
Tuckness, Alex, "Locke's Political Philosophy", The Stanford Encyclopedia of (Winter 2012 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), Web. 07 May 2014 URL = http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2012/entries/locke-political/