Is Power Central to Understanding Politics?

The notion of power had a time honoured status in the history of political science. The concept of power has gained prominence in the recent times especially with emergence of Behaviouralism as a method of studying politics. It focuses on the study of politics as a process or activity with an interdisciplinary approach. The debate on the centrality of the concept of power for understanding the politics is the interaction with the different space and time. And the intervention of Foucault comes in this way as a breakthrough from the conventional notions of power.

The Power: Meaning, Nature, Significance and Characteristics The English noun power derives from the Latin ‘petere’, which means “to be able”. At the simplest level, power is seen as the ability of a person to get his will done by another person or a group even against the will of that person or group. The power achieves different meaning in its relational, bilateral and situational characteristics. And it should be discussed in relation with the concepts of force, manipulation, persuasion authority and legitimacy. It can be also noticed that the notion of power is discussed in different angles like political power, economic power and ideological power according to varied schools of thought. Like any other concepts of politics, power is also an essentially contested concept and different thinkers have tried to define the politics in relation to power. The explanation of Frederick Watkins was one among this debate in the early phase of development of modern political science. He observed that “the proper scope of political science is not the study of state or of any other specific institutional complex, but the investigation of all associations in so far they can be shown to exemplify the problem of power” 1.

This view was confirmed by William A. Robson 2 who suggested: “It is with the power in society that political science is primarily concerned- its nature, basis, processes, scope and results’ The significance of power in political phenomenon can be traced in the works of traditional thinkers like Aristotle (427-322 BC), Machiavelli (1469-1679), Hobbes (1588-1679) and Nietzsche (1844-1900) as well as modern writers like Max Webber, Lasswell, A. Kaplan, Hans Morgenthau, Michel Foucault. Scholars like Vilfredo Pareto (1848-1923), Gaetano Mosca (1858-1941), Robert Michels, C. Wright Mills, Robert Dahl and Steven Lukes also tried to uncover this dynamics .For H.Laswell and A.Kaplan Politics is the study of shaping and sharing power 3. For Burtrand Russel power is fundamental concept in political science in the same sense that energy is treated as a fundamental concept in physics. Max Webber explains power in the context of national as well as in international politics: “Politics is the struggle for the power or the influencing of those in power, and embraces the struggle between states as well as between organized groups within the state”. The meaning of power is also highly discussed in political discourses. Bertrand Russel 4 has defined power as ‘the production of intended effects’.

Robert Dahl 5 defined power as a kind of influence; it is exercised ‘when compliance is attained by creating the prospect of severe sanctions for non-compliance’. In brief the debate about the power directly or indirectly is related to the broad concepts of authority and legitimacy.

Theories of Power
Generally theories of power are discussed in the light of different perspectives and outlooks the thinkers perceive. Broadly we can discuss this as follows.

Class Perspective:
Class perspective on power is based on Marxian interpretation of the social structure and state. It states that the political power is the product of economic power and ownership of the means of production determines the source of power. Antonio Gramsci added a new dimension of power while explaining the concept of hegemony in his analysis about the structures of domination in the society. According to him ‘when power is apparently exercised with the consent of its subject, it is called ‘hegemony’. Thus the Marxian conception projects an ideal classless egalitarian society.

Elitist Theory:
Elitist theory is the oldest conception of power. It shows the power as a tool in the hands of a limited person or a group. We see the beginning of elitist theory and its justification in the thoughts of Plato, Aristotle, Machiavelli and Hobbes. It was the Plato who put forward the rule of ‘Philosopher King’ who has the wisdom over the mass who failed to control their appetite. Aristotle who was mostly concerned about the stability of the politics suggests the rule of the minority over the majority. “The Prince’ written by Machiavelli describes how the ruler control the forces of human nature as a part of his statecraft. For Hobbes the sovereign and omnipotent Leviathan is the synonym of the power. The elitist theory which emerged as a critique to Marxist notion questions the possibility of an egalitarian society. Unlike class theory they argue that people differ in their natural attributes and hence the social stratification is never negligible. While early theorists like Pareto and Mosca talk on the personal attributes of elites, later theorists focus on the institutional framework.

The term ‘elite’ was used by Pareto to indicate superior social group 6. He proves that ‘the history of mankind is a graveyard of aristocracy. Mosca tried to conceptualize the elitist theory of power in the context of modern time of democracy. He held that a constant competition between the upper class and the lower strata of society led to the ‘circulation of elites’. Robert Michels (1876-1936) propounded his idea of ‘Iron law of Oligarchy’ to demonstrate that every organization is eventually reduced to ‘oligarchy’, that is rule of the chosen few 7. Max Webber, who inspired by the elitist theory redefined the democracy as ‘a competition for political leadership’ 8. He emphasized on a democratic model of government rather than a ‘classless society’ which was visualized by Marxists. C. Wright Mills presented a new version of elite theory, which is a combination of several groups who exercised all power by virtue of their status in the society9.

Gender Perspective and Constructive View:
The feminist interpretation of power argues that division of the society on the basis of gender is not natural and patriarchal set up of the society gives the ultimate power to men. Friedrich Engels observed that in the antiquity when the institution of marriage was not invented, lineage of a person could be reckoned only through female line. 10 The constructive view of power is an overwhelming response to the conventional understanding of the power. It is a shift from ‘power over’ to ‘power to’. It enables the oppressed to empower himself and resist from the oppressor. Hannah Arendt (1906-75) distinguishes between ‘power’ and ‘violence’ to arrive at a constructive meaning of the power. She argues that power is ‘not a property of an individual. It is the human ability not just to act but to act in concert’. She links ‘authority’ to the sphere of state and ‘power’ in public sphere. 11 The conception of Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948) also can be sighted in this morning. Even though he didn’t write any treatise on power his idea of ‘Swaraj’ is based on a power diffused in every part of the society.

Pluralist Theory:
The pluralist theory of power envisages a dispersed notion of power in the society rather than a limited one in any person or a group. According to this perspective the power evolves through the autonomous and dependent centers of decision. The balance of each stake holders’ power is the basic tenet of this theory and public decisions are the outcomes of the equilibrium. It upholds a very diverse pluralist society. Contemporary pluralist theory appeared in the works of Robert Dahl and Charles Lindblom. Dahl’s concept of democracy is ‘polyarchy’ where a society is governed by a set of competing interests groups, with the government as little more than an honest arbitrator between them. He recommended welfare policies to enhance equitable distribution of power in society. The pluralist theory of power was criticized in its limited focus on the decision-making aspect and it was called as ‘one dimensional’. It is Steven Lukes who analyzed the whole debate hitherto and gives a comprehensive idea of power. In his ‘Power- A Radical View’ he explores a ‘third dimension ‘of power over ’one dimension’ and ‘two dimension’ while he elaborates the thoughts of Michel Foucault.

Lukes criticizes them as they postulate coercion, influence, authority, force and manipulation. The Three Dimensional View of Power, offered by Lukes, is a “thoroughgoing critique” of the behavioral focus. He elaborates the term ‘behavioural’ in as “the study of overt and actual behavior and specifically concrete decisions.” He explains that it is committed to the view that behaviour (action and inaction, conscious and unconscious, actual and potential) provides evidence for an attribution of the exercise of power” 12. It feels very much realistic when Luke describes that the notion of domination can consist in its being suppressed and stifled within relations between groups, in authoritarian families and tyrannical educational institutions, and between individuals in asymmetrical relationships quoting the Ibsen’s famous play A Doll’s House.

Michel Foucault- Starting of a new era of debate
Foucault, one of the most debated thinkers in the post-modern period, explored the concept of power. He concentrated upon the concept of power and how power and knowledge are deeply interwoven. He makes a triangular relationship between power, right and truth. For him ‘power is the integral part of the production of truth and there is a ‘politics of truth’ in any society whose outcome determines what is deemed true and by what procedures it is legitimately arrived at’. He projects an omnipresence power at every level of social body. In his words “Power is everywhere: not because it embraces everything, but because it comes from everywhere. … Power is not an institution, nor a structure, nor a possession. It is the name we give to a complex strategic situation in a particular society” 13. Foucault’s positive attitude about the power makes him to deny the necessariness of repressive, prohibitive, negative or exclusionary notions of power.

He gives relevance to ‘discourse’ as an instrument and an effect of power and proves that co-existence also can be used against the oppressor. Modern political governance which involves a combination of micro and macro power is rooted on Foucault’s conception of governmentality. In Foucault’s phrase government involves “the conduct of conduct”, the directing and channeling of behavior of body individual, the body social, and the body politic by means other than force or even explicit rule. 14 Foucault’s conceptualization of power shows a holistic approach to the much debated efforts to define the state. He argues that the State is a codification of relations of power at all levels across the social body. It is a concept which provides a ‘scheme of intelligibility for a whole group of already established institutions and realities’. Further, he states that ‘the State is a practice not a thing’ and questions the State as the primary source of power.

The whole debate about the nature of state and its interaction with a person or the society revolve around the concept of power. The question about the centrality of power to politics makes the sense from the Aristotle, the Father of Political Science to most contemporary thinkers. Now the debate on the power and its nature continues in the realms of domestic politics as well as international politics. The realist notion of power in international politics and the concept ‘Balance of Power’ is well debated in their very interventionist nature. The changing equation of the power is clear feature of ‘Occupy Wall Street Movement’ and ‘Arab Spring”. The concerns about the failure of the nation state in modern time and the identity politics in the post- colonial countries show the relevance Foucaultian thoughts. The Dalit and minority politics in India are the result of fundamental question in this regard.

The alarming extra national sentiments show the urgency to restructure the equation of power. The policies of good governance and transparency are the right step in a good direction. This is the time when Gandhian ‘moral anarchist’ appeals to the powerful souls to enlighten the whole system away from any kind of power corruption. The above discussion proves that debate power was the cornerstone of political thought. But at the same time politics is more than understanding the power structure. The power approach to politics treats man as a unit of analysis rather than an abstract institution. Its focus on the politics is a dynamic process. It enlarges the scope of political science beyond the public sphere to the other social organisations as well as human interactions. Thus understanding the power transcends the vistas of politics as well as political science.

References

1. Adams, I., & Dyson, R. W. (2007). Fifty Major Political Thinkers. Rutledge. Blackwell Publishing

5. Contemporary Political Philosophy: An Anthology. (2005). (p. 760). John Wiley & Sons 7. http://www.michel-foucault.com/concepts/index.html MA Development 2012-2013 1312).

6. Power after Foucault, Wendy Brown, The Oxford Handbook of Political Science (2009). (p. Page 6

4. Jonathan Wolff, An Introduction to Political Philosophy, Oxford University Press, I996

2. Gauba. (2000). An Introduction To Political Theory (4 Edition) Macmillan India Ltd, 2010

3. Robert E. Goodin and Philip Pettit, Contemporary Political Philosophy-An Anthology,