The Classical Theories of Power - Essay Example

The ical Theories of Power The ical theories of power by four great philosophers and sociologists, ly, Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527), Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679), John Locke (1632-1704), and Maximilian Weber (1864-1920) had provided so much in terms of foundational knowledge and a deeper understanding of the present socio-political world of the new millenium. These theories are also very much helpful in providing possible solutions to problems ranging from simple misunderstandings between two people of dissimilar goals and interests to the more complex international conflicts between two heads of states. Going further it is very clear from the review of the literature that these thinkers were influenced by the events that shaped their world and also by the contribution of the previous generation of philosophers. Thus it is important to remember that their views can be only understood in the context of these experiences. Since, there is a progressive development in their ideas as time progresses, there is no point of comparison. Yet if one is asked to choose which among them is more relevant to understanding the present system of governance or the various leadership models found in the modern world, then there must be no hesitation to choose the classical theorist Max Weber. The following reasons supports this view. 1. Webers theory is far more advanced because he is from the 20th century. 2. The other ideas were based on structures of power that is non-existent today. 3. Webers theory is much more helpful in understanding contemporary leadership models. Using these three questions as guidelines, it would be beneficial to have an overview of the different theories by the other philosophers to provide a point of comparison. By looking at their respective historical we see a linear development from Medieval period up to the more recent era. Max Weber continued writing even up to the 20th century and undoubtedly his ideas were shaped by the leapfrogging developments in politics and social sciences at the turn of the century. Contrast Webers background and experiences to Niccolo Machiavelli who lived in a period commonly known as the Dark Ages. This is a time before the Reformation, Renaissance and age of scientific progress. His magnum opus, a book entitled The Prince was written in 1515 AD, in the midst of a society where despots and authoritarian rulers are a norm (Wheeler, 2006, par.3, “The Prince”). Thomas Hobbes on the other hand was born a mere century after Machiavelli and his theory of power was based on the understanding of a world ruled by kings, queens and popes. His ideas supported the necessity of a monarchical government and even assert that order can be attained by following this type of rule. Hobbes was forced to support monarchy only because he believed that there should only be one ruler, that there could only be one supreme authority. And that power should never be shared (Landry, par. 10). Whereas, Machiavelli and Hobbes world view is only limited to an authority either through a one man rule or an oligarchy, John Locke believes that power is in the collective desires of the people. The rule of majority and a democratic form of government was introduced to the whole world. Uzgalis (2001), quoting Locke, on the philosopher’s definition of power: Political power, then, I take to be a right of making laws with penalties of death, and consequently all less penalties, for the regulating and preserving of property, and of employing the force of the community, in the execution of such laws, and in the defence of the common-wealth from foreign injury; and all this only for the public good (Uzgalis, 2001, Section 3, para. 6). It was a major paradigm shift compared to Machiavelli and Hobbes insights on where ultimate authority lies and who has the right to rule. Yet aside from his novel idea about the authority emanating from a collective understanding of what is beneficial to the public good and the democratic process of choosing leaders, Lockes theory was unable to answer some of the issues encountered by men and women in the 21st century. Furthermore, a casual observation of the real world will reveal that majority does not always mean power or gets translated to authority and is not always equal to truth. For instance, in an office, even if majority wanted to get a raise, the staff would never get one if the Boss will not oblige. Also, the decision to expel a popular student rests with the school principal and not on the student body. Max Weber began to analyze these issues and he came up with a far-reaching reinterpretation of the nature of power, authority and leadership. His theories in a way consolidated all the previous classical theories, yet the most basic difference is Webers assertion that power is intentional. This is understood to mean that one man asserts authority over another by a conscious choice, not by an existent structure that forces people either to become subjects or lord (Weber, 1903/1949). For Weber man was not predestined to behave in a certain or predetermined way. Coser (1999) has this to say with regards to Webers unique understanding that leaders or masters exercise dominion over another because the authority figure wants to and there is something more potent than social structure that is allowing this display of power play to occur: In his analytical focus on individual human actors he differed from many of his predecessors whose sociology was conceived in social-structural terms. Spencer concentrated on the evolution of the body social as analogous to an organism. Durkheims central concern was with institutional arrangements that maintain the cohesion of social structures. Marxs vision of society was informed by his preoccupation with the conflicts between social classes within changing social structures and productive relations. In contrast, Webers primary focus was on the subjective meanings that human actors attach to their actions in their mutual orientations within specific social-historical contexts. (p.217) According to Webers theory, this power is only legitimate if the actors on stage agree to play such a role (Weber, 1903/1949). In other words person A cannot exert dominion over person B unless they come into a certain understanding; they at least knew each other and know what the other person possesses. Therefore, relationships must exist first. In this intricate collaboration, the slave knows fully well what he is capable of and at the same time very much aware of his limitations. The master also is aware of his superiority and advantage in terms of resources, skill, and knowledge (Weber, 1904/1930). What normally follows according to this model is that the master seizes the opportunity and exploits the situation. All the above allowed Weber to break away from the pack. Now, what are the examples of this structure of interests that binds human to human making one ruler and the other one the subject? An example of this interest is the possession of resources. The one who has the gold - rules. Moreover, the individual under another person in ruler-subject or leader-follower relationship does not only bend his will to the perceived authority because of needs. The “dominated” person does so because of three forces. Again Coser (1999) explains this phenomenon as a type of social action, that men will act this way because of the following incentives or motivations: Men may engage in purposeful or goal-oriented rational action (zweckrational); their rational action may be value-oriented (wertrational); they may act from emotional or affective motivations; or, finally, they may engage in traditional action. (p. 218) In other words men follow others due to: 1) a perception of what is right or rational; 2) a magnetism to a charismatic leadership; 3) or by simple acceptance of rules because for they have existed and in acceptance for so long a time (traditional). In the traditional type of authority, people would obey rules because of the belief that it has been the same way ever since and therefore there is no need to question its veracity. The charismatic type of authority compels people to follow because people are simply attracted to by his example or the modeling of an ideal behavior found in men of extraordinary talents or abilities. Finally, the rational-legal type of authority that finds its power from the willingness of the masses to obey generally accepted rules. The people will subject themselves into this system of governance because they believe it makes a lot of sense and they get profit from abiding in such types of laws and ordinances (Weber, 1915/1947). Conclusion The study on the different classical theories of power has led the proponent to a deeper appreciation of the contributions of the three philosophers on how modern man was able to build a much better world. Much gratitude to Max Weber, foremost of the three because of his more lucid explanation for the origins of power and how it is played out in the real world. Finally, Max Weber had made it plain to the modern man that they have a greater responsibility because according to him structures of authority does not happen by chance. It is very much intentional and a product of mans choices and desires. Therefore, mans destiny is very much within his grasp and those who do evil has no license to do so. References Coser, Lewis A. (1977). Masters of Sociological Thought: Ideas in Historical and Social Context. (3rd ed.). New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich Elwell, Frank, (1996). The Sociology of Max Weber. Retrieved June 1, 1999, from http://www.faculty.rsu.edu/~felwell/Theorists/Weber/Whome.htm#Printable Landry, Peter. (1997). Thomas Hobbes. Retrieved April 8, 2006, from http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Biographies/Philosophy/Hobbes.htm Uzgalis, William, (2001). John Locke. Retrieved April 8, 2006, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/locke/ Weber, Max. (1946). From Max Weber: Essays in Sociology. (H. H. Gerth and C. W. Mills, Trans.). New York: Oxford University Press. Weber, Max. (1949). The Methodology of the Social Sciences. (E. A. Shils and H. A. Finch, Trans.). New York: The Free Press. (Original work 1903) Weber, Max. (1947). The Theory of Social and Economic Organizations. (T. Parsons, Trans.). New York: The Free Press. (Original work 1915) Weber, Max. (1976). Basic Concepts of Sociology by Max Weber. (H.P. Secher, Trans.). New York: The Kensington Publishing Corp. Whimster, Sam (Ed.). (2003). The Essential Weber. New York: Routledge. Weber, Max. (1930). The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. (Talcot Parsons and Anthony Giddens, Trans.). London;Boston: Unwin Hyman. (Original work published 1904) Wheeler, Kip L. (1998). Niccolo Machiaveli and the Prince. Retrieved April 8, 2006, from http://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/machiavelli.html Read More