Is Power Legitimate only When Exercised with the Consent of Those Subject to It - Coursework Example

Is Power Legitimate only When Exercised With the Consent of Those To It? Power can be defined as having an influence on the behaviour of individuals within either a society or an organisation. This term can be used as a means of giving legitimacy to a social structure and in modern terms is called authority. Power can be achieved either through coercive means or through the influence of an individual over members of society who have confidence in him. While in some cases power is considered evil, its influence is paradoxical because it is also considered to be an integral part of human societies. The legitimacy of power can be achieved in two ways and the first is where individuals have an influence over other people in the society and this through coercive means, while the second is derived from the society itself and vested on an individual. Power is legitimate whether it is exercised with or without the consent of those subject to it because the authority of the individual exercising it is accepted. Legitimate power can be achieved through coercion and this is a common form of the enforcement of authority especially in states that are considered authoritarian. It is essential to note that coercive power derives from the application of negative influence so that individuals are brought under control using fear or the withdrawal of rewards, which ensure that they remain obedient to the authority of a leader. This form of power tends to be least effective because despite the fact that it ensures obedience, at the same time, it brings about resentment from those subject to it and there are times when this resentment leads to resistance (De Moll 2010, p.22). However, despite the resentment, because of the acceptance of subjects to it as well as their choosing to abide by the dictates of the leader, even though through coercion, this form of power becomes legitimate. Threats and punishment in case of resistance are common tools in ensuring that coercive power is perpetuated and this involves the denial of privileges as well as the threat of being imprisoned, which makes sure that the individuals subject to the power remain under control. In situations where a state is divided mostly within ethnic or religious lines, it is essential for coercive power to be used and this is legitimatised in situations where it is in the national interests of a country (Graeber 2004, p.24). The legitimisation of coercive power can at times be the only means through which countries can be spared conflicts or civil war among different groups. In the modern world, this could be seen through the authoritarian leadership of such countries as Saddam Hussein in Iraq and Muammar Gaddafi in Libya (Tripp 2010, p.203). From a Marxist perspective, there is a limited amount of power in society which can be exercised either through authoritarian or democratic means. However, this perspective also shows that the limited amount of power in society tends to be in the hands of those individuals who control the means of production (Jones 2008, p.93). Thus, through their controlling the means of production, individuals seek to dominate society and this is through ensuring that they hold all the power necessary to control their interests. Controlling the means of production provides them with the ability to have a direct influence on the rest of society and this is because those who do not have the ability to own the means of production depend on those with it in order to survive. Thus, under the capitalist system, the ruling class hold all the power over the rest of society and this power is used as a means of exploiting the working class in such a way that they remain more productive for the benefit of the elite. Furthermore, from a Marxist perspective, through owning the means of production, the power of the elite becomes legitimate and the rest of society, specifically the working class, has to subject itself to the elite as a means of ensuring that a semblance of order is created (Morriss 1972, p.457). In this way, Marxism propagates the belief that the structures that form society are made possible through the way its economy is made up. Therefore, under capitalism, the legitimacy of power is determined through capitalist ideals where those with the means of production form the ruling elite. Under such a system, all the power is concentrated in the hands of the few individuals who own the means of production while the rest have to subject themselves to their power because they have accepted the capitalist ideals as their own. Through their being able to control the economy, the elite secure the little amount of power that is available in society and this creates a situation where it is able to dictate how society is run; its power being considered legitimate. One of the criticisms that have been brought up against the Marxist conception of power is that while it espouses that those who control the means of production automatically form the elite, in some societies, there has been a separation between control and ownership (Buber 1996, p.104). Therefore, while there might be individuals who own the means of production, they often choose to hire somebody else to run it for them and the latter end up having almost absolute control. In cases where there is economic elite, it is more often the case that they choose to support a leader who might best protect their interests in society rather than deciding to take the office themselves. Therefore, under such circumstances, those who own the means of production do not necessarily have direct control over the leadership that they believe will represent their interests and it is possible that this leadership might choose to go against them (Handgraaf, Van Dijk et al. 2008, p.1136). In an authoritarian system, a leader might not own the means of production yet has the ability to influence the rest of society using power that is vested in him. A leader under such a system does not necessarily need to control the means of production in order to have legitimate authority over the state and uses other organs of the state in order to ensure that his will is enforced. Moreover, because a majority of those people subjected to this leader’s power do not resist it and at times even welcome it, like the case in Russia under Vladimir Putin, one would conclude that power does not necessarily have to derive either from the people or the economic elite in order to be legitimate. Thus, the legitimacy of power can be considered to be in contradiction of the Marxist perspective where it is believed that only those who own the means of production become the elite in society. Despite the argument against it, the Marxist perspective points out that power becomes legitimate when it is under the control of those who have the means of attaining it. This is especially the case in a capitalist society where all power is vested on the economic elite because the working class is not capable of or cannot afford to take on power itself. Under such circumstances, power becomes the means through which those who own the means of production are able to have an influence over the working class and this result in power being used for economic purposes. In a society where the elite is fragmented, it creates an opportunity for one or a group among them to form an alliance that will ensure that they attain dominant control and because of the power that they have, their authority becomes legitimate (Falbo and Peplau 1980, p.618). One of the most prominent Marxists who have attempted to show how the elite retain power in society is Steven Lukes and he has done this through his three faces or dimensions of power. Lukes, especially in his third dimension declares that the elite use their power as a means of ensuring that the working class of society, which consists of the majority, is socialised in such a manner that they come to hold the beliefs of the elite. Through this socialisation, the working class comes to believe what is against their will and against their interests because they continue being exploited by the ruling class. As a result, the working class comes to accept the ideas propagated by the ruling class and comes to consider them universal and this ensures that the rule of the elite is not only accepted, but also legitimised. It is through the acceptance of the morals of the elite that the working class comes to propagate the former’s rule and it allows for its continued dominance and retention of power over the rest of society. Through his work Power: A Radical Review, Lukes made a significant contribution to the what came to be termed as the social realities of power. It is in this work that he brought about ideas concerning the multi-dimensional nature of power within the society and how there was a paradoxical relationship between power and democracy. Lukes further propagated the belief that there are other sources of power in the modern world other than that based on coercion and that these were all legitimate whether those subject to it or not approved them (Lukes 2005, p.37). Through this work, Lukes came to define power as being the influence that was exercised by the elite over the rest of society in such a manner that the latter came to conduct activities that were against its own interests. Lukes makes an analysis of Robert Dahl’s belief in the pluralist tradition where power is vested on the elite through democratic means (Snyder 2007, p.113). This is done as a result of leaders influencing the manner in which other individuals in society undergo the decision making process. Thus, the person with the power in society is able to ensure that his interests are protected through influencing individuals to make decisions that are in the former’s interests rather than in their own interests. In this way, those individuals with the power are able to prevail in all situations where decisions have to be made within the society (Lukes 2005, p.18). This is the one dimensional view that is proposed by Lukes in his work and it concentrates more on how the elite is able to influence the populace to make decisions that are against their own interests but designed to retain the former’s power. The second dimension is a rebuttal of the pluralist policy as propagated by Dahl and it states that those individuals who have the influence to ensure that policy conflicts are not aired in public have the real power in society (Lukes 2005, p.20). Through their efforts, they are able to shape the agenda that allows for the creation of barriers that prevent the public manifestation of policy conflicts in public. Lukes’ third dimension considers power to be based on the ability of the elite to influence the populace in such a manner that they come to behave in the way that the elite wish rather than pursuing their own interests. This process is done without any form of coercion or force and it is instead based on the development of an ideology or false consciousness that enables the people to believe that what they are doing is right and that it is the elite who know what is best. Lukes makes the observation that pluralist overlook certain important aspects of power when they propagate the belief that power can only come about in situations where there is conflict and that it cannot exist without this conflict being present. However, pluralists tend to ignore the fact that the effective use of power makes possible the prevention of any form of conflict from taking place within society (Lukes 2005, p.27). Despite his focus on the means through which power in society is retained, Lukes fails to provide a satisfactory answer concerning the social mechanisms of power which include the features of society which enables some individuals to wield power over others. Furthermore, Lukes fails to address the issue of whether there are any institutional factors that make it possible for some individuals to exercise influence over others; although this seems to be at the heart of the three dimensions that he is discussing. Therefore, despite his having created a description of the realities of power in society, Lukes fails to show the various sociological factors that make sure that individuals rise to power in the first place. When one considers power in the modern world, one has to recognise that the power of the people is important in many aspects because many countries have adopted the democratic system. However, despite the importance of subjects in the granting of power to individuals or the elite, there are political systems where once the power is granted, it becomes absolute. This is especially the case in such countries as China where the ruling Communist Party has almost absolute power over the entire state. The Communist Party and the state can no longer be distinguished because all other political parties either are allied to or are subservient to the former. The result is that the power that the party and its elite holds is both legitimate and absolute and its actions do not necessarily rely on the consent of those people who are subject to it. This is in line with Foucault’s argument that real power always relies on the ignorance of those who might be considered to be its agents and it is through this ignorance that its influence comes to be distributed throughout society (Wilson 1995, p.157). Thus, from the example of the Chinese Communist Party, a conclusion can be brought forth that real power in China cannot be detected through rational means because the party has become so well melded with the rest of the state as well as society that it cannot be distinguished. The silent distribution of power within this society is efficient because the people have come to accept the status quo and this has essentially legitimised the system as it is so that their consent is not needed when different individuals take up power in their society. In conclusion, the discussion above has attempted to show that power is legitimate whether it is exercised with or without the consent of those subject to it because the authority of the individual exercising it is accepted. Therefore, legitimate power can be achieved through coercion and in authoritarian societies; it is a common form of enforcing authority. Furthermore, the discussion has shown that from a Marxist perspective, there is a limited amount of power in society, which is exercised by those who control the means of production through diverse means. Moreover, the Marxist conception of power can be criticised because while it espouses that those who control the means of production automatically form the elite, it fails to recognise that some societies have managed to achieve the separation between control and ownership. In addition, Lukes’ definition of power is seen as being the influence that is exercised by the elite over the rest of society in such a manner that the latter come to conduct activities and make decisions that are against its own interests. Finally, the discussion has shown that despite the importance of subjects in granting power to individuals or the elite, there are political systems where once the power is granted, it becomes absolute. References Buber, M., 1996. Paths in Utopia. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press. De Moll, K.E., 2010. Everyday Experiences of Power. Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee. Falbo, T. and Peplau, L.A., 1980. “Power strategies in intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 38, pp. 618-628. Graeber, D., 2004. Fragments of an anarchist anthropology. Chicago: Prickly Paradigm Press. Handgraaf, M. J. J., Van Dijk, E, et al., 2008. "Less power or powerless? Egocentric empathy gaps and the irony of having little versus no power in social decision making." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 95, no.5, pp. 1136–1149. Jones, P., 2008. Introducing Social Theory. Cambridge: Polity Press. Lukes, S., 2005. Power: A Radical View. London: Macmillan Publishers. Morriss, P., 1972. "Power in New Haven: A Reassessment of ‘Who Governs?," British Journal of Political Science, vol. 2, no.4, pp. 457-465. Snyder, R., 2007. "Robert A. Dahl: Normative Theory, Empirical Research and Democracy.” In Gerardo L. Munck and Richard Snyder, Passion, Craft, and Method in Comparative Politics. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Tripp, C. 2010., A History of Iraq. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Wilson, T.H., 1995. "Foucault, Genealogy, History." Philosophy Today, vol. 39, no. 2, pp. 157–70. Read More