Power and Authority
PO107
Week 5
The key to political science.
Analysis of the ‘nature, exercise and distribution of power’ (Max
Weber 1919)
“Politics is about more than what governments choose to do or
not to do; it is about the uneven distribution of power in a
society, how the struggle for power is conducted, and its impact
on the creation and distribution of resources, life chances and
well-being”
— Gerry Stoker and David Marsh, Theory and Methods in Political
Science
The plan
1. What is ‘power’ ?
2. The three ‘faces’ of power
3. Theories of power (Elitism, Pluralism, Marxism)
4. The dilemma of authority
1. What is ‘power’ ?
Defining power
Whose power?
1. Power of individuals
2. Power of institutions (Comparative Pol)
3. Power of states (IR)
4. Structural Power (Critical)
Which aspect of power?
1. Exercising power
2. Distribution of power
3. Sources of power
4. Consequences of power
An ‘essentially contested concept’
Classic definitions
“Actor ‘A’ has power over actor ‘B’ to the extent that she can get
actor ‘B’ to do something that he would otherwise not do”
— Robert A. Dahl. 1957. ‘The Concept of Power’, Behavioural
Science 2, 201
Example: Keir Starmer can get Rishi Sunak to hold an early
general election, which Rishi Sunak would not otherwise do since
the Conservatives are trailing Labour in opinion polls
‘Power-over’
‘Power-to’
“In general, we understand by ‘power’ the chance of a man or of a
number of men to realize their own will in a communal action
even against the resistance of others who are participating in
the same action”
— Max Weber, ‘Economy and Society’, 1968 (1922)
‘Power-to’
Problem 1:
Effects may be incidental
e.g., B may be following own interests
Problem 2:
Power can have unintended effects
e.g., Theresa May’s decision to call a general election and blow up
her majority
Problem 3:
Context is important
Power is provisional, conditional and relative
e.g., boss and you at work and in pub; US president (absolute
power) vs. UK Prime Minister (relative power)
Problem 4:
Power can be latent
Easier to measure when it is being exercised
2. The ‘three faces of power’
Stephen Lukes (1974) ‘Power: A Radical View’
Builds on Peter Bachrach and Morton S. Baratz (1962) The Two
Faces of Power, American Political Science Review 57: 948
1. Decision-making
2. Agenda setting (non decision-making)
3. Preference shaping
The lower we get on the list, the more important the power
becomes?
The first face of power: decision-making
Overt/directly observable – the power to make or influence
decisions (see Dahl etc.)
Example: If a committee has voted on an issue (e.g., build nuclear
power plant) the side that won would be said to have exerted power
Second face of power: agenda setting
Non decision-making – keeping items OFF the political/voting
agenda
Issues that are never actually available for discussion, do not
feature in observable process
Agenda setting power
“[agent] A devotes his energies to creating or reinforcing social
and political values and institutional practices that limit the
scope of the political process to public consideration of only those
issues which are comparatively innocuous to A”
— Peter Bachrach and Morton S. Baratz (1962) ‘The Two Faces
of Power’, American Political Science Review 57: 948
Mobilisation of bias
‘All forms of political organization have a bias in favor of the
exploitation of some kinds of conflict and the suppression of others
because organization is the mobilization of bias. Some issues are
organized into politics while others are organized out’
— E.E. Schattschneider (1960) The Semi-Sovereign People
Example: In vote on nuclear power plant, alternative sources of
power (e.g., wind, solar) might not have been on the agenda.
The third face of power: preference shaping
Decisions can be affected by wider structural and ideational
sources of power
Structured ideas influence how we think about political possibility
... and our ability to question
Michel Foucault:
Forms of power can be internalised and routinised
Example: Stopping at red light without thinking about it
Preferencing shaping power
“Is it not the most insidious exercise of power to prevent people, to
whatever degree, from having grievances by shaping their
perceptions, cognitions, and preferences in such a way that they
accept their role in the existing order of things, either because
they can see or imagine no alternative to it, or because they
see it as natural or unchangeable, or because they value it as
divinely ordained and beneficial?”
Steven Lukes (1974) Power: A Radical View
3. Theoretical perspectives on power
Elite theory
Pluralsim
Marxism
Elite theory
1. Power is concentrated (in an elite)
2. Elites are drawn from a narrow stratum
3. Elites circulate
Classical and Modern variants
Classical elite theory
Different ‘kinds’ of people: ‘Leaders (technical or organisational
skills) & Followers (apathic; psychological need for leadership)’
Rule by the few due to some innate qualities
Robert Michels (1911) Political Parties
Critiques of classical elite theory
1. Methodological individualism
An overemphasis on the role of individuals (in this case the
psychological sources of power) and ignoring structural forms
of power and/or contexts
2. A lack of empirical evidence
The existence of an elite was largely just assumed
Modern Elite Theory (1940s+)
Power derived from structural position in society (not from
personal qualities)
Formal political authority vs. ‘real’ (economic) power
Economic power: behind the scenes (not visible to the public)
Empirical research (two important examples)
Floyd Hunter (1953) – study local Atlanta politics
Based on the ‘reputational method’: ask people to nominate those
they felt were most power in their city)
Identified a, largely business based, ‘power elite’ (around 40 people)
Findings subsequently replicated by others in several U.S. cities
C Wright Mills (1956) – national level US
‘Power elite’ operated in U.S. nation as whole
Interlocking economic, political & military elites
Eisenhower
‘iron triangles’ / military-industrial complex
Ideas extend to other countries
Notion of British elite around Westminster and the City, public
school system, Oxbridge, etc.)
Critique 1: Accuracy/Where the boundaries?
Is reputation an accurate indicator of who has power? Why 40
people? Context?
Critique 2: How to study an elite?
Can a researcher gain access to behind the scenes power?
Critique 3: Non-falsifiable (‘infinite regress’)
Just because analysis doesn’t identify elites, doesn’t mean they are
not there ...
Pluralism (1960s) For the most part still dominant view today.
1. Power is dispersed throughout society
2. Politics is competitive – different interest groups
3. Policy is the outcome of competitive processes
Focus on directly observable power.
Robert Dahl (1961): ‘Who Governs?’
Method: focus on actual decisions taken in New Haven
No single group or organisation was said to dominate
No elite group exists = polyarchy not oligarchy
Structural factors?
Neo-pluralists
Take structure/nuance more into account:
1. Structural power of business – business does not need to ‘go
to’ government
2. Closed networks / issues (e.g., foreign policy ‘closed’ ?)
3. Elite pluralism – i.e. no single elite
Neo-problems
1. Circular reasoning:
Q1 : How are decisions made?
A1 : In the interests of the strongest groups.
Q2 : Who are the strongest groups?
A2 : Those in whose interests decisions are made.
2. Little recognition of structure beyond power of business
Marxism
Marx was one of the first to note structure–agency issue
“Men make their own history, but they do not make it just as they
please; they do not make it under circumstances chosen by
themselves, but under circumstances directly encountered,
given, and transmitted from the past” (Marx 1852)
Economic system (captilasim) as the structural power
Subsequent Marxists expanded on this to include other sources of
power
The power of ideas
‘Cultural hegemony’: some ideas so powerful that they do not need
laws to uphold (third ‘face’)
Therefore, confront power on the level of ideas
Antonio Gramsci (1929-35) Prison Notebooks
Problems with Marxism
1. Too deterministic (Althusser)?
2. Is capitalism really oppressive?
3. Outdated?
Each approach highlights some of the subtleties of power that the
other approach might overlook
4. The dilemma of authority
Power works in differrent ways, on different levels, through various
ideological and cultural forms
This is an important issue for politics and society
Milgram experiment (1963, 1974)
Tested people’s willingness to obey authority (‘legitimate power’)
Example: The defence of many Nazis on trial after WW2 was that
they were ‘just following orders’
The shocks got stronger and stronger, leading to a ‘fatal shock’
and the ‘death’ of the other person
Two-thirds of people would follow orders up to the fatal dose.
Interpretation
Some horrific events less caused by deliberate evilness and more by
suspension of imagination, thinking, reflection etc.
But bebate, reason, persuasion are essential to the practice of
‘normal politics’ (Aristotle – week 2)
Hence this suspension is a problem for politics
The dilemma of authority
1. Obeying is needed for society to work and potentially
evolutionary pre-programmed
2. But it has potentially dangerous consequences
“We do not observe compliance to authority merely because it is a
transient cultural or historical phenomenon, but because it flows
from the logical necessities of social organization. If we are to
have social life in any organized form—that is to say, if we are to
have society—then we must have members of society amenable to
organizational imperatives”
— Letter from Stanley Milgram, 25 September 1973
Summary
1. Power is conditional, relative and contextual
2. The ‘three faces’ of power highlight some of these dimensions
3. Elite theory, pluralism, and Marxism conceive of power in
different ways
4. Society needs authority, but too much can be dangerous