Structure of Power as Per Various Schools Of Thought
Countless approaches are also valid, for each school of thought implies a different take on the subject. The communist view point is shaped from the standpoint of class, bringing the importance of social strata into the picture. The elitist idea is that an elite group of people that were born to lead will always be a dominant factor for the lower masses. The feminist approach which looks only at the issues of equal treatment in the work place from the gender perspective, on the other hand, emphasizes the power dynamics between men and women. Lastly, there is the group perspective of the pluralist theory, advocating that the exercise of power is a shared right of certain groups and segments of the society:
- Class Perspective of Power: Based on it, there is a belief that political power results from being economically powerful. Opinions are precisely split into two opposing classes of society: rich (haves) and poor (have-nots) who have the power or control over the means of production sociality. In original Marxist ideology the economic structure of society was held to be a base while legal, political, and cultural systems, as well superstructure, were considered as a whole. An alteration at the bottom layer will produce refurbishments at the overlying layer, whereas the lowest layer societal observation has the main graft.
- Elite Theory: It originated in the late 19th century with the thinkers of that time, Pareto, Michels and Mosca. Their upper hand theory postulates that societies fundamentally divide into elite and mass groupings. By contrast, it asserts that such a situation stems naturally from the division, and people perceive such setting as unjustified. Thechalcedonian viewpoint holds the view that social change, if it is to happen, is limited to the “elite circulation,” the replacement of the one elite by the other, instead of the masses gaining control over the society.
- Gender Perspective: Feminists shine a light on the power struggle that occurs between the two sexes. This is the delineation of the society into two broad groups—men and women. Men are seen impassive and in power, on the other hand women are deemed obedient and submissive by nature. Feminists support a thoroughly restructured system which must remove all sorts of male dominance from women’s lives. In the world of 2019, the UN report clearly shows how the economy operates the gender inequality. It states, “Women constitute half the world’s population, perform nearly two-thirds of its work hours, receive one-tenth of the world”s income, and own less than one-hundredth of the world”s property.”
- Group Perspective: Group perspective on power relates to pluralist theory. It does not distribute masses into any broad category. According to this theory, power in society is not related to a single group, but it is diversely dispersed amongst a wide assortment of social groups. These groups are largely self-sufficient and almost independent centers in taking the decision.
Writers suggest: “Since these groups are more or less interdependent inside the social organization, they try to balance each other’s power. Public decisions are mostly the result of this equilibrium. This theory gives a portrayal of the actual diversification of power in society as well as its justification. Thus, pluralism maintains a political framework that is suited to a pluralist society. Pluralist society is that society in which power and authority are not limited to a particular group but are scattered to various centers of decision-making. In a nutshell, covetous forms of domination inside various groups and during their interaction should not be overlooked while using group perspective for the inquiry of power in society.”
- Constructive view of Power: The conventional conception of power strongly accentuates the position of a leader or a group of people (who are referred to as “agents” of power) in their relationship with the total population (who have been referred to as “subjects” of power). In this condition, the agent will be considered an end, and the subject will be regarded as a means to achieving that end. This distinction as a construction of “power over” and “power to” is usually referred to as the state of being, while the modern interpretation implies the creation of a new type of power that fulfills the ego and a mundane human needs, which has been called “power in and for itself”. By advocating for people, like women & the flight of society, we should empower them equip them to the power of resist their oppressors and gain the opportunity & tool of utilizing their abilities to move up. Likewise, some of the philosophers have also delved into the issue of power in their theoretical scenarios, e.g., like Hannah Arendt, Mahatma Gandhi, and C.B. Macpherson.
When Swaraj (independence + self-government) was set to be the objective of the independence movement of India, Gandhi wrote, “Real Swaraj will come not by the acquisition of authority by a few but by the acquisition of the capacity by all to resist authority when it is abused.”[i] In other words, Swaraj is to be obtained by educating the masses to a feeling of their capacity to regulate and control authority.
CONCLUSION
Putting it in a nutshell, what characterizes political relations is power and power relations, whereas politics is about power. The world of international relations reveals that national interests can be in this way achieved through the use of power by every nation. Thus, every state seeks how to get and maintain power and to do the things it wants to do. Power can function both as an end and a means in international politics, determining the position of the state among other states. These states are not simply powerful but can also be used by a state to achieve advantage in other areas of international politics. The power approach stands strong among the others as this approach indicates the real power that is behind politics and can be applied both to the national and international politics. On the contrary, this technique is subject to several other weaknesses related to accuracy. As Vernon Van Dyke has elucidated, “Power is said to derive from sources ranging from tacitly accepted rules of politeness to the possession of spaceships; and it is said to manifest itself in situations ranging from a request that the salt be passed at the dining table to a situation in which states are exchanging all-out thermonuclear blows.”[ii] Such imprecision in the concept of power itself challenges any classification or evaluation of information for political analysis.
Secondly, this methodology seeks to diminish all politics to a struggle for power and overlooks other significant purposes for which men have recourse to politics. As Dyke has further elucidated, “Political actors rarely, if ever, struggle for power alone. They pursue other purposes, too. The theory that politics is a struggle for power does not say how much power is desired or what price political actors are willing to pay for it in terms of other values. The thoughtless assumption that all political actors constantly seek a maximization of power at any price is obviously false.”[iii]
Concerning uniqueness of different social contexts and their power struggles, it would not be appropriate to classify all such struggles as being political per se. Take, for example, the situation where actors fight for celeb status and manufacturers battle for market share. Virtually those two constitute political power struggles, but they are not mentioned as so in the context. Politics in a more specific sense means the competition of the haves for power, with the maneuvering to have that power applied in the immediate determination of the distribution of public goods, opportunities, services and honors. Regardless of how we twist this idea there will be no power approach obtained if it is based on something else.
Author: Kaustubh Kumar, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email to chhavi@khuranaandkhurana.com or at Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorney.
[i] in Young India (1925)
[ii] Political Science—A Philosophical Analysis; 1960
[iii] Ibid.
