Appelbaum and Chambliss (248:1997) begin their discussion of political sociology with some material drawn from Max Weber on the relationship between power and authority. Remember, power is the ability to achieve one's will despite resistance from others. Weber was initially concerned with legitimate authority. This is a type of power that is exercised over people who see that exercise of power as legitimate.
There are three types of state power and authority.
For much of human history, the state relied on traditional authority. Traditional authority is power based on a belief in the sanctity of long-standing traditions and the legitimate right of rulers to exercise authority in accordance with these traditions. Rulers rule because of "age-old" norms and values. The followers agree that these norms and values and important. Often the tradition is based on religious doctrine. Traditional authority is conservative and tends to be stable. Monarchies are good examples (Appelbaum and Chambliss, 248:1997).
Example: Henslin (2004:295) notes that gender relationships in most societies are examples of traditional authority. Parenting is also based on tradition. Parents usually discipline their kids based on guidelines they learned from their own parents.
Charismatic authority is power based on devotion inspired in followers by the presumed extraordinary personal qualities of the leader. The leader is seen as having a gift of super human or divine powers.
This type of authority can threaten the other two types of power and authority or it can serve as an alternative to the other two when the other two types have broken down.
When the charismatic leaders dies, his or her power usually dies with them. Their successors will generally attempt to routinize their leaders charm, which generally doesn't work. The charismatic authority will slowly transform itself into one of the other two types of authority (Appelbaum and Chambliss, 249:1997).
Weber considered traditional authority as impeding capitalist economic growth. Capitalism is based on forms of organization that require careful calculation rather than habit. As capitalism developed, traditional authority gave way to legal-rational authority. Legal rational authority or power is based on a belief in the lawfulness of enacted rules (laws) the the legitimate right of leaders to exercise authority under such rules. People believe in laws rather than in tradition. Leaders are legitimate as long as they obey the laws Laws are enacted through formal bureaucratic procedure. The authority of the President of the United States rests in liberal-rational authority. Weber argues that this type of authority is most compatible with modern capitalism and socialism (Appelbaum and Chambliss, 248:1997).
Example: The authority of the President of the United States is based on legal-rational authority.
Our focus to date has been on issues concerning social class. Social classes, however, are not the only power contenders in society. The state plays an increasingly important role in the political arena. Despite the fact that the state is a rather recent historical development, it has emerged to become "the main source of social authority, successfully claiming a monopoly on the legitimate use of force in a given territory" (Robertson, 1989:331). The state is not the same as government. The state is an impersonal authority. Government, on the other hand, refers to the people who happen to be charged with directing the power of the state at any given time.
Measuring the Increasing Power of the StateIn order to demonstrate the growth in the power of the state, one might like to look at not only the absolute growth in dollars spent by the state, but also at the proportion of GNP of a nation controlled by the state. |
In modern societies (1989:331) the power of the state expands not only in size, but it broadens its scope as it comes to regulate more aspects of social life, such as welfare, education, transportation, scientific research, economic planning.
Robertson (1989:332) points out that the overarching concept which underlies all functionalist explanations of the state pertains the state's role in the preservation of social order.
1. Enforcement of Norms
Small communities are able to enforce local norms by spontaneous action, but this kind of rule becomes impossible in large complex societies. The state, therefore, acts to codify norms into explicit written laws.
2. Arbitration of Conflict
Conflict may arise over scarce resources, national goals, conflicting interests. The state is the ultimate authority for "deciding who gets what, when, and how" (Robertson, 1989:331).
3. Planning and Direction
Complex societies require centralized, coordinated, and systematic planning and direction.
4. International Relations
This included political, economic, and military international relations such as alliances and trade agreements.
Conflict theory argues that the state exists simply for the protection of the interests of the wealthy and powerful in society.
1. Rousseau
Robertson (1989:333) maintains that Rousseau criticized the state when he said "Man is born Free, yet everywhere he is in chains." Rousseau contended that the state exists merely to protect the interests of the wealthy.
2. Marx
Marx's Communist Manifesto (1848 in Tucker, 1978) clarifies this point quite nicely. Marx calls the state "the executive committee of the ruling class." It not only protects the interests of the ruling class, but also ensures that the ruling class will be able to enjoy the surplus wealth extracted from the backs of the people. For Marx, once a society is created (a communist one) where there was no stratification based upon property, the state would lose it reason for existing and wither away. (Actuality, Engels said this and rather than the entire state apparatus disappearing, only those aspects that control economic affairs for the rich will disappear.)
Marx and Engels placed heavy emphasis on the character of class relations in describing how and why states exist. The primary difference between traditional conflict theories, like those of Marx, and neo-conflict theories is that neo-conflict theories regard the state as an autonomous and independent actor (See Block, 1977; Skocpol, 1985). The state is an organization with its own needs such as maintenance of its complex bureaucracies and protection of its special privilege. Social conflict in general, and not class conflict, is explored.
1. Activities Unrelated to Class Issues
The state performs duties in society that are not particularly related to class interests. All modern societies, regardless of their class configuration, require intervention by a central authority. (See the four points listed under functionalist views). Neo-conflict and Neo-Marxist theorists of political sociology visualize the state as mediating disputes between a variety of interest groups. Usually the wealthy are favored, but not always. Other interest groups that might be considered would include racial or ethnic groups, an inner city vs. suburbs, consumers and producers, liberals and conservatives.
2. What is State Autonomy?
State autonomy refers to the ability of the state to formulate policy goals independent of other actors such as social classes or from other groups. State autonomy might also address situations where the state is able to act "in the face of recalcitrant socioeconomic circumstances" (1985:9). In this vein, the strength of the state may be visualized in terms of its ability to pursue independent interests. Actions may be required in the international community that the domestic population is unconcerned with or even resistant to. Military officials or civil service bureaucrats may, however, recognize the need to act on transnational considerations.
3. The Power of Bureaucracy
Trimberger (in Skocpol, 1985:10) describes an autonomous state as one in which bureaucratic officials are not recruited from the dominant classes and who have no ties to the dominant class (agricultural, industrial, or commercial). The state's relationship to these classes, however, has impact upon the direction that a state's autonomy may lead.
State actions ( . . . ) are not all acts of coercion or domination; they are, instead, the intellectual activities of civil administrators engaged in diagnosing societal problems and framing policy alternatives to deal with them.
... The process is political, not because all policy is a by-product of power and conflict but because some men and women have undertaken to act in the name of others (in Skocpol, 1985:11).
Its Heclo's position that in Sweden and Great Britain people who work within the state bureaucratic apparatus has more impact on policy decisions than do people from the political parties or other outside interests. (See Notes on Skocpol page 5 and 6 about how the U.S. has little state autonomy.)
Class Question:
Does the U.S. have an autonomous state government? In terms of domestic policy? In terms of international policy?
Pluralist Models vs. Power Elite ModelsPower-Elite Model
Interlocking Directorships
Pluralism:Model
|
4. Extreme Instances of State Autonomy
Skocpol (1985:9) discusses "extreme instances of autonomous state action" which she calls REVOLUTION FROM ABOVE. This refers to a situation where individuals who are in charge of the state seize control of the entire state apparatus for the purpose of promoting "reformist or revolutionary change from above." Skocpol cites Stepan and Trimberger in this vein. Generally, such activity occurs in a setting where career military officials are in positions of power. They're training in the military steers them toward seizing control and installing corporatist governments in order to deal with crises, whether domestic or international. During the seizure of power, there may be an attempt to destroy traditional elite classes or other groups which might resist the seizure of power.
Analysis of governmental form dates back to the days of Aristotle. Aristotle divided the forms of government into three groups. The first was tyranny (or the rule of a single individual. The second was the rule of oligarchy or the rule of the few. The third category was democracy or the rule of the people.
Robertson (1989:334), while distinguishing between authoritarianism and totalitarianism, maintains that authoritarian types of governments tolerate little or no public opposition, but they will negotiate with other groups who may or may not support the existing government. Other groups may include business interests, religious interests, or class interests. Included in authoritarian type governments would be monarchies, dictatorships, or Juntas.
Authoritarian governments also tend to be short lived. This means that the transition to democracy is possible.
Totalitarian governments are also authoritarian, but unlike authoritarian governments, totalitarian governments tolerate no opposition to their rule. In order to ensure total acquiescence of the population, totalitarian governments use modern techniques of indoctrination and surveillance of the population. The Nazi's as well as the governments of North Korea represent examples of totalitarian governments. These societies are characterized by elaborate ideologies that cover every phrase of the individuals life; a single political party; that is identical with the government, widespread use of intimidation; complete control of the mass media; monopoly control of weaponry and armed forces; and direction of the economy by the state bureaucracy (Robertson, 1989:334).
The rule of a few. See Michels (1962)
Democratic rule means that authority ultimately lies in the hands of the people. The ideal type of democracy would be a participatory or pure democracy where everyone has equal input into policy. Direct or pure democracy, however, has never existed at the level of nation-state.
Societies which claim to have democratic forms of government have representative democracies. Voters elect representatives who in turn make political decisions on behalf of the voters. Stable representative democracies are found in highly industrial countries. Representative democracy, as a form of government, is recent, rare, and fragile.
1. Historic Foundations of Democracy
Chirot (1986) provides a great discussion that centers around decentralization of power as an important component that lead to the formation of democracy.
2. Types of Democracies
See Whitehead (1986) for a discussion of the differences between the goals of European democracy and the goals of American democracy (i.e., political democracy vs. Social democracy).
Where does one find democracy? Democracies appeared in advanced economically developed societies because:
- A highly literate populace demands to participate in government.
- A large middle-class acts to protect its interests through democracy.
- The survival of democratic forms of government may depend upon continual economic growth. During periods of economic growth, even the poor feel like their lives are getting better. There is more of a feeling of camaraderie between the masses and between masses and elites. Everyone is more willing to negotiate because nearly everyone feels that their life is improving -- no one feels threatened. During periods of economic decline, however, those who control the means of authority and violence act to protect their interests. They often do so by invoking a more authoritarian form of government.
Restraints on government power would include the following:
- Laws limiting the exercise of power.
- Laws limiting the length of a term that a leader may occupy an office. In general, a citizen should feel confident that a sitting government, once voted out of office, will in fact leave office. Remember in Panama, Noriega was voted out of office, but refused to leave.
Democracies are most successful where the society shares a consensus on basic values and also show a desire for a stable government. Ironically, although many Americans complain about the few choices provided during each election, but that is apparently required for a democracy to work.
Democracy is not likely to survive where there is great political division. Imagine what kind of political situation would ensue if there were radical cleavage in the populace. If cleavages occurred along class lines, with the upper class and the working class squaring off against one another, then we would have precisely the revolutionary situation called for by Marx.
Example: The Civil War is an Extreme example of great political cleavage.
Robertson (1989:336) maintains that this is critical in a democracy.
Citizens need to be able to make informed choices and this requires information. A free press is necessary. The press should be able to openly criticize the government.
The diffusion of power is as critical today as it was during the feudal ages when democratic governments were first forming. In a situation where one group in society maintains a monopoly on power, one might hypothesize that group would act to consolidate its hold on society (i.e., no democracy).
One means that facilitates the diffusion of power in the U.S. is the separation of branches of government (the president, congress, and the Supreme Court). Another American example of the diffusion of power would be how policy is enacted at three different levels -- local, state, and federal.
Limitations on Democracy:
The Role of ViolenceExample: My lament on violence and being a humanist
Example: How the Russians got their hostages back.
The American political process is a mix of formal public debate and informal, behind the doors interaction.
A political party is an organization whose purpose is to gain legitimate control of the state. Robertson (1989:337) maintains that political parties are vital for the well being of democracies. Parties link the government with the people. They define policy alternatives, transmit public opinion, and mobilize the masses. They are also responsible for the recruitment and presentation of candidates to the people.
1. American Democracy
Most democracies have many parties. Effectively, the American political process has only two parties. In the American form of democracy, the majority rules. Minority parties, therefore, cannot survive.
Because American political parties have to appeal to a majority of the electorate, they:
- tend to focus on middle of the road political issues (e.g., crime and family values).
- They cross class lines
- They avoid specific or controversial policies and issues. American political parties could not win elections if they advocated specific issues or offered support to specific groups.
2. European Democracies
European democracies are characterized by many parties. Since European parliaments seat parties according to their percentage of the vote, it's practical for minority parties to exist. Even a party receiving only 15% of the vote will have a voice in government (See Robertson, 1989:338).
Note that Italy has more than 250 parties and the government falls every nine months.
Interest groups are organizations which attempt to influence political decisions that might have impact on party members or their goals.
These groups may be large or small, temporary or permanent, secretive or open, but they all try to gain access to, and sway, those who have power (Robertson, 1989:33).
1. Methods of Gaining influence
a. Lobbying
Interests groups may employ a variety of tactics to gain influence with governmental officials. Lobbying refers to the tactic of directly persuading decision makers.
b. PACs
Political Action Committees (PACs) are organizations established by interest groups for the purpose of collecting and distributing campaign funds.
2. The Impact of Interest Groups
Robertson (1989:340) contends that political sociologists are divided as to the effect that interests groups have on democracies.
a. Positive
A potential benefit of PACs would be that they represent so many different interests that they are all powerful, and can there fore ensure (by their numbers alone) that no interests group is able to gain a monopoly on power.
Interests groups may provide a voice for citizens who are other wise powerless and voiceless.
b. Negative
On the negative side, those PACs that operate in secrecy might be able to win influence where the general public is left ignorant of the issues being discussed.
Candidates are at the mercy of PACs. To refuse PAC money is to give your opponent a monetary advantage.
Chirot, Daniel
1986 Social Change In The Modern Era. San Diego: Harcourt, Brace, and Jovanovich.
Marx, Karl
1983 "Manifesto of the Communist Party." pp. 98- 136 in Selected Works. Moscow: Progress Publishers.
Michels, Robert
1962 Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy. New York: Collier Books.
Robertson, Ian
1989 Society: A Brief Introduction. New York: Worth Publishing Co.
Skocpol, Theda
1985 Vision and Method in Historical Sociology (Ed) Theda Skocpol. London: Cambridge University Press.
Whitehead, Lawrence
1986 "International Aspects of Democratization." In Guillermo O'Donnell, Phillippee Schmitter, and Lawrence Whitehead (eds.), Transitions from Authoritarian Rule: Comparative Perspectives.
