NAME - SANGITA MANDAL

ROLL NO. – 20/BAH/0301

REG. NO –
SESSION – 2020-2021
Power can be considered as one of the central concept of political science.
It is said that the concept of power holds the same position in the realm of
political science, as held by the concept of money in the field of economics.
The importance of power in a political event was brought to the fore by the
traditional thinkers such as Machiavell(1469-1527), Hobbes(1588-1679),
and Nietzsche(1844-1900), as well as by modern thinkers such as Max
Weber, Catlin, H. Laswell, A. Kaplan, Hannah Arendt, Watkins, Trietschke
and Morgenthau. The proponents of power approach to the politics focus
on the study of acquisition, maintenance and loss of power. H. Laswell and
A. Kaplan defined political science as ‘ The study of the shaping and
sharing of power’. Max Weber’s definition of politics focuses on power in
the context of national and international politics. “Politics is the struggle
for power or the influencing of those in power, and embraces the struggle
between the state as well as between organised group within the state.
Similarly, Michael Curtis (Comparative Government and Politics) has observes: “
Politics is organized dispute about power and its use; involving choice
among competing values, ideas, persons, interests and demands.”
Elucidating the scope of the study of politics, Curtis continues: “ The study
of politics is concerned with the description and analysis of the manner in
which power is obtained, exercised and controlled, the purpose for which
it is used, the manner in which decision are made, factors which influence
the making of those decision and the context in which those decision take
place.” Therefore power is very important for the study of politics. So, let
us see what is power.
In ordinary usage, the term ‘power’ means strength or the capacity to
control. Power is the ability of a person to face or influence others to do
what they would otherwise not have done. In social and political theory,
power refers to the ability to do things and the capacity to produce effects
within social interactions. In this sense, power is a type of behaviour and
specially derives from the existence of social relationships and organized
social interactions. Different political philosophers have given different
definition of power. Some of them are as follow:

The most well known definition of power is given by Robert Dahl – “A has
power over B to the extent that A can get B to do something that B would
not otherwise do.”

define power as ‘the production of intended effects.’ In

other words, power refer to the person’s ability to fulfil his desires and
achieve his objectives.

H.V Wiseman define power as ‘the ability to get one’s wishes carried out
despite opposition.’

According to Stephen L. Wasby “power is generally thought to involve

bringing about an action by someone against the will or desire of another.”

Hannah Arendt argued that power is not the property of lone agents or
actors, but of groups or collectivities acting together. He said that power is
communication not coercion and control.

Power is a fundamental element of all social relation. It is indeed a feature

of all social and political relationships. That is why the concept of power
has always occupied a central place in social and political theories. Power is
actually a social relationship based on plurality of forms and has diverse
mechanism. Power is sometimes seen as a positive aspect of life and is
sometimes said to reflect a negative aspect. Hannah Arendt is one of the
few political thinkers who analysed power from a positive perspective.
According to her, power should not be seen as a type of property that
owned by the government. Rather, it should be seen as a positive
capability. In contrast, other social theorists view power from a negative
perspective. For some of them, power is a root cause of all corruption and
criminalization.

The term ‘power’ has two basic but fundamentally different uses, that are
available in the Oxford English Dictionary (OED). According to OED, the
term ‘power’ refers to ‘ability to do or effect something.’ This is often
characterized by ‘power-to’. Another meaning of power that OED offer is
‘the possession of control or command over others; domination; rule;
government; sway; command; control; influence and authority.’ This is
often referred to as the concept of ‘power-over’. ‘Power –to’ denotes
power, and ‘power-over’ denotes domination. ‘Power-over’ has two
different variants, it can be used in positive and negative sense. For
example, ‘influence’ can be enabling; one agent can influence the other
agent which may enhance the latter’s action-alternative. On the other
hand, domination/ authority is contraining a power of social agent over
another agent can constrain the latter’s action-alternative.

Power has many meanings and its form or type, meachanism, or technique
is so diverse and variable that it is difficult to reach a universal theory
covering all these aspects. According to , there is not a
single specific place of power, holder class or group in its modern time. It is
all comprehensive. It is spread throughout the social body. Therefore, one
needs to solve the problem by analysing the particular domain where the
power is exercised and revealing how they are structured by power
relations.

Everyone has power in themselves. Everyone has the ability to do or

influence something and wants to increase it. Friedrich Nietzsche in his
‘Will to Power’ implies this tendency in human. There are several
dimensions to this capacity, which deserve special mention. For example:
an important topic for inquiry is coactive power i.e the ability of people
acting together to achieve what they cannot imagine doing by individual
efforts. This is an example of ‘power-to’, rather, than ‘power-over’ in
positive sense.

On the other hand, the concept of power-over, which is often defined

negatively can play an important role in the critique of social relations,
practices and institutions. Many anti-liberal theorists of modern and
postmodern time has employed this concept in critiquing existing societies.
In fact, power-over is a primary analytical tool to understand and explain
hierarchical, asymmetrical or unequal relationships in society, because
there is probably no other concept that is broad enough to subsume under
one category so many varities of power.

Social theorists like Hannah Arendt were loath to accord power-over in

negative sense a cental place in their critique. Arendt indeed express
dissatisfaction over the way power as a positive human capacity has
hitherto been ignored in social and political theory. This form of power
that enables social collectives to regulate their lives receives more attention
in its analysis. Undoubtedly, power-to, rather power-over, in a positive
sense, can capture certain aspects of social reality; the aspect which is
beyond the scope of the negative concept of the same. Each of the two
concepts of power i.e. power-to and power-over can be put to use in social
theory. They are mutually exclusive, wholly unrelated or unconnected but
one concept can easily transferred to other depending on the situation. To
describe any evaluation of the achievements of new social movements,
there is a valid use of power-over in its positive sense and can serve as a
fundamental tool of analysis. On the other hand, when it comes to
criticizing social relations, practices and institution, the concept of power
takes precedence in the opposite sense.

Power should not be seen as an commodity or object that can be acquired,

owned or exchanged. Rather, as Michel Foucault insists, it must be reliably
viewed from the point of view of its exercise methods, mechanisms,
techniques, and more importantly its effects. Such an understanding of
power relations enables one to explain how the exercise of power hinders
the free play of antagonistic reactions and why the affected agents resist
and even cause it to reverse in some situations.
‘Power-over’ means the ability of one agent to act on another agent. To be
precise, this means the former’s ability to affect the latter’s action
alternative. This can be done in many ways such as force, coercion and
influence. Power-over is not synonymous with domination. Whether it
will turn into domination depends on how it is used or how its affects an
agent. If its practice affects the targeted agent in a negative ways,
disruption his action-alternative, then it can be said to have changed into
domination. The type of power described here are not mutually exclusive.
It is not that a social agent uses only one these types at a time. Rather, she
usually adopts a strategy to restore different types simultaneously or
alternatively depending on the situation.

Different types of power are:-

Force

Force is the actual (physical force) or threatened (latent force) use of

coercion to impose one’s will on others. The use of force depends on the
former’s physical ability to prevent the latter from doing what he wished
for or cause something to happen that he did not desire. For e.g- A can said
to have used ‘force’ against B if the former has physically prevented the
latter from pursuing the action-alternative of her choice. When a father
slaps his child to prohibit certain acts, he is applying force.

This type of power i.e force has many distinctive features. They are as
follow:

➢ First, it appears only when it is actually employed. The threat of

using force is a subtle type of power by comparison with the simple
application of force. Force is the most elemental way in which one
agent can directly change the action-environment of another agent.
➢ Second, force prevents an agent from doing something rather than
making her do anything in a positive sense. It is a form of completely
negative power. The use of force does not always involve a direct
attack on the other body in order to keep her from realizing his
 action-alternative. Rather, she would use it as a means to realize her
preferred action-alternative.
➢ Third, force refers to an external relationship between two agents.
There is hardly any scope for communicative interaction between
them. The subordinate agent is actually thrown into such a situation
that she is no longer able to act on her own or according to her will.
Force entails an objectification of the subordinate agent: she is
virtually seen as an object of violation and beyond persuasion , and
manipulable only by force.

Coercion

Coercion is a type of power that can be exercised when an agent is able to

affect the action-alternative of another agent by threatening to use the
resources that he has at his disposal. The exercise of this type of power is
only possible when the threatened agent is able to recognize the reality and
effectivity of the threat and accordingly change his action-alternative. For
e.g- A threaten B to use his ability and resources against B unless the latter
acts in a certain way. A attempt to coerce B succeeds only if B acceds to A’s
threat and change his action-alternative. Otherwise, the threatened agent,
though may be harmed by the threatening agent, is least likely to be
coerced into doing something.

Thomas E. Wartenberg speaks of several condition for establishing a

coercive power relationship. These are:-

➢ First of all, A who is out to threaten B must have some means or

resources that he can use to effect some changes in B’s anticipated
course of action in such a way that B feel that he cannot stop it.
➢ Secondly, the threatened agent must be in a position to communicate
with the threatening agent so that the subsequent action-
environment may get affected.
➢ Thirdly, the threatened agent must be convinced not just of the
threatening agent’s ability to adverselty affect his or her situation,
but the threat may also not produce the desired response.
➢ Above all, the negative consequences of non-compliance with the
threat posed by A should be viewed as highly undesirable for B; the
cost of non-compliance must surpass the benefit that would accure
to her in the wake of such action.
The exercise of coercive power is possible only so long as the dominant
agent’s ability to realize his threat remained unquestioned.

Influence

Influence refers to the exercise of power through the process of

persuasion. It is the ability to affect the decisions and actions of others.
For e.g – A citizen may change his or her position or opinion after
listening a stirring speech at a rally by a political leader. Influence as a
positive form of power should be presented in relation to its opposite
types. In general, one of the distinguishing feature of influence is that it
acts through communicative interactions between agents. A is able to
influence B if A can be involved in communicative interaction with B in
such a way that B feels as a result, persuaded to reassess her action-
alternatives. In other word, when A affect B’s choice of action-
alternative in a substantive manner by passing a piece of advice,
information , or proposal, it can be cited as an example of the practice of
influence. For e.g-a teacher gave a student some advice to make some
changes in his project work. The teacher explained to the student why
and how he should bring this changes. And if the student make the
change in his project according to what teacher says, the teacher is said
to have influence the student.

The influence can also change to a negative form of power. It became

clear on its juxtaposition with coercion. For e.g- a university teacher
may try to convince a favourite student to give a paper by saying that if
he agree, he teaches him and it will help him to do well in the
examination and also after the completion of his postgraduate studies,
he will receive a research scholarship or a teaching job. But if the student
refuse to oblige him even after so much persuasion, the teacher can
threaten him that he will use his resources to block his entry into the
academic world. Here the teacher is trying to coerce the student to do
something against his will.

Influence can be of many types. It is clear from the above two example
of influence. In the first example, influence does not cause th influenced
agent to lose important aspect of him. Rather, it enables him to evaluate
his action-alternative based on the information and advice given by
influencing agent. The distinguishing feature of this influence is that the
former is seen as complete self-determination by other. In the latter
example, the influenced agent’s re-evaluation of his or her action-
alternative does not depend the influencing agent’s information or
advice. Rather, it is dependent on his perception of the latter’s wishes or
desires. The important feature of this type of influence is that it is this
perception rather than critical assessment of condition of the affected
agent’s part. The basis for such interaction between agents involved is
personal trust or chrisma.

There is another type of influence which is based upon the exchange of

expertise. In this type of influence an influencing agent is transforming
the skill or his expertse to the subordinate agent and the subordinate
agent tend to trust the influencing agent and respect what the
influencing agent say. For e.g- a researcher supervisor may help his
student choose the method or technique to be adopted or the research
goals to be attained by unconditionally making accessible to her the
knowledge or experience he has gathered over time. This instances of
power relation based on power relationship. But such relationship tend
to be hierarchical given the unequal possession of knowledge or skill,
which form their basis and can easily turn into dominating
subordinates.

Sometimes influence cease to be positive type of power. It may turn into

an attempt by a dominant agent to control a subordinate agent in unfair
means or using it efficiently for his personal purposes or ends, in short,
an attempt to manipulate. Manipulation means to make someone think
and behave exactly as you want them to by skilfully deceiving or
influencing them.

Thomas E. Wartenberg mention two types of manipulation. They are:

1. Cognitive manipulation: A attempt to manipulate B by

withholding data or information that is necessary for the latter’s
assessment of her action-alternatives. For e.g-drug manufacturers
while advertising their popular brands in the mass media often
prevent informality about the composition and side effect of these
drugs to ensure a steady flow of profit. Here, knowledge and
withholding of it is a tool of manipulation.
 2. Emotional manipulation- manipulation can be affected by playing
on an agent’s feelings. When politician appel to the religious
sentiments of their voters on the eve of election,emotional
manipulation is at work.

The types of power discussed so far are not unrelated to each other. One
can transform into another depending on the way it is used or affects the
targeted agent.

The word authority is derived from the Latin word ‘auctoritas’ which
generally means advice or command. In the field of political science,
authority is the legitimate power that a person or a group of person
consensually possess and practice over other people. The german word
“Herrschaft”, used by German sociologist Max weber, has been variously
translated. Some sociologiss term it as ‘authority’, other as ‘domination’ or
‘command’. Herrschaft is a situation in which a ‘herr’ or master dominates
or commands others. Raymond Aron defines Herrschaft as the master’s
ability to obtain the obedience of thosewho theoretically owe it to him.
According to Weber Herrschaft actually means authority. Weber defined
authority as ‘the right of a ruler within an established order to issue
commands and expect others to obey. He defines authority as legitimate
forms of domination, that is, forms of domination which followers or
subordinates consider to be legitimate. Weber outline three major types of
authority- traditional authority, charismatic authority and rational-legal
authority.

Traditional
Authority
Rational-
Charismatic
legal
Authority
Authority
Max Weber
three types
of
Authorities
Charismatic authority

According to Max Weber, the term ‘charisma’ refers to a certain quality of

an individual personality that is inaccessible to ordinary people, and for
which they are considered as supernatural or superhuman who are
endowed with extraordinary power. A person may or may not possess such
power, but his charisma does not depends on his possession rather it
depends on the faith of his followers. In the case of charismatic authority,
the leader's claim to legitimacy depends, first, on whether people believe in
his extraordinary capacities or power, and secondly, whether they
recoganize or feel that they are duty bound to carry out his demands and
commands.

One of the distinguishing features of charismatic leadership is its

instability tendency. If the leader fails to prove the validity of his claim to
legitimacy or to keep his promise he may suddenly be exposed as ‘ordinary’
and ‘weak’ and may lose his power in the eye of his follower. Another
feature of charismatic leaderaship is to call upon its follower to embark on
a particular mission or duty and inspire devotion and compliance in them
by denouncing the desire and needs of daily life and rejecting attachment
to daily routines and rejecting worldly pleasure and material riches. Third
feature of charismatic leadership or charisma is that it has tendency to
undergo change in its orientation to power. Weber calls this Routinisation
of charisma. Routinisation only occurs when external demand causes a
charismatic system to adjust its means of administration to daily life,
everyday needs and practical economic circumstances. Charismatic
authority once routinized must be transformed into traditional or rational-
legal authority, or in some sorts of institutionalized charisma like the
Catholic Church.

Traditional authority

Traditional authority is the type of authority that is rooted in traditional,

or long-standing , beliefs, customs and practices of society. Trational
authority is based on a claim by the leaders, and a belief on the part of the
followers, that there is virtue in the sanctity of age-old rules and powers. In
this system the relationship between the ruler and the subjects is defined
by the persons loyalty the latter owe to the former rather than by
impersonal legal percepts. It relies on traditional rules, rather than
contractual arrangements, on relations of personal obligations rather than
an impersonal system of enacted rules.

Max Weber use ideal- types of tool for identifying and explaining different
forms of traditional authority. He mention two early forms of domination-
(a) gerontocracy or rule by elders, (b) patriarchalism where positon are
inherited, that is, rule by the master obtaining legitimacy and governing by
rule of inheritance. There is supreme chief in both cases, but what is
lacking is a clearly defined administrative staff. Weber considers a more
modern form of domination i.e patrimonialism, or rule by an
administration or military force that are purely personal instruments of the
master. A fourth type of traditional authority is feudalism, one that was
important historically. This is a more routinized form of rule, with
“contractual relationships between leader and subordinates.”

Rational-legal authority

Ratinal-legal derives from law and is based on a belief in the legitimacy of a

society’s laws and rules and in the right of leader to act under these rules to
make decisions and set policy. An important feature of rational-legal
authority is that the ruler themselves are subject to the rule of law and
according to the impersonal order of such rules, they must orient their
action. Rational-legal authority rests upon principle of lawful decision
making rather than upon the personal judgement of a ruler. Here both ruler
and ruled are bound by law. This system is inclined towards a form of
administration with Weber called a bureaucratic rule reflected in the
organization of offices, staff and official files.

Bureaucracy is the medium through which rational-legal authority is

carried out. Max Weber studied bureaucracy in detail and constructed an
ideal type which contained the most prominents characteristics of
bureaucracy. He mention that the adequate function of bureaucracy relies
on the following rules and regulation- (a) the activities which comprise
bureaucracy are distributed among the officials in the form of official
duties, (b) there is a stable or regular system by which officials are vested
with authority. This authority is strictly delimited by the laws of the land,
(c) there are strict and methodological procedures which ensure that
officials perform their duties adequately. This three characteristic
constitutes ‘bureaucratic authority’, which is to be found in developed and
modern societies.

Power

Authority Legitimacy

The term authority is often used interchangeably with power. However,

their meanings differ: while power is defined as “the ability to influence
somebody to do something that he/she would not have done”, authority
refers to a claim of legitimacy (legitimacy is the acceptance of people of the
authority of those in power to rule), the justification and right to exercise
that power. For e.g- while a mob has the power to punish a criminal, for
example, by lynching, people who believe in the rule of law consider that
only a court of law has the authority to punish a criminal.

Despite the difference in meaning, there is a close relationship between

power, authority and legitimacy. Without legitimacy, power and authority
become meaningless. Similarly, without power legitimate authority
becomes meaningless. For e.g- government with legitimate authority but
without power may easily be overthrown by a handful of armed rebels.
Legitimacy is very much important for both power and authority. In simple
words, legitimacy is the quality of a political system, particularly its
government, to produce and maintain a belief that the existing political
system is the most appropriate and people must regard it as sacred and
worthy of respect and obey it unhesitatingly. Without legitimate power,
authority has no value. With the help of legitimacy, the authority holder
can exercise power and regulate public affairs. When there is fixed
legitimate rules and regulation, the government can place itself in a better
position to use power authoritatively.

There is a difference between power, authority and legitimacy. Exercising

of power may be related with fear of punishment, persuasion or
expectation for future profit. But, authority is legitimate power which
emerges as a result of power and legitimacy. Power can be exercised
without authority and legitimacy. Of course such acts are not legitimate.
For e.g- we may mention about the power of the terrorist group. Political
power can be exercised without having political authority. However, it is
not regarded as authority until and unless the common people accept their
rule. There is no authority without power but power can be exercised
without authority. For e.g- we may compel someone to work for us by
using coercive measure. Such force may be related with power, but, this is
not in the case of authority.

It is thus clear from the above that there are some differences between
power, authority and legitimacy. However, in spite of these differences,
they are closely related with each other.
Power is one of the key concept in political theory. It is the ability to
control others and make them do what one wants. It is both normative and
empirical; i.e. it is also a fact as well as value to be persued. It is a very
comprehensive terms, identified with relate themes like authority,
influence, control and the like. It is integrally connected with the case of
political legitimacy. Legitimate power is authority.

In the end having taken a close look at the concept of power, authority and
legitimacy with a view to see how they are interwoven and to some extent
overlapping looking from different contexts, situation or in some cases
circumstances, we conclude that, power, authority and legitimacy, do not
only inter-related but laregely depend on each other for their systematic
existence.
It is not possible to prepare a project without the assistance and
encouragement of other people. This one is certainly no exception. The
success and outcome of this project were possible by the guidance and
support from many people. It required a lot of effort from each
individual involved in this project with me and I would like to thank
them.

First and foremost I would like to express my gratitude to my

institution Gokhale Memorial Girl’s College and our principle Dr.
Atashi Karpha ma’am, for making it possible for me to be a part of
this project.

I express my sincere gratitude to Prof. Chandrima Ghosh ma’am,

Department of Political Science, for providing me the opportunity to
materialized this project and for her valuable suggestions and
necessary guidance during the course of this project.

Finally I thank my parents and my friends who have been a constant

source of inspiration for the completion of this project.

Sangita Mandal
❖ O.P Gauba “ An introduction to political theory”, Macmillan Publishers India
Ltd , Fift Edition.

❖ Sushila Ramaswamy “Political Theory Ideas And Concepts”,PHI Learning

Private Ltd, Second Edition.

❖ https://www.yourarticlelibary.com/essay/power-of-politics-meaning-types-
and-sources-of-power/3136

❖ http://uregina.ca/~gingrich/o12f99.htm