Is Power Central to Understanding Politics?

Moreover, it argues that economic exploitation causes political oppression and the powerful will then use their power to turn the state into a “servant of bourgeois economic” (Marx). For that reason, the only way to breakout of this conflict is through revolution, in which the working class people overthrows the owner of the capitalist system. Conflict theorists might argue, for instance, religion fulfills the bourgeois interests by appeasing the population by pacifying them. In essence, under this theory there will always be conflicts for scarce resources, and whenever one group gains control of the resources there will be an oppressed group. And according to Marx, this can be broken if we have a classless society where resources are allocated equally.

Although there are somewhat of similarities between Weber’s and Foucault’s relations of power and dominance, how they evaluate the concepts separately and the ways these concepts are practiced in society, can be distinguished differently. Webber appears to occupy the polar opposite with the respect to his claims of how power becomes existent with bureaucratic instruments and bureaucracy itself, Foucault argues that the power relations are everywhere in society and with expansive elements; society has no option but to internalize (Shaw 2011). His explanation of power is much broader than Weber’s. Focault rejects the hierarchical models of power, and believed that relations of dominance are formations of unequal power (McClaren 2002), and over time domination may seem fixed in society’s social structure (Shaw 2011). Additionally, Foucault looks at the concept of power from a functional strategy, with the functional practices administered by authority, and emphasises that authority commonly uses discursive power and the operation of discourse to maintain the dominance (Smart 2010; Shaw 2011). What is compelling about Foucault’s concept of power are his discursive claims. Unlike Webber, he suggests that power relations are not necessarily derived from state practices, but are all under state control, and highlights that “state and hegemony is in the every area of life” (Shaw 2011). Further, to understand some of Foucault’s functional examples, he focuses on the everyday lives of

For example in the setting of a workplace the power does not pass from the top down; instead it circulates through their organizational practices. Such practices act like a grid, provoking and inciting certain courses of action and denying others. Foucault considers this as no straightforward matter and believes that it rests on how far individuals interpret what is being laid down as "obvious" or "self evident", institutional power works best when all parties accept it willingly. Foucault's notion of power is a difficult notion to grasp principally because it is never entirely clear on who has the power in the first place, once the idea is removed that power must be vested in someone at the top of the ladder, it becomes much more difficult to identify what power is or where and whom it lies with. Foucault believes that we are used to thinking about power as an identifiable and overt force and that this view is simply not the case, because it is taken for granted that the above statement is true then it is much more complicated to comprehend power as a guiding force that does not show itself in an obvious manner.

When looking into the ideas of political theorists it is important to the use of political concepts that may play an important role in what the theorists are suggesting and also how they may affect the relationship between to state and the individuals living within a state. The concepts that will be looked at within this essay are: power, authority and also accountability.

Power: the political power is the ability to shape and control the political behavior of

To understand political power aright, and derive it from its original, we must consider what estate all men are naturally in, and that is, a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of Nature, without asking leave or depending upon the will of any other man (...)

power in its many forms and modes of application” (Foucault, p. 141). He explains that

Modern day power originates from the mind in that we give certain figures power based upon man-made forms of value or worth like money. The definition of power has fluctuated throughout time, and while the past may have emphasized the more violent aspects, today, we have shifted towards a more control based interpretation. Both Michael Foucault and John Berger delve into the idea of power and its functionality. Based on their texts, in our current socio-cultural setting, power is best exploited when the concept behind the power is deindividualized for many purposes, internalized by the people, and integrated throughout society to the point that its origins is mystified.

According to Marx, those who have power over society exert their control as a result of economic power and therefore determine the dominant ideologies within the superstructure model. Being the greater economical and cultural barrier, the structure provides the social world with norms, rules and beliefs pertaining to age, gender, class and one’s cultural identity. Within that structure it becomes apparent that inequalities restrict your agency in terms of nationality, geographical location, class etc. In agreement with Marx, the dominant views are generally the views of the superior class; the elite. One example

Marx understanding of society shift into modernism lead to develop a form of communism that would come to be known as Marxism, communism is the economic thought of Marxism. Marx understands that Modernism calls for society to embrace equality for the betterment of society. Part of the problem with Capitalism comes from its exploitation of the working class; Marx understands this problem to be a vein of Pre-modernism and not a pillar of Modernism. Marx calls for the working class to rise up over their bourgeoisie oppressors and seize the equality that rightfully belongs to them. “Society as a whole is more and more splitting up into two great hostile camps, into two great classes directly facing each other – bourgeoisie and proletariat. (Communist pg. 9)” If society wants to embrace modernism, then society needs to shift its focus from fighting each other and one exploiting another to a classless society. Marx highly criticizes the bourgeoisie in The Communist Manifesto, and this stems from the problems they created for themselves and for the rest of society. In their attempt to gain more power, land, and resources, their material conditions, upon the prominence which their families had been formed, were dissipating due to the lack of foresight and selfish greed. If the Bourgeoisie continues to exploit the proletariat then society will head to conflict, as is expected of Pre-modernism, but if the Bourgeoisie cease its exploitation and relinquish its power for the group,

Those who control means of production have power over the rest of the society (Morrison, 2006). Marx saw two very different social classes.

We have to contend, in the exercise of our personal power, with the influences of such power-channels in our environments and how they add to, limit or distort our exercise of power - e.g. hierarchies, coalitions,

However, Scott and Foucault has very different understanding of power. Scott thinks power is something that is externally imposed on mankind’s social life, whereas Foucault thinks power is

Politics is about the distribution of power. In the Introduction to Social Science course guide it is stated that, “politics can be anywhere”. Therefore, politics is in the language we speak. Power is the “ ability to

The just exercise of political power is conceived of as resting upon constitutional principles. Constitutional principles are a position from which we operate justly. However, what constitutes as just? Throughout history political power derived from many historical foundations that were deemed just based on the society that upheld those principles. This notion is evident throughout the development of constitutional doctrines in Greek democracy, Aristotle’s political theory, Roman Republicanism, and English Constitutionalism.