What Distinguishes Weber's Account Of Power

It may be said that the institution of power has always been a prevalent force in our

Power is a strong, dynamic category, which means the ability to do some things. This category has a huge influence on the relations in society. The power usually leads to the use of the violence. Moreover, powerful people with the use of the violence are trying to protect their control

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

and subsequent reinvestment of capital, is an end that both Weber and Marx reach in their analyses of society and agree on in definition. However, while Marx tells us that phantoms of the brain i.e. morality, religion, ideology, cannot develop independently of material production or influence it, Weber argues that ideas and religion can indeed determine life and the processes of life, namely our material production. The key difference between the two is their scope of factors that can cause historical development. Marx only allows for one factor, productive forces and the economic conditions resulting from them; Weber, on the other hand, acknowledges that while ideology and religion can support the economic relations as a driving factor, they can also develop independently and become a factor, a force on its own that can alter production, economic conditions, and thus history. By accounting for the multiple ways in which a society can be altered, Weber provides a more complete and applicable understanding of historical development and the powerful concept that an idea from an individual or group of individuals can have a legitimate and significant effect on the direction of society.

Power in politics is a person who has the ability to influence a person in terms of their behaviour; however they possess no right to - unlike authority. There are many ways in which a person can influence another’s behaviour; one such example is through coercion. Coercion refers to the use of violence or threats in order to influence someone. [Jones and Norton, 2011]

The purpose of this essay is to analyse Weber’s theory of authority and power in order to establish its role in the modern contemporary world today. Weber, in his most acclaimed writings, discusses his three ideal types of authority being outlined as traditional, charismatic and rational-legal authority. He believes that in order for any political leader or political establishment to hold legitimate authority over its peoples, they must have either one of these types of authority. All of these types of power and authority can be referred to in some way in today’s contemporary world using examples of differing political leaders and systems. However, Weber’s writings were conducted in 1922 and may be considered as out-dated, and not as relevant as they were at his time of writing. Also, many dispute that Weber’s types of authority were perhaps not entirely relatable and Martin Spencer, like many other critics of Weber’s work in fact argue that there should have been four types of authority. Hence why these issues must be discussed in order to conclude whether Weber’s ideal types of authority are representative of political leaders and governments, and whether or not they can be associated with the contemporary world we live in today.

What defines power in today’s society? Is it money? Privilege? Status? In Chapter 2 of Justice And The Politics of Difference, entitled “The Five Faces of Oppression,” Iris Marion Young offers a unique perspective on what power really is in modern day society and how oppression plays a role in it. According to Young, power is the result of having a concrete societal position that grants you respect and opportunities from people (A page would be nice right here.). However, Young argues that this “power” is so reliant upon your perceived status and worth from individuals, that if lacking these things, you then become vulnerable to oppression. Oppression

Domination, an interpretive word itself, is grounded in Weber’s paper through three distinct examples of authority that are broad enough to maintain an adaptive perspective on the topic itself. The implications of this article help guide the reader to their own personal assumptions of what domination is through a broad array of examples that are easy

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.

to comply with it. Power is quite broadly used and can even be seen as

A world of system designed to keep people in unjust and unequal positions is held in place by several interrelated expression of "power over": political power, economic power, physical force, and ideological power (Bishop, 1994: 36). So, we can say power is defined as a possession of control, authority or influence over others. In terms of power of dominant groups over subordinate groups, we define power as domination of one group of people over another in major important spheres of life. Power inequities have been in existence throughout the history of humanity and the ways of manifestation evolved from extreme overt oppression to subtle, covert oppression. Three major forms of power inequalities discussed in this paper are

For weber power is determined as something that when imposed, then a person has to follow it. For Weber domination is the probability that persons will obey commands. Weber mentioned power as being ‘ sociologically amorphous’. (Roth and Wittich, 1968) The probability of a command being accepted mainly relates to the surroundings of domination. An example of this is that, a supervisor could expect his colleague to obey his sayings but when they meet outside the business then the supervisor is unlikely to have such an expectation (Watson, 2003).

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,

Power and politics have always been around but seldom openly discussed. Power is learned at an early age through family and schools. Ordinary people such as scholars hesitate to talk about power. It is often equated with force brutality, unethical behavior, manipulation, connivance, and subjugation.

This small reading explains in more detail what is power and how it can be used to promote change. Explaining how people, can exercise power and how the state can then interpret that power.