NAME:- Ananya Garge Bhattacharjee

COURSE:- BA Political Science

PAPER NAME:- Understanding Political Theory

ROLL NO:- 2021 / 06 / 075

TEACHER:- Kumar Rahul

DATE:- 27/02/2022

Q. Do you think, study of power is a pre-requisite to fathom or to understand the concept of

Answer:- The word that carves out of our thoughts when we hear the term politics is power.

When analyzing the term politics we can briefly state it as the ‘science of power’ , as it is the

concepts related to power , it’s acquisition, locations, structures, relations and dynamics that is

crucial for the understanding and practise of politics. When coming to power, the power of

decision making, the power to influence, the power to perceive events and actions and eventually

the power to make our choices forms the framework of politics on a larger scale. The practise of

politics is often portrayed as little more than the exercise of power, and the academic subject as,

in essence, the study of power. Students of politics can be termed as students of power, they seek

to know who has the power, how it is used and on what basis it is exercised. Power is a puzzling

notion. It seems so useful as a way to talk about politics in ordinary discourse but when used to

analyze politics systematically it quickly becomes entangled in a snarl of concepts, its precise

nature and meaning growing less clear in the underbrush of related terms. It is to be mentioned

that no term is used more broadly and loosely in political discourse than ‘power’. Perhaps

because power is so central to the understanding of politics, fierce controversy has surrounded

it’s meaning. Some have gone as far as to suggest that there is no single, agreed concept of
power but rather a number of competing concepts or theories. Power being so central to

understanding politics is a pre-requisite to fathom the concept of politics and for a better clarity

in its understanding.

One of the most well known definition on power is given by Robert

Dahl which goes as follows- ‘ A has power over B to the extent that A can get B to do something

which B would not otherwise do.’ This definition is believed to assume two things about power –

a) power is an attribute of individual which is exercised over other individuals and , b) power is

domination over others, that is, power is used to make others do what one wants, against their

own will. As the concepts of power abounds this assumptions are challenged on different

grounds. Another well known definition on power is given by Max Weber, which states that,

‘power is the probability that one actor within a social relationship will be in a position to carry

out his own will despite resistance, regardless of the basis on which this probability rests.

Weber’s focus on the ability to achieve objectives despite resistance is at the core of the concept

‘power’ whether used formally or informally. Two terms in this definition, ‘probability’ and

‘basis’ should be highlighted because they are crucial for making the concept less vague.

Weber’s definition has also been bought under criticism. Marxist theory views power as

distributed unequally in a class divided society, such as capitalist society. Similarly, feminist

theorists understand power as located within structures of patriarchy which ensures that there is a

systematic domination of women by men. In both Marxist and feminist power is seen as located

within structures and individuals derive power from their location within a structure. There are

theorists who view power not simply as domination that is not only as ‘power over’ but as

‘power to’. This view is associated with Hannah Arendt, who theorizes power as enabling and

generated when people communicate and act together in a shared enterprise, in this sense having
power is the basis of being able to act as a morally responsible human being. To understand

‘power as power to’ we can bring in light the explanations of a renowned sociologist Talcott

Parsons, he developed an account of political power treated as the analogue of money in

economic systems. He thought of power as something that circulates in society the way money

does, just as the possession of money enables the capacity to secure economic goods and

services, so the possession of power enables the capacity to secure the performance of political

obligations. Parsons, thus emphasized on both the facilitative dimension of power, that is it’s

capacity to get things done as well it’s systemic character, that it is a property of the entire social

system not merely of individuals. There is a controversy between the ‘intentionalist’ and

‘structuralist’ understandings of power. The former holds that power is always an attribute of an

identifiable agent be it an political party, major corporation or whatever and the latter sees power

as a feature of a social system as a whole. One attempt to resolve these controversies is to accept

what Steven Lukes had stated about power, according to his argument power is an ‘essentially

contested’ concept and highlighting it’s various concepts and conceptions, acknowledging that

no settled or agreed definition of power can be developed. This is the approach adopted by Lukes

in his Power: A radical view. According to Lukes there are three dimensions of political power,

which explains why he considers power to be an essentially contested concept. The three

dimensions of political power being the , decisionist approach, non-decisionist approach and the

radical approach to understanding power. The first view of power being proposed by Robert

Dahl, the second view being credited to Peter Bachrach and Morton Baratz and the third being

the one proposed by Steven Lukes himself. Now coming to a detailed and wider interpretation of

the three dimensions of power. The first face of power dates back to Thomas Hobbes’s

suggestion that power is the ability of an agent to affect the behaviour of a patient. This notion
encompasses the idea of physical or mechanical power, that implies that power involves being

pulled or pushed against one’s will. Such a notion of power has been central to conventional

political science, it’s classic statement being found in Robert Dahl’s ‘A critique of the Ruling

Elite Model’,1958. Dahl wished to base the understanding of power on systematic and testable

hypotheses. Dahl treated power as the ability to influence the decision making process, an

approach he believed to be both objective and quantifiable. According to this view, power is a

question of who gets their way, how often they get their way, and over what issues they get their

way. The attraction of this treatment of power is that it corresponds to the commonsense belief

that power is somehow about getting things done and is therefore most clearly reflected in

decisions and how they are made. It also has the advantage as Dahl pointed out, that it makes

possible even an empirical, scientific study of the distribution of power within any group,

community or society. The method of study was clear select a number of key decision making

areas, identify the actors involved and discover their preferences and finally analyze the

decisions made and compare this with the known preferences of the actors. The most famous

such study was Dahl’s own analysis of the distribution of power in ‘New Haven’. The ability to

influence decisions is often referred to as the ‘pluralist’ view of power suggesting the existence

of plural or many centres of power. Coming to the second face of power, in their seminal essay

‘The two faces of power’, P. Bachrach and M. Baratz described non decision making as the

second face of power. In words of E.E Schattschneider ‘ some issues are organized into politics

while others organized out’, power quiet simply is the ability to set the political agenda. The

decision making approach to power encourages attention to focus on the active participation of

groups in the process whereas non decision making highlights the importance of political

organization in blocking the participation of certain groups and the expression of particular
opinions. Schattschneider summed this up in his famous assertion that ‘organization is the

mobilization of bias’. In the view of Bachrach and Baratz, any adequate understanding of power

must take full account of the ‘dominant values and the political myths, rituals and institutions

which tend to favour the vested interests of one or more groups, relative to others’. A process of

non decision making can be seen to operate within liberal democratic systems in a number of

respects. The analysis of power as non decision making has often generated elitist rather than

pluralist conclusions.Coming to the third and most insidious face of power , which is Steven

Lukes ‘ radical view’ of power. A central theme in the radical view of power is the distinction

between truth and falsehood, reflected in the difference between subjective or felt interests, and

objective or real interests. This is a conception of power that has been particularly attractive to

Marxists and post modern theorists. In Marx’s view, the dominant ideas, values and beliefs of

any society are the ideas of the ruling class, the bourgeoisie. The power of the bourgeoisie is

ideological, as well as economic and political. Thus the exploited class, the proletariat; is

deluded by the weight of bourgeoisie ideas and theories and comes to suffer from what Engels

termed ‘false consciousness’. In effect, it is prevented from recongnizing the fact of it’s own

exploitation. In this way , the objective or real interests of the proletariat, which would be served

only by the abolition of capitalism, differ from their subjective or felt interests. Lenin argued that

the power of bourgeoisie ideology was such that, left to it’s own devices, the proletariat would be

able to achieve only trade union consciousness, the desire to improve their material conditions

but within the capitalist system.

Coming to Michel Foucault’s view on power and a comparative

study on the three dimensions of power. Michel Foucault radically reconceptualised the notion of

power. According to him, power is not repressive, that is, in the modern era, power does not
operate by preventing us from doing what we want. Rather, Foucault sees power as productive,

power produces identity and subjectivity. Further power does not emanate from a single source,

whether the state or the ruling classes. Power is conceptualized by Foucault as capillary, flowing

throughout the system like blood in the capillaries of our body. At first glance, then there may

appear to be similarities between Arendt’s understanding of power as power to and Parson’s

conception of power flowing like money through the system. But both terms, productive and

capillary have entirely different meanings in Foucault’s conception of power. In his

understanding the identities produced by powers are ways of controlling through naming and this

control is exercised in a variety of locations in our everyday lives. Postmodern thinkers

influenced in particular by the writings of Foucault have drawn attention to the link between

power and systems of thought through the idea of a discourse of power. A discourse is a system

of social relations and practices that assign meaning and therefore identities to those who live or

work within it. Discourses are a form of power in which they set up antagonisms and structure

relations between people, who are defined as subjects or objects, as insiders or outsiders. These

identities are then internalized, meaning that those who are subject to domination, as in Marxist

view, are unaware of the fact or extent of that domination. Marxists associate power as thought

control with the attempt to maintain class inequality whereas post modern theorists come close to

seeing power as ubiquitous, all systems of knowledge being viewed as manifestations of power.

The first two approaches of power , as decision making and non decision making, share the basic

assumption that what individuals and groups want is what they want. Both perspectives agree

that it is only when groups have clearly stated preferences it is possible to say who has power

and who does not. In reality no human being possesses an entirely independent mind, the ideas,

opinions and preferences of all are structured and shaped by social experience, through the
influence of family, peer groups, school, the workplace, the mass media, political parties and so

forth. This approaches pursued the ability to manipulate human behaviour by the creation of

needs. The radical view of power also has its critics. It is impossible to argue that people’s

perceptions and preferences are a delusion, that their felt needs are not their real needs, without a

standard of truth against which to judge them. The Marxist notion of a ruling class cannot be

bought under test if class antagonisms are submerged under the influence of bourgeoisie

ideology. Marxism has traditionally relied for these purposes on its credentials as a form of

scientific socialism, however the claim to scientific status has been abandoned by many modern

Marxists and certainly by post Marxists. One of the problems of the post modern view is that

knowledge is socially determined and, usually or always, contaminated with power, is that all

claims to truth are at best relative. This position questions not only the status of scientific

theories but also the status of the post modern theories that attack science. Luke’s solution to this

problem is to suggest that peoples real interests are ‘ what they would want and prefer if they

were able to make the choice’. In other words, only rational and autonomous individuals are

capable of identifying their own ‘real interests’.

On a concluding note, coming to power and the power

of politics in a more ethical direction, politics is about using the power to bring about positive

reforms, path breaking amendments in the social and political structure, setting up laws and

rights equally accessible by all and distribution of resources in a equitable manner. The power of

politics is desired to be used to defy odds and evils of the society in faces of various

discrimination against the deprived and marginalized sections of the society, its about breaking

stereotypes and gender norms , its about breaking the perpetual cycle of any kind of oppression

present in the society and setting up a equitable set up for all and bringing about reformative
laws for raising the standards of life and livelihood of the masses at both personal and public

levels. Therefore for the rightful and diligent practise and understanding of politics , and to

fathom its concepts, a canonical and clear study of power relations is a pre-requisite and is

crucial and inevitable.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:- Political Theory; An Introduction by Andrew Heywood , Political Theory;

An Introduction by Rajeev Bhargava , Distinguishing Power, Authority and Legitimacy by

Norman Uphoff, Cornell University.