Hello and welcome friends.
Today, in this lecture, we are going to start
a new concept that is power and we are going
to have three lectures on this concept which
is one of the essentially, contested concepts
in political theory, as we have been discussing
while we discussed the concept of liberty,
justice, equality, rights.
And power is something, which is very central
in theorisation, in understanding or for those
who are participating in the politics.
So, the politics is also seen or understood
as a power game.
It is about a location of power and who gets
what and how, under what circumstances and
so on.
So, power is very central to the politics.
However, the understanding or the conceptualization
of power is essentially, contested.
In today’s lecture, we are going to discuss
this essentially, contested nature of power
and we will try to have some understanding
of power.
And while concluding this topic in coming
lectures, we will deeply or in a very detailed
manner try to understand the most radical
understanding of power through Foucault.
However, usually, power and its different
understanding will see as a kind of introduction
to this topic power and then, we will try
to see the relationship between power and
authority which we often use in our conversation,
interchangeably.
However, there is a deep difference between
the concept of power and authority, but the
there are also some overlaps between these
two term.
So, we will try to understand first what is
power and introduction to it.
Then we will try to understand what is authority
and then finally, in the last part of today’s
lecture, we will see the relationship between
power and authority.
So, the concept of power is understood in
political theory as an essentially, contested
concept.
So, as I have argued that power is very central
to politics or to understanding of politics
and yet the concept of power is essentially,
contested concept.
So, its meanings are varied and often contested,
and it is simultaneously, or interchangeably,
used with authority as well.
In usual, normal day to day conversations,
we see power as some kind of ability or the
capacity to do something, or to act upon something.
So, the power in general, common sensical
sense, understood as ability or capacity to
do something.
It is also understood in theory as hegemony,
a term that is coined by Antonio Gramsci.
We will discuss it in details, when we will
discuss different conceptions of power.
So, there are ways through which power is
exercised.
And power is usually, seen as a kind of having
coercive dimension to it.
That means, somebody has the capacity to do
something or to get something done by other
even against their will.
So, here the coercive dimension of power is
quite obvious.
In contrast to this coercive dimension of
power or understanding of power, we have conceptualization
of power as hegemony and Gramsci, where he
argues that power also, prevails through the
use of ideology of particularly, those who
are powerful and dominant.
And it proliferates in the society among the
subordinate classes.
So, the Gramscian conceptualization of power
as hegemony is about getting the consent of
those over whom the dominant class or the
ruling class exercises their rule.
So, that consent is acquired not through the
use of coercive power, but through the ideological
power.
So, that is the one kind of understanding
of power which we will discuss in details.
Now, Michel Foucault talks about power as
productive and knowledge as power.
This relationship between knowledge and power,
and the productive or the creative dimension
of power, we will discuss in details and he
put forward these two specific kinds of power
which is called disciplinary power and governmental
power.
So, power has hegemony which we have discussed
through Gramsci.
His understanding of power will be discussed
in the next lecture, while dealing with the
theories of knowledge and power which determines
the what.
Is it the knowledge which enables or gives
the individual or those who have knowledge
the power or it is the other way round, power
which determines what constitute knowledge
in the first place.
So, these interrelationships between knowledge
and power, we will discuss in the next lectures,
where we will also discuss Michel Foucault
conceptualization of power.
However, the modern state which has monopoly
of legitimate violence.
Now, you understand this power or the monopoly
of violence that is exercised by the state.
It can by following the procedure established
by law take away the life of its citizen,
that is death penalty in many countries are
given lawfully, legitimately, through following
the judicial procedures.
However, the state has the legitimate right
to take away one’s life also.
So, it exercises the legitimate violence or
it monopolizes the violence.
So, the violence that is exercised by state
is only regarded as legitimate violence, or
all the other forms of violence are regarded
as violation of laws or as an opposition to
the state.
So, modern state makes explicit the use of
power and its exercise through various institutions.
It also, describes the use of physical coercion
or punishments to maintain law and order or
rule of law in democratic states.
So, the role of police, army, paramilitary
forces, prison and other coercive apparatuses
of state are examples of this explicit use
of coercive power by the state.
However, the abuse and misuse of power and
position lead to authoritarian, autocratic
or dictatorship form of government.
Now, the state which we will discuss, when
we will discuss this topic state and sovereignty
which monopolizes the legitimate means of
violence, we also, become undemocratic or
totalitarian or completely, authoritarian
dictatorship.
Now, challenge therefore, is to ensure that
the power and the authority, and more so,
when we will discuss this power and authority
dichotomy, where we will see that authority
is something, which is seen as legitimate,
but the exercise of the authority requires
power and there the relationship between the
two, power and authority is not that clear
or not that separate or independent from each
other.
They overlap also.
So, the modern state which had exercise a
monopoly of violence, the chances are those
who are in the authority of power or in the
position of authority, they may use and abuse
the power of the state and turn a democratic
state with its legitimate means of violence
to some kind of authoritarian, autocratic
or dictatorship forms of government.
The history of modern world is full of such
examples, where the power of the state was
concentrated in the hands of few individuals
or one individual and they turned the democratic
state into a form of military junta or authoritarian,
undemocratic state.
So, let us come back to this idea of power
which is understood as the ability to perform
actions or to do something, or conduct someone
else life through social interaction and communication.
So, power in society, operates through interactions
between more than one individual.
So, you can only identify power and its effects
when there are more than two or at least two
people interact.
So, in their interaction, who tries to control
whom under what conditions or on what grounds
are the reflection of power and power is something,
which is much more deeper in the structures
of society in its interactions, in its communication.
So, the relationship between son and father
or teacher and the student, or patient and
the doctor are the relationships between the
power.
So, the interactions and the communication
between two and more people are examples,
where we can see the exercise or effect of
power.
So, the most basic definition of power is
provided by Robert Dahl, who defines power
as ‘A, that means, an individual has power
over B, the another individual to the extent
that A can get B to do something, that B would
not have otherwise do’.
So, in this definition, of Robert Dahl defines
power as domination of one person over the
other, where a particular person can be regarded
as exercising power over another person to
the extent that this person can get that person
to do something, which that person would not
do otherwise.
So, this definition of power explains two
specific things about power.
First, here, power is seen as individual attribute
that means, one individual exercise that power
over another individual.
So, power has individual attributes or features
that defines, how individual exercise power
over other individual.
The second power here is seen as domination,
as some kind of control or domination or subordination
of one over the other.
So, power is seen mostly, in a negative domination,
in the sense of domination that is power is
used to make others to do, what one wants
against their own will.
So, the consent over whom the power is exercised
does not matter, when power is exercised and
power is seen as domination.
So, the subordinates, what they feel hardly
matters, when the superior want them to get
something done even if they willingly are
not in favor of doing that thing.
So, power in this most basic, simplistic sense
is seen as domination.
Now, in contrast to this understanding of
power as domination, many theorists have argued
about the structural or the societal attributes
of power.
And there, we need to understand that power
does not rest with the individual, when we
see the relationship between say, doctor or
a patient or a teacher or the student, father
or a son.
Now, that particular moment when power is
exercised is the effect of the power.
Power is already, always there in this structure,
it is a part of social structure, it has a
societal attribute.
So, power does not rest in the individual
as many theorists have argued, where they
see power as the structural with societal
dimensions or attributes.
So, Hannah Arendt is one such example.
She talks about power as attributes of collective
that is enabled through communication among
or between the people.
So, she viewed power in a slightly, positive
sense, not merely as negative.
So, power also enables, power also strengthen
the groups or the collectivities to do something,
to get something done.
It is not just about domination of one over
the other, but also, it has some positive
attributes through which it enables the groups
or the collectivities to do something, to
ensure a rule of law, to ensure justice, to
ensure social equity or any good that particular
collectivities decide for themselves.
So, she viewed power in a slightly, positive
sense that power makes an individual act like
a responsible or accountable or moral being
in the society.
So, power has also, this positive dimension.
So, in this sense, power is not always as
power over, whether it is an individual over
another individual or group of individual
over another individual or a group over another
group.
So, power is not always, understood as power
over, but also, power to.
That group or individual or group of individuals
come together not to dominate the other or
to establish.
It is domination over the other, but also,
to achieve something, to do something that
is creative, that is noble, that is to ensure
peace or justice or social equity in the society.
So, power has both negative or positive attributes.
Now, Talcott Parsons defines power or political
power through two dimensions basically.
So, he equates the power in political system
or in society as performing the role of money
as it does in the sphere of economy.
So, Talcott Parsons, define political power
through two dimensions.
First, the facilitative form of power.
So, those who yield power, those who enjoy
power, they get certain things done in that
political system.
And, another is the systemic form of power.
So, power is already, structured.
It is systemic and those who like in the economic
sphere, those who have the money, they get
to buy more, they get to participate in the
economic sphere more and money and ownership
of money, possession of money enables or facilitate
certain services in the economic sphere.
Similarly, those who yields power or own power
get certain things done in the systemic form
of power in the society.
So, he pointed out that power is something
that circulates in society like money in the
economy, somewhat similar, but of course radically,
different interpretation of power, when we
will discuss Michel Foucault.
So, Talcott Parsons talks about power in a
systemic sense which operates like money operates
in the economy.
He argued that acquisition of power enhance
human capacity or ability to secure political
obligations.
So, the power is something, which provides
same function or has same attributes as money
has in the sphere of economy.
Now, we will move on to discuss, Steven Lukes
three dimensional view of power and.
Steven Lukes acknowledged and argued about
the essentially, contested conception of power.
However, he provides the most comprehensive
and radical understanding of power.
And this understanding of power is regarded
as a three dimensional view.
So, power operates at three levels.
First, at the top, where power is most explicit.
So, power at the top is most explicit, where
you will find that there are two groups who
fight with each other and those who, who is
the winner get the say or prevails over the
another.
So, the exercise of power is most explicit
and visible at the top level, when there are
two groups which fight each other and one
of them prevail over the other.
So, for example, hypothetically, let us take
BJP or the Congress fighting each other in
the election and we know after the election
which party wins.
So, it is like very explicit level.
So, that is the hypothetical example.
But in other circumstances or conditions also,
power at the top is most visible or explicit
when you have two groups fighting each other
and one of them prevail over the other.
So, power at the most explicit level, at the
top level, where it prevails or exercise to
ensure that a more authoritative, powerful
or dominant interests prevail over the other.
So, one group is clearly, winner and the other
group is clearly, loser and that is mostly,
explicit at the top level.
So, power is visible only, at the top and
most visible only at the top.
In the second level, where power is less obvious,
that means, it operates, but it is not that
visible as it is at the top.
So, how it operates?
Power at the less obvious level that is at
the second level operates when some ideas
or issues are kept out of the agenda of discussions
and debates.
So, now, power also operates here, but here,
it is less visible, less explicit than it
is at the top.
So, some ideas or issues are kept outside
the agenda of discussions and debates.
So, the government wants the media, they will
not discuss certain issues.
So, what we often see on media debates or
channels are already, a structure in a way.
So, power operates, while setting the agenda
of discussion itself and on some agendas which
the party or the government may like us to
discuss view, debate and all are already,
set by them.
So, power operates here, but it is less visible,
less explicit than it is at the top level.
So, here, power is exercised while setting
the agenda itself.
So, some issues, some ideas will be kept outside
the agenda of discussion.
So, for example, for a very long time, farmer
issue is not debated as some other issues
are debated or other many pressing issues.
So, for example, let us take, the example
of LGBT communities and their rights and demands
for a very long time, it was suppressed or
kept outside the mainstream media and so on.
So, many documentary filmmakers that they
might be doing it, but in the large public
mainstream media, some issues, some ideas,
some points will be kept outside the agenda
of discussion and debates.
Now, power at the third level is the most
radical form of power and yet it is here that
power is most effective.
That is called most radical view of power
is power at the grassroots level.
Here, power is structural in nature and works
in different ways, to save the perception
of people and these people are those over
whom power is exercised or ruled is based
or the dominant class or the ruling class
gets the legitimacy from these people by making
themselves, subject of their ideology or supporter
of their policies and programmes.
So, power at the grassroots level is very
diverse and structural which ensure or which
saves the perception of the people.
And at this level, power is most effective
and the real interest of the people.
So, the large masses of the people or the
common masses of the people which they think
or they mobilize their opinion, they exercise
their views or thought, they most of the time,
the real interest of these people are kept
hidden and they discuss, debate and express
their opinions on the issues or agenda, that
is set for them by the dominant or the ruling
class.
So, power at this grassroots level is most
effective and yet most invisible.
People feel, they are free to express their
opinion to choose their parties, to express
their opinion on any particular social, political
and economic issue, but here they are the
subject of power in the most invisible sense.
So, the way power operates at the grassroots
level are very varied, very structural but
it shapes the perception of people about a
party or a group or an ideology and so on.
So power at the third level is most structural,
most effective and yet least visible, it is
almost invisible and people feel that they
are free, or autonomous, but yet they are
shaped by the power relation of the dominant
ruling class.
So, these are the three dimensional view of
power, where you see power is most visible
at the top less visible at the second level,
where some issues are kept outside the agenda
and most effective and yet least visible at
the grassroots level which shapes the perception
of the people through different ways in the
structural sense.
So, power is most effective at the third level.
So, these are the Steven Lukes understanding
of power which help you to understand the
power relationship or power structure in any
society or a country.
Now, to move on this idea of authority which
we often see as used in ordinary discourse
interchangeably, that means, power and authority
is seen as one and the same thing.
However, there is a great deal of difference
between the two.
Authority, generally, understood as power
which has legal basis.
So, in contrast to power, which is about capability
or the strength to do something done.
In contrast to that authority is seen as those
power, which has some legal basis.
So, for example, police or a judge or in army,
they all exercise power where that exercise
of power is backed up by some legal basis.
In contrast to that, let us take the example
of say, robbers or those who are anti-socials
or those who are you know, overthrowing the
state through violence, they also exercise
their power but their power do not have the
sanction of the law or the legal basis.
So, in other words, orders, commands or guidelines
which have legal sanctions are regarded as
authority.
So, authority is the legitimate power.
Let us put it that way.
So, power which is legitimate is regarded
as the authority, but however, power can be
of different nature also.
Now, to understand the authority in modern
times Max Weber German sociologist, have pointed
out three different kinds of authority.
One is rational bureaucratic authority, traditional
authority and the charismatic authority.
So, let us discuss these forms of authority
or kinds of authority one by one.
The rational bureaucratic authority refers
to the modern bureaucratic state.
So, the bureaucracy, in the modern state as
the representative of this rational bureaucratic
authority.
Here, it describes how power is exercised
through different institutions of government
through two things, impersonal rules on rational
grounds.
So, the power a bureaucracy exercise is based
on the rules, which is impersonal unlike say
monarchy, where the rule power and authority
is very much personalized or seen as an extension
of the personhood of the king.
Here, in the rational bureaucratic model,
the rule is impersonal.
That means, the bureaucrat who actually, exercise
the power, the power which he exercise is
not because of his own personhood but he represents
some legality or some laws or some rules of
the state.
So, the nature of power that is exercised
by a bureaucrat, in the modern bureaucratic
or rational bureaucratic authority is impersonal
and it must satisfy the rational grounds.
Now, the traditional authorities have its
basis in the historical and cultural ways
of society.
So, say for example, the authority of a tribal
chief is based on this historical or the cultural
base of the society.
So, that is traditional form of authority.
The third, that is charismatic authority which
rests on the personal attributes and characteristics
of the leaders, who may not or may have usually,
may not have the official position or being
traditional or culture.
So, they do not have any traditional or the
cultural backup, neither, they have any official
position.
And yet because of their personal characteristics
or attributes, they enjoy enormous popularity,
they enjoy enormous authority in their country
and society.
So, the examples of say Jesus, Mohammad, Gandhi,
Hitler or many such leaders are the example
of charismatic authority who may not exercise
any official position, who may not have any
historical or the cultural legacy and yet
they are able to enjoy enormous authority
over their people.
So, these are the three kinds of authority.
Rational bureaucratic which is reflected in
modern bureaucratic state is based on the
impersonal rules and rational grounds.
Traditional authority based on the historical
and the cultural ways of the society.
And charismatic authorities based on the attributes
and characteristics of an individual leader.
So, however, Weber regarded these three types
of authority as ideal types, helpful for the
analytical purpose.
So, it is not real that you may have only
one type of authority in a society.
So, it is quite possible, that in reality,
society may have a mix of two or more and
all three kinds of authority.
So, you may have a person who is very charismatic
yet, he has certain cultural and historical
legacy, or he or she may also, enjoy certain
official position or the bureaucratic position.
So, you may find in the real situation, these
three kinds of authorities are only ideal
type that is used by Weber, to analyze, to
study authority in particular society.
But in the real society, you may find the
combination of two forms of authority or maybe
all forms of authority within a society.
Authority makes claim of power and exercise
it through persuasion.
So, that is the way authority functions.
It takes resort to coercive means as a last
resort.
So, the very definition or understanding of
authority is based on some form of legitimacy.
So, the authority is equal to legitimate power.
Right…
So, it is based on both legitimacy and consent.
So, authorities also, understood as of two
kinds.
De facto and de jure.
Now, De jure authority is a form of authority
that has legal basis, however, the De facto
authority refers to an authority which actually,
exercise power like the establishment of military
coup or military rule over the democratically
elected government.
So, in a society or in a country, where you
have a situation where the elected government
are replaced by military coup.
In that situation, you have the elected government
which is the De jure authority, but the actual
exercise of power and authorities in the hand
of military or those who replace the democratically,
elected government.
So, you have then this differentiation between
de facto or the de jure form of authority.
Now, let us discuss this relationship between
power and authority.
So, it is considered that power and authority
are contradictory in nature.
So, many people argue that power is something,
that is, about the relations between or among
the individuals which is shaped by the structural
nature of that society.
So, the relationship between upper caste or
the lower caste, men or the women teacher
or the student doctor or the patient are all
shaped through the structural nature of the
power.
Authority on the other hand is seen as something,
which has legitimate power or which exercise
legitimate power and therefore, it is often,
seen as contradictory to each other.
Power is often identified with constraint.
So, when we invoke the term power, we often
refer to some kind of constraint, some kind
of control, some kind of regulation or force
or dependence or subordinations that explains,
the relationship of domination and subjugation
or subjection.
Whereas, authorities are about seeking consent
and it is based on righteousness of action.
So, the legitimacy and the consent is something
that defines the existence of authority or
the power that in authority or the legitimate
authority exercise.
However, some political thinkers believe that
both power and authority are nearly, impossible
to separate because it is seen that in any
kind of state or institutions, both power
and authority exercise.
So, an authority is effective only, when it
has the means to back up, its policies and
plan, to implement it effectively.
So, the simultaneous presence of power and
authority, therefore, is necessary for the
proper or the effective working of any institutions
of state.
So, power and authority in that sense, complement
each other in the effective functioning of
the state and its institution.
For example A. Carter in her work, authority
and democracy pointed out that authority rarely,
exists in it is pure form, that means, no
authority exercises or duly perform it functions
in the pure form.
She also, said that even a constitutional
government acting in the most liberal manner
would still lack pure authority, since such
governments realize ultimately upon coercion.
So, the coercive nature of the state and its
institution defies this idea of authority
as devoid of power or a kind of pure form
of authority which is based on the legitimacy
and consent and therefore, there is no need
of coercive arrangement.
So, modern state, by design has also, some
coercive apparatus in the form of police or
army or paramilitary forces or the prison,
to coerce the people, to implement its law,
when it is opposed by some groups or the community.
So, the most liberal or the constitutional
government may also, have coercive element
to it.
So, it is impossible, to have authority as
understood as legitimate institution based
on the consent of the people and therefore,
does not require any coercive means are merely,
ideal.
In the real world, you need to have simultaneous
presence of authority and power.
Carl J. Frederich, argued that authority involves
reasoning and he said that if this is not
the reasoning of mathematics and logic, but
the reasoning which relates actions to opinion
and beliefs, to values, however, define.
So, it can thus argue, to be in contrast to
analysis of power.
So, the basis or legitimacy of authority rests
on the reasoning which is different from the
reasoning in mathematics and logic, where
the beliefs and the opinions which are diverse,
which are the reasons for contest in any society
and yet these beliefs and opinions forms the
basis for the legitimacy of any authority.
So, some theorists have argued that authorities
philosophical concept and power is something,
which is sociological concept.
So, we see, we observe, the exercise of power
or the functioning of power or what we can
also, say the effect of power in the society,
where authority is something, which is more
philosophical in nature or analytical in nature.
So, power in contrast to authority which is
seen as philosophical concept is seen as sociological
concept that is based on observation of power
relationships and the ways, it operates in
the society.
So, the social scientists involved in the
study of power, we will look at the structure
of the society and try to understand or observe
its exercise, whereas, the authority is something,
which requires some philosophical or analytical
approach to the exercise of an authority or
the existence or legitimacy of an authority.
So, social scientist basically, focuses on
the empirical studies or political decision-making
and the ways a state functions.
So, it emphasized on the of power elites that
dominate over people through their policies
or decisions on varied social economic issues
in the society.
So, authority is dependent on reasoning, rules
and rightfulness.
It cannot be based simply, on coercion or
command and obedience relationship like that
exists in the power relationship.
So, power relationship is always about command
or order or some forms of obedience that is
a priori decided.
So, for example, of the relationship between
say, father or a son or a teacher or a student
or husband and a wife, this relationship of
power assumes certain obedience, certain command
beforehand.
So, authority is different from that field
it is dependent on reasoning, rules and rightfulness.
So, in contrast to power, authority describes
rightfulness and legitimacy.
And at the same time, it talks about loss
of liberty or freedom because under an authoritative
state, the free choices of individual are
reduced to reduced or limited to a great extent.
So, many liberals have argued that the authority
is something, which curbs the individual freedom.
So, it is better to have minimum authority
or the authority which is weak and therefore,
they argue that if the authorities are weak
or you know minimum, then individual enjoy
maximum freedom.
So, the relationship between the scope of
freedom that an individual enjoy is in direct
proportion to the existence or the power that
an authority exercises.
So, the relationship between authority and
freedom is seen as a kind of contradictory
to each other.
However, many republicans and others have
argued that authorities are some institutions
which provide the condition for the exercise
of individual freedom.
However, the liberals argued that authorities
are actually, some institutions which curbs
which limits the freedom one exercise.
No matter however, is unable or how rightful,
the existence of authorities is, it is seen
in the classical, liberal philosophy, at least
as a limit to the individual free will or
freedom.
So, there are rules or laws that authorize
or give authority to certain individual, to
make decisions regarding socio-economic or
moral issues.
So, for example, officials of the legal system
like judges, lawyers, police, military officials,
ministers etc, these individuals have legitimate
authority and they exercise power on the basis
of the rules of the state.
So, there exercise of power is based or guided
or sanctioned by the rules of the state and
therefore, the exercise of power by the police
or the judge or the militaries are seen as
legitimate power or authority.
So, thus, the rightfulness is considered as
the basis of authority unlike power which
can be exercised or operated in society, by
force or coercion.
So, the relationship between authority and
power can be also, seen as authority which
is legitimate or based on the consent of people,
power in contrast to that is about force or
coercion.
However, it is very difficult to ascertain
the difference between power and authority
and there are critics, who believe that there
is no agreement on the concept of power and
therefore, it is regarded as an essentially,
contested concept.
So, authority without the back of a power
or without having the capacity or means to
implement its decision is not beneficial for
the country, for the society.
So, it requires the exercise of power or the
coercive nature of state are example of such
requirements were state and it is legitimacy
is backed up by the coercive dimension of
modern state or it is monopoly of violence.
So, one cannot separate the power and the
authority; both go at times, hand in hand
and some forms of power may destabilize the
authority and that requires, you know some
kind of transfer.
So, for example, the nationalist movement,
so the national, popular will represented
by congress party or led by many of its leaders
including, some leaders from other parties,
they all question the authority of the British
imperial rule in India.
Now, after the replacement of that rule, these
national popular will be represented by congress
party and the many other parties became the
de facto authority or de jure authority as
well after the enactment of the constitution.
So, those kinds of struggle between power
and authority, you may often find or observe
in the society, yet there are some analytical
distinctions between authority and power which
we have discussed in this lecture.
But nonetheless, the very understanding or
definition of power is far from settled, that
means, it is essentially, contested concepts
in which we will discuss in next two lectures
about different conceptions of power.
So, the themes that I have discussed today
in this lecture, you can refer to some of
these books like Norman Barry, An Introduction
to Modern Political Theory.
This text will give you the detailed description
about the relationship between power and authority.
Similarly, you can refer to Nivedita Menon’s
chapter on power in Rajeev Bhargav and Ashok
Acharya and you can similarly, refers to some
of these books to understand some of the topics,
which we have discussed today.
So, thanks for listening.
That is all for today.
Thank you all.
