Power

Discipline course -1
Semester -1
Paper – Understanding Political Theory
Lesson- Power
Lesson Developer: Dr. Pranav Kumar
College /Department: Motilal Nehru
College,University of Delhi

Institute of Lifelong Learning , University of Delhi

1
 Power

Content :

1. Introduction

2. What is Power?

3. Analysis of Power

4. Power and Authority

5. Power: Views and Theories

(i) Dahl, Bachrach and Baratz: views on power

(ii) Lukes on Power

(iii) Marxist view of power

(iv) Foucault on Power

(v) Feminist Theories of Power

(vi) Hannah Arendt on Power

6. Conclusion

Institute of Lifelong Learning , University of Delhi

2
 Power

1. Introduction :

The use of the word ‘Power’ in everyday life is very common. In social
and political discourse too, this term finds a central place. Which
government is in power? Cold war rivalry was between the two
superpowers? India is an emerging power, democracy gives power to
people; these are some of the very common expressions and statements of
everyday political discussion. However, when we move to understand our
common expressions and statements, we feel confused. Since, this term is
used so widely in English language that it evades a simple meaning. The
concept of power is also central to a theoretical understanding of politics.
Interestingly, sometimes the politics itself is defined as a “power game”. The
concept of power is also closely linked with the other central concepts of
political theory. The state is also seen as an institution having monopoly
over force. And scholars ask how does legitimate force connects to the
notion of power. Hence any discussion about state will involve the concept of
power. Another central concept of political theory is the question of Liberty.
Mostly the discussion about liberty revolves around state’s power to interfere
in an individual’s life and an individual’s positive capacity to do something.
Once again, an understanding about power is essential to probe the question
of liberty. Similarly, the concepts of equality and justice discusses about the
distribution of power in society. The concept of citizenship is meant to give
power to citizens and the notion of democracy revolves around giving power
to people. According to Elster, power is “the most important single idea in
political theory, comparable perhaps to utility in economics”. Therefore given
the importance and prevalence of the use of the term power in common life
and its centrality as a concept in political theory, it is important to ponder
over the concept of power.

Institute of Lifelong Learning , University of Delhi

3
 Power

Given the confusion and the frequency of the use of the term itself, the
natural question is how to study power? There are various examples of the
use of this term in common life. The electrical power, the will power, the
mechanical power etc., hence, we recognize the power of objects, beings,
institutions and physical as well as metaphysical phenomena’s. However,
here our focus is on power in social situations. Therefore, we narrow down to
dimensions of power in society and study this in social and political
philosophy. Despite narrowing down to social power, we find that the
concept of power is the most intriguing concept in social and political theory.
There are numerous conceptions of power, which explain it very differently.
Dahl, Arendt, Gidden’s, Foucault seems to be in radical disagreement over
the nature, basis and definition of power. One of the major causes of this
radical disagreement about the notion of power is due to power being a
‘family resemblance’ concept. According to Wittgenstein a family
resemblance concept does not share a single essence, rather they embody a
cluster of concepts with overlapping characteristics. Hence while studying
power we have to acknowledge that ‘Power’ covers a cluster of social
phenomena. And its treatment by a scholar is located within certain context.

When we are studying the concept of power, we should remember that

power is an essentially ‘Contested concept’ (Lukes). It is essentially
contested because there are hardly any value free statements or discussions
about power. And everyone is describing power in view of his interest.
Therefore the conceptualization of power presupposes some purpose, and
that presupposition comes from the authors understanding of contemporary
social, political and ethical life. According to Allan Ball the concept of power
is a ‘peculiarly problematic concept’. Michael, J. Oakeshot says that power is
now the most abused word in our language of politics. The contestation
about the concept of power is mainly because of the lack of agreement
about the definition, function, dimension, basis, nature, operation and focus
Institute of Lifelong Learning , University of Delhi
4
 Power

of power. The Encyclopaedia of Social Sciences 1 mentions five major

contentions about the concept of Power in social and political philosophy:

i) What is the source of power; does it come from the actions of the
individuals or is it a by-product of broader social structure?

ii) Is power a resource or a capacity that can lie dormant, or do it only come
to existence when it is exercised?

iii) Does power refer to the ability to achieve certain desired outcomes, or is
it a relationship between agents where one exercises power over another?

iv) Does power necessarily involve domination, coercion, or constraint, or

can it be based on consent?

v) Is power exercised only where the consequences of a certain action are

intended, or do unintended or unforeseen consequences also count as
evidence of the exercise of power?

We will study the concept of power, keeping in view the above mentioned
contentions. For the purpose of clarity of understanding we will proceed by
asking several questions:

i) What is power? We will start with a provisional definition and then move
on to highlight some other definitions of power.

ii) How to distinguish power? We will distinguish power from other related
terms.

iii) What is the relationship between power and authority? One of the most
important debates in the political theory is about power and authority.

iv) What are the important theories of power? In this section we will explain
the views of various social and political thinkers.
1
edited by William Darity
Institute of Lifelong Learning , University of Delhi
5
 Power

2. What is Power? :

Generally, power is understood as the ability/or a collection of abilities to influence the

circumstances/events/others to achieve self/targeted interest.

The English noun, power, derives from the Latin, ‘Potere’, which
stresses potentiality and means ‘to be able’. Most of the dictionaries of
English language define power as the ability/capacity to do something/to
influence others. This can provide us a provisional definition of power to
start with. Generally, power is understood as the ability/or a collection of
abilities to influence the circumstances/events/others to achieve
self/targeted interest.

According to Dahl, “A has power over B to the extent that he can get B to do
something that B would not otherwise do.”

According to Foucault, “power is not a thing but a relation. It is not simply

repressive but it is productive. Power is exercised throughout the social
body. Power operates at the most micro levels of social relations. Power is
omnipresent at every level of the social body”.

Institute of Lifelong Learning , University of Delhi

6
 Power

Michel Foucault (1926 –1984) was a French

Philosopher, historian, social theorist and literary
critic. He was one of the most influential
philosophers of the 20th century. His theories are
concerned about issues of power and knowledge in
society and social control. His major works include:
Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, Madness and Civilization: A
History of Insanity in the Age of Reason, The History of Sexuality.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Foucault5.jpg

R.H.Tawney, “Power is the capacity of an individual or a group of individuals,

to modify the conduct of other individuals or groups in the manner which he
desires, and to prevent his own conduct being modified in the manner which
he does not”.

Lukes define power as, “A exercises power over B when A affects B in a

manner contrary to B's interests”.

In social and political theory, various scholars define power according to

their own conceptions/notions of power. Therefore we find a great variety.
Before moving forward to analyse the concept of power we can identify
certain common features from the definitions of power.

First, power is a relational concept. It means power is exercised always in

relation to other. Whenever power is exercised another individual/entity
must be there over which the power is to be exercised.

Second, power is always marginal. Actor X has marginal power, in

comparison to actor Y in a given situation to do activity Z.
Institute of Lifelong Learning , University of Delhi
7
 Power

Third, power is also bilateral. According to Ramaswamy, a leader has to take

into account the needs, desires, demands of those over whom he
commands. Lasswell and Kaplan say that ‘those whose acts are affected also
participate in decision making: by conformity or disregard of the policy, they
help determine whether it is or is not in fact a decision’.

Fourth, power is dynamic and specific. It means that power is not constant
in all time and place. The power to do something or influence events,
changes according to specific time and place. For example a police officer
might be powerful in his district but not in a foreign country.

3. Analysis of Power :

The exercise of power is a matter of will. Those who exercise it have a

choice to exercise it. Similarly those over whom it is exercised, it must be in
opposition to their interest and volition. Generally we see power in active
(manifest) and inactive (latent) forms. The agent having power in any of
these forms can get the change in activity of the other agent. Power can
take different forms but it is certainly not to be confused with its forms. Ellen
Grigsby highlights four different forms of power. According to him, in actual
political relationships one type of power is rarely found in isolation from
other types. In practice, power generally possesses a blended quality, with
one type of power blending into and being used simultaneously with
another.

‘Force is exercise of power by physical means’. Here the agent who exercises
power creates obstacles for other agent or agents. This can involve physical
violence, boycotts, riots, revolution, rape, terrorist activities, stopping the
movement etc. Essentially, it restricts the freedom of other agents in an
attempt to achieve the interest of the agent exercising force. Force can be
both violent and non-violent. Although, we find frequent examples of violent

Institute of Lifelong Learning , University of Delhi

8
 Power

use of force, but there are major examples of non-violent use of force.
Mahatma Gandhi’s non-violent struggle against British was an example of
non-violent force. American civil right leader Martin Luther king had also
championed a non-violent use of force.

“Persuasion is nonphysical power in which the agent using power makes its
use of power clear and known to the agent over whom power is exercised”.
Here the agent A will argue with the agent B about right or wrong and
convince the agent B to do otherwise as he would have do without the
persuasion. Persuasion is always non - violent. Persuasion is prevalent in
politics and especially in democratic politics. It involves, ‘Lobbying,
speechmaking, debating, writing letters, issuing position papers, and making
proclamations in the form of court decisions, executive orders, laws, and
policies’. The most important point in persuasion is that the agent who is
exercising power makes his intentions clear to the agent over whom the
power is exercised. The work of the early nationalists of Indian national
movement was an example of persuasion.

Unlike persuasion, Manipulation involves ‘concealment of intent’ on the part

of the agent exercising power. Like persuasion it is the non-physical use of
power. The agent over whom the power is exercised is unaware about the
exercise of power. Essentially, manipulation is difficult to resist, because how
can one resist something which he is not aware about. This type of power is
also very frequently used in politics. However it is difficult to verify the use
of manipulation.

According to Ellen Grigsby, ‘Exchange is a type of power involving

incentives, in which one agent gives another agent an item in return for
another item. One agent can obtain an objective or exercise power over
another agent by giving the second agent the incentive to concur with the
first agent’s will; if the second agent knows he/she will be rewarded, the
Institute of Lifelong Learning , University of Delhi
9
 Power

second agent has an incentive to concur. Power has been exercised, insofar
as the second agent concurred with the first agent’s wishes as a result of
having been influenced by the incentive’. In politics, exchange is a very
common medium to exercise power. Especially, powerful countries provide
economic assistance to poor countries, to get something out from them.
Exchange is little difficult to analyse. The agent over whom power is
exercised is aware, but since he is also gaining something he might not
recognize the extent of the impact.

4. Power and Authority :

Power and Authority are two terms which are very often used
interchangeably and even confused as meaning the same thing. The reason
behind this confusion is that despite their difference, there is an ‘indissoluble
link ‘between these two terms. Generally they are never found apart. We
have seen in the definition of power that power is the capacity to influence.
The element of influence remains in authority also but it is the right to
influence. It means those who are influencing others, do they have a
right/entitlement to do so? This entitlement defines authority. This right can
come from various sources. If we take example of political authority, in a
democratic society the entitlement comes from the constitution. In a
theocratic polity the entitlement might come from a holy book (like the
Koran). Such sources provide legitimacy to the power and graduate it to
authority. Legitimacy is the exercise of ‘political power in a community in a
way that is voluntarily accepted by the members of that community’. At
many times we find that a group of people gain political power through
violent means but they lack legitimacy or try to create legitimacy by
invoking myriad sources of legitimacy. But if the people do not accept the
authority of the new rulers, the new ruler either relinquish power or repress
the widespread opposition. The important point here is that, over whom the

Institute of Lifelong Learning , University of Delhi

10
 Power

power is exercised, should find it the ‘right’ of the actor to exercise such
power. If power implies, constraint, force, subordination and dependence.
The authority implies consent, morality, will and autonomy.

Authority is the exercise of power, which is believed as legitimate. The legitimacy

comes from the rightful entitlement of the power wielder.

Noted German Sociologist, Max Weber have tried to explain, why people
accept exercise of power as rightful. Weber identifies three kinds of
authority, where the authority is derived from different sources. Weber
argued that authority is simply people’s faith in the rightfulness. Therefore it
is immaterial from where that right is derived. Weber finds that authority is
simply the legitimate power. Weber constructed three ideal types of
authority to understand the political rule.

Max Weber (1864 –1920) was a German sociologist

and philosopher. Weber is credited with Marx and
Durkheim as the builder of the discipline of sociology.
His major works include: The Protestant Ethic and the
Spirit of Capitalism, The Methodology of the Social
Sciences.
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Max_Weber_1894.jpg

The first ideal type of authority is the Traditional Authority. Traditional

authority claims legitimacy because of historical, cultural, religious and
customary laws and norms. Theoretically, the traditional authority had

Institute of Lifelong Learning , University of Delhi

11
 Power

existed unbroken and had been accepted by earlier generations too.

Examples of traditional authority are found in tribal societies and religious
communities.

The second Ideal type of authority is Charismatic Authority. This type of

authority is a result of personal qualities. The personal quality of an
individual entitles him the compliance and obedience of others. ‘Charismatic
authority should not be thought simply as a gift or natural propensity.
Political leaders often try to ‘manufacture’ charisma, either by cultivating
their media image and sharpening their oratorical skills or, in orchestrating
an elaborate ‘cult of personality’ through the control of a propaganda
machine’. Krishna, Jesus, Mohammed, Hitler, Martin Luther King, Gandhi are
important examples of charismatic authority.

The third Ideal type of authority is rational-legal authority. This type of

authority is the characteristic feature of modern industrial-bureaucratic
society. There are clearly defined set of rules which create organizations and
offices. And authority is derived from these offices. Here, obedience is
secured due to the impersonal ‘rule of law’. The authorities in modern
societies are examples of rational-legal authority.

According to Nivedita Menon, the ‘ideal type’ of authorities presented by

Weber is merely theoretical devices to help in social analysis. They are not
exact descriptions of empirical reality. So, not one institution or individual in
authority exemplifies one type entirely – charismatic authority often draws
on tradition, ration-legal authority and charismatic authority may go
together and so on.

5. Power: Views and Theories :

Thucydides, a Greek historian, recounts the 5th century BC war between

Sparta and Athens to the year 411 BC. In his book named History of the
Institute of Lifelong Learning , University of Delhi
12
 Power

Peloponnesian War; he discusses the importance and the use of power. In

earlier thinking about power, one of the major questions about power was:
why men seek power? There were generally two types of views: one it is in
the human nature and second the humans are driven by the circumstances.
But such questions faded away and thinkers started discussing about,
functions, mechanisms, dimensions, context of power. In political theory the
question of power was most of the time intermixed with the question of
legitimacy, authority, action, justice, citizenship etc. The great philosopher
Aristotle tried to classify various types of regimes on the basis of distribution
of political power. Hobbes and Machiavelli are said to be the forerunners of
the modern thinking about power. In his book ‘The Prince’, Machiavelli,
presents a strategic and decentralized thinking about power and
organization. On the other hand in ‘Leviathan’, Thomas Hobbes proposes a
centralized view of power, that power is centralized in the hands of
sovereign. So he thinks power as hegemony. In the 20th century, Karl Marx
and Engels presented the class view of power. They saw power as a means
of exploitation. In the post-World War II, period, Max Weber emerges as a
prominent thinker on Power. His views on power were organizational and he
believed in the probability principle of power. It means studying the
‘probability that a social actor within a social relationship would be in a
position to carry out his will despite resistance to it’. Weber is famous for
distinguishing between three types of authority on the basis of sources of
power. In the post Weber social and political thinking we find a number of
scholars explicitly theorizing about power. Some of the well-known social
and political theorists of power are: Robert Dahl, Peter Bachrach and Morton
Baratz, Steven Lukes, Nicos Poulantaz, Hannah Arendt, Anthony Godden’s,
Michele Foucault, Morriss and Haugaard.

The diverse views about power can also be classified according to ideological
leanings: Elitist view of Power (Burnham, Mills), the pluralist view of power
Institute of Lifelong Learning , University of Delhi
13
 Power

(Dahl), the neo-pluralist view of power (Lindbolm), the Marxist view (Marx,
Gramsci, Poulantaz, Althusser, Lukes), Feminist View (Okin, Mitchell) and
alternative traditions (Nietzsche, Foucault, Arendt).

There is another type of distinction of political thoughts on power. A majority

of thinkers see power as a concept riddled with conflict, while there are
some thinkers who see power as consensual. Those who see power in
conflicting terms, explain power as domination. This view is represented by,
Weber, Marx, Pluralists, Hobbes, Realists and others. The consensual view of
power does not see power as domination rather they see power in
cooperative group action. Here the power is based on consent. Hannah
Arendt, Barry Barnes and Parsons are the major proponents of this view.
However there are other thinkers who treat power both as conflictual and
consensual: Giddens, Clegg and Haugaard.

Now, we will study the views of some selected thinkers on power.

5. i) Dahl, Bachrach and Baratz: views on power :

In “The concept of Power” (1957), Robert Dahl provides a detailed analysis

of power. Dahl developed his concept of power, while he was responding to
the criticisms of American Democracy by the community power theorists
(like Hunter) and Elite theorists (like C. Wright. Mills). Dahl’s definition of
power remains influential till now. Dahl’s definition of power was influenced
by the Weber’s definition. However, Weber was discussing power within
organizational structure and Dahl’s discussion of power pertains to
democratic community. Dahl defines power as “A has power over B to the
extent that he can get B to do something that B would not do otherwise”.
Simply saying it is the ability to make somebody do something that
otherwise he or she would not have done. Here it is important to highlight
that it applies to both positive and negative actions. It’s positive when a

Institute of Lifelong Learning , University of Delhi

14
 Power

preferred outcome is brought but its negative when there is resistance to a

non- preferred outcome. This approach to power is focused on observable
decision making behaviour. Therefore some scholars also call this approach
power as decision making approach to power. Haugaard (Power: A Reader)
explains that Dahl’s view of power is about prevailing in decision making and
not to be equated with power resource, which is only potential power.
Importantly for Dahl, resource may or may not be mobilized in decision
making. Robert Dahl uses this conception of power to analyse the working of
democracy and distribution of power at community level political system.

Elite theory claims to explain the existing power relationship in society. According
to Elite theorists, a small minority of people control the decision making in society.
The elites hold on power is beyond the control of democratic process. Various elite
theorists have pointed towards various types of elites. Some of the important elite
theorists are: Vilfredo Pareto, Gaetano Mosca, Robert Michels, C. Wright Mills,
James Burnham and Robert D. Putnam.

Elite theorist, Mills believed that there is a nexus between power elites in
America. And power is concentrated in the hands of some elites. Dahl
criticizes such an approach and through a study of power relationship in New
Haven, Connecticut, USA, shows that power was distributed unequally and
widely in New Haven. Dahl shows that power is dispersed amongst various
groups and not monopolized by small ruling elite. Dahl says that there are a
number of groups competing in an open an inclusive political system in
America. He calls such a competitive system between groups, Polyarchy.
Dahl uses the term polyarchy (rule by many) instead of democracy.
According to Dahl, democracy is an ideal system, and there are institutional
arrangements which try to achieve the ideal. But, Polyarchy is not direct
democracy and it is based on the principles of representation.

Institute of Lifelong Learning , University of Delhi

15
 Power

Since Dahl’s view only focuses on the overt decision making process and
fails to recognize the hidden face of power, Steven Luke calls it ‘one
dimensional view’ of power. Peter Bachrach and Morton Baratz developed
their model of power as a response to Dahl’s conception on ‘one dimensional
view of power’. They say that it is not only important to study, how decisions
are made (overt face of power) but also to study the ability to prevent the
decision-making (covert face of power). Bachrach and Baratz believe that
not only does A exercises power over B in overt decision making (as in Dahl)
but A may equally well exercise power over B by limiting the scope of the
political process to issues which are relatively innocuous. Mark Haugaard (
Power: a Reader) says that the most obvious instance of this is the process
of agenda setting whereby an issue of importance to B is deliberately left off
the agenda by A, so B lacks relevant resources, which enables A to exercise
power in the way of preventing a range of issues from being raised. This
second face of power is also called the power of ‘non-decision-making’.
Bachrach and Baratz define non decision as a decision that results in
suppression or thwarting of a latent or manifest challenge to the values or
interest of the decision makers. The non-decision making ensures what will
be at stake in a power conflict domain. So, by keeping many things out of
the power conflict the non-decision making power ensures that personal
interests remain out of public debate.

5. ii) Lukes on Power :

Lukes starts with a generic definition of power. “A exercises power over B,

when A affect B in a manner contrary to B’s interest”. From this definition he
moves to analyse the existing contemporary views on power given by
pluralist and critics of pluralists. Through this exercise he expands the
understanding of power beyond the observable behaviour. Lukes
characterizes Dahl’s concept of power (the pluralist) as one dimensional

Institute of Lifelong Learning , University of Delhi

16
 Power

view. He characterizes Bachrach and Baratz’s (Dahl’s critic) view of power as

two dimensional views. Against this backdrop, Lukes enunciates his
conception of power by adding a third dimension of power. Lukes
summarizes the distinctive features of these three views of Power.

The One Dimensional view of power focuses on:

a) Behaviour;

b) Decision making;

c) (Key) issues;

d) Observable (overt) conflict;

e) (Subjective) interests, seen as policy preferences revealed by political

participation

The Two Dimensional view of power focuses on:

a) Decision-making and control over the political agenda (not necessarily

through decisions);

b) Issues and potential issues;

c) Observable (overt and covert) conflicts;

d) (Subjective) interests seen as policy preferences and grievances.

The Three Dimensional view of power focuses on:

a) Decision making and control over the political agenda (not necessarily
through decisions);

b) Issues and potential issues;

c) Observable (overt and covert) and latent conflict;

Institute of Lifelong Learning , University of Delhi

17
 Power

d) Subjective and real interests.

Commenting on Lukes, Lorenzi explains that the third dimension of power is

the power to prevent the formation of grievances by shaping perception,
cognition and preferences in such a way as to ensure the acceptance of a
certain role in the existing order. There are two aspects of the third
dimension of power. First, Lukes argues that the power relations are shaped
by structurally constituted social relations. Second, Luke says that power
distorts the knowledge. It means power creates a false consciousness, where
people’s real interest remains hidden from them and what they consider as
their own interest is essentially the interest of those who are in power. The
three dimensional view is much closer to Marxist analysis of power in social
relations. The three dimensional view shows that there is a latent conflict in
society. There is a contradiction between the interest of A (those exercising
power) and the real interest of B (which are excluded). Due to the exclusion
of such issues many issues of interest of B do not enter in the domain of
overt conflict of power. Therefore Lukes argue that a full critique of power
should include both subjective interests and the ‘real’ interests that might be
held by those excluded by the political process. Essentially, Lukes was
concerned about the problem – why people act in a way that appears
contrary to their interests? To answer this he introduces the third dimension
of power, where the powerful creates a false consciousness. In his later
works, Lukes also calls this phenomenon, power as domination. Luke says
that domination can occur through open, coercive means but it can also
occur through unconscious mechanisms.

5. iii) Marxist view of power:

Marxists see power in terms of class. Power is always class power, and for
example power in the capitalist society lies with bourgeois. The source of
power is the ownership of means of production. Power remains centralised
Institute of Lifelong Learning , University of Delhi
18
 Power

and concentrated in the hands of owners of the means of production. The

other class, have no power and they are exploited. So the use of power is
exploitation. Marx says that throughout history the society was divided in to
two classes: master and slave, lord and serf, bourgeois and proletariat. One
class owns the means of production and other class provides the labour
power. So in modern times bourgeois are the powerful, as they are the
owners. In the modern capitalist system, the surplus value created by the
labour power is extracted from the proletariat. This appropriation of surplus
takes place in a non- coercive manner by the method of contract. The
appropriated value is shared by the ruling class. This leads to exploitation of
one class by the other. Marx says that economics is the base and polity,
legal set up, ethics and morality all are part of superstructure. Hence those
who control economic structure in society, they protect and perpetuate their
interest through legal and political structures in society.

Marxism is named after the famous twentieth century philosopher, Karl Marx
(1818 –1883). Marx was born in Germany but later he shifted to England. Marx is
the most virulent critic of capitalism. He propounded many new ideas, which not
only changed the course of philosophy but the world history too. Marx talked about
the unity of the workers and an impending revolution in the capitalist system.
However, many states which were later built around Marxist ideas became
dictatorships and personality cult regimes which slaughtered its own people to save
the ‘revolution’. His major works include: The Philosophical Manifesto of the
Historical School of Law, Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right, On the Jewish
Question, Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844, The Holy Family, Theses
on Feuerbach, The German Ideology, The Poverty of Philosophy, Manifesto of the
Communist Party, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Napoleon, A Contribution to the
Critique of Political Economy.

Institute of Lifelong Learning , University of Delhi

19
 Power

Source :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Karl_Marx_001.jpg

Extraction of surplus remains the major source of sustenance and

perpetuation of domination and exploitation in the capitalist system. Surplus
value is that amount of value created by the labour power for which the
labour power is not paid. According to Marx, there is only one way to end
this exploitation, i.e., revolution. A revolution will end the current power
structure in society and eventually it will demolish the class system itself,
hence ushering into classless and stateless society. Marx predicted that
conditions are ripe in advance capitalist societies of Europe for revolution.

Institute of Lifelong Learning , University of Delhi

20
 Power

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Russian_Revolution_of_1917.jpg : Picture
of Russian Revolution).

However, the impending revolution did not occur in advanced capitalist

societies and it happened in a backward society of Russia. This made many
Marxist scholars to rethink about the capitalist societies. They started
thinking about the ways political power is exercised and maintained in
advance capitalist societies. Antonio Gramsci, an Italian Marxists, came up
with the idea of hegemony to explain the working of political power in
capitalist societies. Gramsci believed in the relative autonomy of the political
structure from the economic base. Gramsci says that the state controls the
society through both coercive power and by consent. Coercive power is the
repressive function of the state. In modern advance states this coercive
power is rarely used. The state manufactures legitimacy for its power by
generating consent from the masses. This generation of consent is done by
cultural, ideological and educational means. Hegemony represents the

Institute of Lifelong Learning , University of Delhi

21
 Power

acceptance of the views on reality, of dominant class by other classes as

'common sense'.

Anonio Gramsci (1891-1937) was an

Italian Marxist writer, politician, political
theorist, philosopher, sociologist, and
linguist. He was imprisoned by the regime
of Benito Mussolini. He is well known for
his theory of imperialism, which seeks to
explain the causes of capitalist
domination in European societies.
Gramsci’ continues to influence the
Marxist thinker even in twenty-first
century.
Source : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Gramsci.png

According to Ien Ang, "The Gramscian concept of hegemony is mostly used

to indicate the cultural leadership of the dominant classes in the production
of generalized meanings, of 'spontaneous' consent to the prevailing
arrangement of social relations - a process, however, that is never finished
because hegemony can never be complete”. So hegemony is the moral and
intellectual leadership through which the subordinate classes give consent to
be dominated by the ruling classes. Hegemony works very profoundly; even
the words we speak or write have been constructed by social interactions
through history and shaped by ideology of the dominant class. But unlike
Marx, Gramsci says that there is not a single dominant class but there is a
shifting and unstable alliance between different classes. Therefore the
consent is not a permanent state of affairs. So ‘hegemony’s victory is never

Institute of Lifelong Learning , University of Delhi

22
 Power

final’ and the resistance by the subordinate groups to total domination

continues.

Hegemony is the moral and intellectual leadership through which the subordinate
classes give consent to be dominated by the ruling classes.

5. iv) Foucault on Power :

Foucault does not present an ordered and coherent doctrine of power. In his
writings power is the spirit which fills all other discourses. Therefore his
views on power can be gleaned from his various writings. Foucault is thought
to be difficult to understand, however it is convenient to understand Foucault
through his own words. While examining the play of power he explained that
the use of power in modern times is very different from earlier times. Now
power is not repressive but power is productive.

Foucault distinguishes between Right to death and Power over life. He says
that classical thoughts about power take power in one way only, i.e. Right to
death. This is the juridical power of taking life. But Foucault says that power
not only functions in this way, but in other ways too. And Foucault
developed the idea of Power over life to explain this other way. Let us first
understand the right to death. This is a right to take life or let live. This is
called juridical power. The idea of such kind of power was developed by
enlightenment theorists. While explaining juridical power Foucault says that
juridical “power was exercised mainly as a means of deduction, a subtraction
mechanism, a right to appropriate a portion of the wealth, a tax of products,
goods and services, labour and blood levied on subjects… a right of
seizure…it culminated in the privileges to seize hold of life in order to
suppress it” (History of Sexuality, Volume-1, Page 136).

Institute of Lifelong Learning , University of Delhi

23
 Power

The juridical power is about prohibition and punishment. The juridical power
is quantifiable and tangible. So, if I am prohibited my powers are taken
away and someone else gains power. So this is zero-sum game of power.
For example when one violates a law, he is punished by either taking away
some fine or taking away his liberty. The juridical power is exercised by the
official institutions (law, police, bureaucracy etc).

In contrast to the notion of Right to death (juridical power) Foucault

develops another idea of power, i.e. Power over life. The Power over life
includes; Disciplinary power and Bio-political power. Explaining the Power
over life, Foucault says, “the growing importance assumed by the actions of
the norm at the expense of the juridical system of the law, law cannot help
but be armed, and its arm, par excellence is death… but a power whose task
is to take charge of life needs continuous regulatory and corrective
mechanisms…such a power has to quantify, measure, appraise and
hierarchies rather than display itself in murderous splendour. It does not
have to draw the line that separates the enemies of the sovereign from it
obedient subjects; it effects distribution around the norm… a normalizing
society is the historic outcome of a technology of power centred on life” 2

The Power over life is productive and not subtractive. It’s enabling power.
This power has a positive influence on life. Through methods of control and
regulation, this power tries to optimize and multiply life. It wants to make
life more efficient. Therefore in another words Power over life wants more
life and better life by managing at very micro levels. Since power is
productive and enabling, here is no point in getting rid of power. Getting rid
of power will mean disempowerment. In sum, the Power over life is located
everywhere and in everything. This is located in unofficial institutions, like
social norms. This is enforced not by individual but by society through

2
History of Sexuality, Volume-1, page -144.
Institute of Lifelong Learning , University of Delhi
24
 Power

positive and negative incentives and choices. These are not enforced by law
or formal institutions but are enforced by opinions and norms of society.
This power does not result in reduction, rather in production.

The Power over life is exercised through disciplinary power and bio-power.
The Disciplinary power is normalization of individual body. Foucault says,
‘discipline is centred on the body as a machine its disciplining, the
optimization of its capabilities, the extortion of its forces, the parallel
increase of its usefulness and docility, its integration into subsystems of
efficient and economic controls, all this was ensured by the procedures of
power that characterized the disciplines: an antomo-politics of the human
3
being”

So through discipline, the individual body is managed and tracked. The

discipline is intended to optimize the capabilities and efficiency of the body.
In his book “Discipline and Punish” Foucault analyses the penal system to
demonstrate the ways in which the power is exercised. Here he analyses the
changes in the prison system. Before 18th century the punishment was
ceremonial and it was intended towards the prisoner’s body. For example,
the public execution was used as a ritual to re-establish the king’s authority
and at the same time demonstrate it to the audience. Starting from 18th
century, Foucault observes a change in prison system. The mechanism of
close surveillance replaces the earlier brute force. However it was not
humanizing. Rather this was a more correct economy of power. “Discipline is
a series of techniques by which the body's operations can be controlled.
Discipline worked by coercing and arranging the individual's movements and
his experience of space and time. This is achieved by devices such as
timetables and military drills, and the process of exercise. Through
discipline, individuals are created out of a mass”. There are three principal

3
History of Sexuality, volume-1, page-139.
Institute of Lifelong Learning , University of Delhi
25
 Power

mechanisms through which the disciplinary power operates: Hierarchical

observation, Normalizing judgment and Examination. Observation and the
gaze are key instruments of power. We can see the example of observation
and the gaze in modern prison system. The modern system of prison is best
represented in the Bentham’s prison design of ‘Panopticon’. The design
consists of a circular structure with an “inspection house” at its centre, from
which the managers or staffs of the institution are able to watch the
inmates, who are stationed around the perimeter. The idea is to watch the
inmates without them being able to tell whether or not they are being
watched. Hence the inmates will always behave in a way that they are being
watched. This leads to internalization of surveillance.

According to Elisheva Sadan, “Foucault is concerned about the expansion of

discipline in the governing system and the police, bodies for which the entire
society is a field of action and object of disciplinary action. Although Foucault
did not believe that disciplinary power spreads throughout society
systematically, he estimated that most of the major social institutions are
already infected by it, and hence the great similarity, in the structure of
prison factories, schools, detainment camps and hospitals. The transition
from torture to rules is also a transition from physical punishment to psychic
punishment of the soul and the will”.

The second type of power under Power over life is called Bio Power by
Foucault. According to Clare O'Farrel, in Foucault’s terminology, Bio Power is
a technology which appeared in the late eighteenth century for managing
populations. It incorporates certain aspects of disciplinary power. If
disciplinary power is about training the actions of bodies, Bio Power is about
managing the births, deaths, reproduction and illnesses of a population.
Essentially this technology is used by the modern nation-states with the help
of numerous diverse techniques to use the statistics and control and manage

Institute of Lifelong Learning , University of Delhi

26
 Power

the population. Bio power is the normalization of population. In Foucault’s

own words “Bio Power is the power which gave itself the function of
administering life” 4. Today, the nation states want to make sure that every
being falls in the average. They collect large scale statistical data to see the
“alleatory events” (deviations), and then regulate and manage them. Bio
power “focuses on the species body imbued with the mechanics of life and
serving as the basis of the biological process: propagation, births and
mortality, the level of health, life expectancy and longevity, with all the
conditions that can cause these to vary. Their supervision was effected
through an entire series of interventions and regulatory controls: a bio
5
politics of the population” The Bio Power is different from the disciplinary
power in terms of surveillance. In disciplinary power the surveillance is of
direct observation and gaze, and in Bio Power the surveillance is abstract by
the means of statistics.

In enlightenment theories of Power (juridical power) resistance was to gain

liberation from prohibition, it was defiance of limitations. Use of power over
me was taking my power and hence resistance was meant to gain more
power. But such an idea of resistance has no place in Foucault’s idea of
power (Power over life). Here power is not subtracting but it is productive.
Foucault says that disciplinary power and Bio Power produces its own
resistance. Resistance to power is part of the power relations. Essentially,
the power administers and determines the place and time of resistance.
What one thinks as an opposition to power, ultimately feeds into and support
the very power which is being opposed. So, resistance is not reducing the
power rather it leads to augmentation of power by playing in the hands of
power. So what’s the way out. There is a disagreement amongst scholar
about resistance to normative power. Foucault did not clearly show a way

4
History of Sexuality, Volume 1, page 138
5
History of Sexuality, Volume-1, page, 139
Institute of Lifelong Learning , University of Delhi
27
 Power

out. Foucault talks about the idea of “critique”, which means not being
governed quite so much. The point is to subvert power in many small ways.
According to Nivedita Menon, there are three types of struggle against power
in Foucault’s understanding:

i) Against ethnic/social/religious domination- typical of feudal societies.

ii) Against exploitation (which separates individuals from what they produce)
– typical of 19th century capitalist societies.

iii) Against forms of ‘subjection’ (meaning both to the subject and to be

subjected to). In this kind of struggle, the attempt should be to promote
new forms of subjectivity through the refusal of the kind of identity and
individualization linked to the state and to governmentality.

5. v) Feminist Theories of Power :

Feminism is an ideology and social movement, which revolves around the

questions concerning justice to women in society. The ideology highlights the
injustices in various domains of social life and critically analyses the causes for
the injustices. The ideology and movement seeks to bring a positive change in the
life of every woman.

Feminism is the theory and practice of analysing and ending the subjugation
of women. The aim of the feminists is to liberate all women irrespective of
race, colour, region and economic background. The practice of feminism is
seen in dispersed movements for women in different parts of the world. The
theoretical aspect of feminism is very dynamic. There is a wide array of
views within feminism. Despite their theoretical difference, all feminists are
united by a desire to highlight the causes and phenomenon of inequality of
women and propose some remedies. The causes, analysis and remedies vary

Institute of Lifelong Learning , University of Delhi

28
 Power

from one group of scholars to another. We can identify three waves of

feminism in the process of development of feminism: the first wave of
Liberal and socialist feminism (18th century to early 1920s), the second wave
of Radical feminism (1960-1980) and the third wave of Post-modernist
feminism (1980s onwards). These waves include the emergence of a number
of types of feminist scholars. In recent times a number of new set of
theories are emerging, e.g., black feminism, third world feminism and eco
feminism.

Usually the feminist theorists have not discussed or theorized about power
explicitly. But power remains a central theme, an undercurrent in the
writings of feminist scholars. Generally, the feminist scholars discuss the
powerlessness and subordination of women and domination of men.
According to the Stanford encyclopaedia of philosophy, it is possible to
identify three main ways in which feminists have conceptualized power: as a
resource to be redistributed, as domination and as empowerment.

i) Power as a resource: the liberal feminist thinkers treat power as a

resource. The liberal feminists carry the tradition of individualistic liberalism,
which emerged after the enlightenment. Those who take power as a
resource believe that power is tangible and quantifiable. So one can possess
power and there might be variation in the quantity and quality of the
possession. If this is a possession, it can also be reduced or taken away. The
liberal feminist say that men possess power and women are powerless
because the distribution of power in social, political and legal system is not
right. Therefore, women face legal, political and social constraints which
make them unequal and discriminated. If women will have less power they
will not be able to gain “critical social goods”. Susan Moller Okin argues that
“when we look seriously at the distribution between husband and wives of
such critical social good as work (paid and unpaid), power, prestige, self-

Institute of Lifelong Learning , University of Delhi

29
 Power

esteem, opportunities for self-development, and both physical and economic

security, we find socially constructed inequalities between them right down
the list”. The remedy to alter the socially constructed inequalities is a major
redistribution of power in society. This can be achieved by legal, economic
and political power given to women. This will make women equally powerful
to men. Some of the popular liberal feminist scholars are: Marry
Wollstonecraft, J.S. Mill, Harriet Tubman, Eleanor Roosevelt, Betty Friedan,
Rebecca Walker, Naomi Wolf and Martha Nussbaum.

ii) Power as domination: According to Sushila Ramaswamy (Political Theory:

Ideas and Concepts), an individual or group exercises domination when it
can issue a command to others and can be certain that this will result in
obedience. Many feminist scholars do not see power as a resource rather
they see power in terms of relationship. Power is seen as relations of
domination and subordination between men and women. Radical feminists
mainly use the terms ‘Patriarchy’ to refer to this type of relationship.
Gradually, patriarchy has emerged as an all-encompassing concept to
explain the power relationship in society from a feminist point of view.
Therefore patriarchy is the key term to understand the feminist view of
power. Patriarchy literally means ‘Rule of father’ in a male dominant society.
Historically this rule of father or the centrality of male is manifested in
personal, legal, political, social and economic domains of society. According
to Sylvia Walby (Theorizing Patriarchy), this is a system of social structure
and practice in which men dominate, oppress and exploit women. Similarly,
Juliet Mitchell (woman’s Estate) says that patriarchy is an ideological
phenomenon that underpins the cultural construction of masculinity and
femininity and it is only with the psychic transformation of patriarchy that
women will secure liberation”. Hence the features of a patriarchal social
structure are: i) it is a male dominated structure, where most of the
powerful roles in society are played by men and women are hardly able to
Institute of Lifelong Learning , University of Delhi
30
 Power

achieve power ii) men supervise, protect and control women iii) some
attributes and qualities are attached to male and some to female iv) male
attributes and qualities are highly valued in society compared to the female
attributes v) the centrality of male in society is taken as natural and not
social.

Patriarchy (rule by father) is the term used by the feminist scholars to illustrate
the existing social relationship and the consequent social setup. In this social
system the female is subjugated by the male, who wields power. The systemic
disadvantage and oppression is visible in every domain of social, political and
economic life. The violence against women is one of the direct uses of power by
male to oppress and dominate women in society.

Essentially patriarchy exemplifies a power relationship between men and

women. This power relationship is hierarchical and based on domination and
subordination. The domination exists in all its five senses (Wrong) –
coercive, induced, competent, personal and legitimate. The men wield
control over production, reproduction sexuality and even body of women.
The patriarchy justifies the control by gender stereotyping. And this gender
stereotyping perpetuates itself by reinforcing the myth of the masculinity
and the femininity. Nivedita Menon says that Patriarchy should not be
understood as a single homogenous structure, rather the contemporary
feminist scholars think in terms of patriarchies- differentiated over historical
epochs, geographical regions and cultural communities. She also says
patriarchy overlaps and interacts with other systems of oppression on the
basis of class, caste imperialism etc. - and produces specific effects.

There is a debate about the origin and sustenance of patriarchy. Some socio-
biologists (like Steven Goldberg) argue that patriarchy arises more as a
result of genetic makeup of sexes. Goldberg argued that male dominance is

Institute of Lifelong Learning , University of Delhi

31
 Power

a human universal and is a result of our biological makeup. However this

type of view is generally rejected by the social and political theorists (social
constructionist theories). According to the predominant view (social
constructionist theories) patriarchy is a social construct. Carol Pateman (The
Sexual Contract) says that the patriarchal construction of the difference
between masculinity and femininity is the political difference between
freedom and subjection. So the origins of patriarchy are linked to the gender
defined roles, where social behaviour and norms are identified as
appropriate and inappropriate for each sex. Gerda Lerner (The Creation of
Patriarchy) argues that the patriarchy grew out of biological and social
conditions to become the cultural norm.

Radical feminists argue that the end of patriarchy can only lead to women’s
liberation. For they try to expose the sexism and patriarchal power in social,
economic, educational, language, cultural, personal and other structures of
society. But what should be the strategy to resist and uproot patriarchy, is a
debatable question amongst the feminists.

iii) Power as Empowerment: The Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy notes

that “significant strand of feminist theorizing of power starts with the
contention that the conception of power as power over, domination or
control is implicitly masculinist. In order to avoid such masculinist
connotations, many feminists from a variety of theoretical backgrounds have
argued for a reconceptualization of power as a capacity or ability, specifically
the capacity to empower and transform oneself and others”. Some of the
important feminist scholars representing this type of views are: Jean Baker
Miller, Virginia Held, Sarah Lucia Hoagland, Luce Irigary, Nanacy Hartstock
and Helen Cixous.

According to Miller, women do not want to use the prevalent conception of

power as it reduces others power. Rather women may want to be powerful in
Institute of Lifelong Learning , University of Delhi
32
 Power

way that simultaneously enhances the powers of others. The empowerment

thinkers believe that the women can have alternative conception of power
because of their experiences as mother and caregivers. Here the capacity to
empower and transform oneself and others are very important. The new
wave of post-modernist feminism, like ecofeminism and lesbian feminism
also talk about power as transformative and empowering. Some
contemporary thinker of empowerment school, like Hoagland and Starhawk,
define power as power-from-within. Here they do not see power as
hierarchic and controlling rather they view power as positive, creative and
transformative. In essence, this view of power questions the whole frame of
reference within which the debates about the concept of power occur. They
do not subscribe to the predominant idea of power. Rather they use
alternative ideas, terminologies and views to discuss, describe and
conceptualize power.

5. vi) Hannah Arendt on Power :

Hannah Arendt (1906 –1975) was a German-

American thinker and political theorist. The focus of
her works was freedom and challenges to freedom,
authority direct democracy and power. Her major
works include: The Origins of Totalitarianism, The
Human Condition, On Revolution, and On Violence.

Source : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hannah_Arendt.jpg

In her book “On Violence”, Arendt says that, power corresponds to the
human ability not just to act but to act in concert. Power is never the
property of an individual; it belongs to a group and remains in existence only
Institute of Lifelong Learning , University of Delhi
33
 Power

so long as the group keeps together. Arendt was very particular about use of
the term power. She was opposed to using the term power interchangeably
with other terms, like violence or authority. She argues that when violence
and power are used interchangeably, the protracted synonymous use of the
word erases the difference between the phenomena itself. Arendt clearly
distinguishes between power and other terms; strength, force, authority and
violence.

Power does not belong to an individual but to a group who are in an

agreement over a common course. But the power is not a property of the
group, rather it’s a relationship. Since power is dependent on an unreliable
and temporary agreement of many wills and intentions; power is not
something stable that can be possessed.

Unlike power (which belongs to group), strength is singular, individual

entity. Arendt says that it is the property inherent in an object or person and
belongs to its characters which may prove itself in relation to other things or
persons, but is essentially independent of them.

Arendt says that force should not be used interchangeably with power or
violence. Force should be used for movements in nature, or the force of
circumstance (not controlled by humans). So force indicates the energy
released by physical and social movements.

Arendt says that authority can be vested in person by virtue of their office.
So authority is a specific source of power. Authority requires legitimacy,
since it should be accepted by those over whom it is exercised.

According to Arendt, power and violence are opposites, since power emerges
when the threat of violence is not needed, for all freely consent to a certain
action and act of their own volition. Arendt feels that the political theorists
have confused between power and violence, and wrongly premised the

Institute of Lifelong Learning , University of Delhi

34
 Power

government on violence. Neither Marx nor Weber distinguished between

violence and power. The government must be based on power and not on
violence. If the government is based on violence both victors and
vanquished will have to pay a heavy price.

Therefore Arendt’s conception of power is non-hierarchical and non-

instrumental. The domination and violence appears where the power fades
away. Violence can never create power. Arendt is opposed to the use of
violence, but she assumes that at certain moment’s power might need
violence. Those moments are when power has to maintain itself. When
power is confronted with the danger of destruction then violence can be used
for resistance. Arendt argues that when the radical evil (like governments
with total domination, where coexistence is not possible, like Hitler and
Stalin) dispossess us of all power, so we can do nothing else than answering
it with violence. Thus at such a moment one must be prepared to fight.

6. Conclusion :

There is a greater probability that the disagreement about the concept of

power will continue. The intensive probing by political theorists will expose
new arenas of power struggle in social life. With the dynamic change in
social and political life, new types of questions related to power will also be
raised. However, the old debate about questions of power and authority,
power and legitimacy, power and democracy, power and women will
continue. After Foucault, there is a growing body of thinkers, who are either
critics or defenders of Foucault. His ideas have thrown many challenges to
be solved. Any analysis of power in contemporary times must acknowledge
the concept and practice of resistance. The resistance is necessary to
transform and challenge the existing power relations in social and political
life.

Institute of Lifelong Learning , University of Delhi

35
 Power

Questions:

Institute of Lifelong Learning , University of Delhi

36
 Power

1. Power is an essentially contested concept. Elaborate the problems in

examining power in light of this statement.

2. Define power. Critically analyse the nature of power in social and

political scenario.

3. Differentiate between power and authority. Examine Weber’s concept

of authority.

4. Critically analyse Foucault‘s theory of power.

5. Elaborate Hannah Arendt’s view on Power.

6. Examine the development of the theories of power from Dahl to Lukes.

7. Explain the Feminist’s view of power.

8. Summarise the major debates on power.

Bibliography:

Institute of Lifelong Learning , University of Delhi

37
 Power

Barnes, Barry (1993), Power, in: Richard Bellamy (ed.), Theories and
Concepts of Politics: An Introduction, Manchester/New York: Manchester
University Press, 197-219.

Dahl, Robert (1957), The Concept of Power, Behavioural Science, 2:3 July.

Foucault, M. (1977) Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison. New York:
Pantheon.

Foucault, M. (1986) The Foucault Reader. P. Rabinow (ed.). Harmondsworth:

Penguin.

Haugaard, Mark (2002) Power: A Reader, Manchester University Press.

Lukes, Steven (2004) Power: A Radical View, Palgrave Macmillan.

Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy,

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminist-power/.

Institute of Lifelong Learning , University of Delhi

38