POLS 1502 Chapter 2.docx

POLS 1502 Chapter 2 Power and Authority The text emphasizes the significance of power and authority in politics, highlighting their central role in navigating the competing interests and values inherent in political processes. It acknowledges the current era's heightened focus on global issues, part...

POLS 1502 Chapter 2 Power and Authority The text emphasizes the significance of power and authority in politics, highlighting their central role in navigating the competing interests and values inherent in political processes. It acknowledges the current era's heightened focus on global issues, particularly the polarized debate surrounding climate change. The contrast between perspectives like those of Naomi Klein and Greta Thunberg, advocating for urgent climate action, and those on the right opposing immediate measures like carbon taxes or a "Green New Deal" is noted. The text underscores the importance of understanding how power operates, as those in power often shape the political agenda, influencing decisions that serve specific interests. The text discusses the distinction between power and authority, often associated with coercion and consent, respectively. Authority is characterized as legitimate power, where rulers gain acceptance by persuading people to recognize their right to exercise power. The importance of free and fair elections in the democratic process is highlighted as a means of converting power into authority. The text also emphasizes the desirability of this conversion, as authority, unlike coercion, can control both the minds and behavior of individuals at a lower cost. The text explores alternatives to coercion in the exercise of power, focusing on ideological control as one option. In this approach, rulers maintain control by influencing the preferences of the ruled to align with their own interests. This form of control, often associated with elitist thought and Marxist critiques of capitalism, is considered more effective than coercion as it eliminates the necessity for constant surveillance. However, the feasibility of this method relies on the belief that individual preferences can be manipulated in such a manner. Some political theorists link authority with philosophy and power with sociological analysis (Barry, 2000, p. 83). Here authority is linked with right, or what should be. By contrast, power is understood as an empirical concept, linked with what is. This distinction, unfortunately, is problematic. As we noted above, authority can be a product of manipulation; hence not all authority is legitimate. The text discusses the example of Adolf Hitler having considerable authority in German society, despite few considering the Nazi regime as legitimate in retrospect. It questions the correlation between a state's authority and its justice, highlighting Goodwin's assertion that authority's perception by the people does not necessarily indicate justice. The text suggests an argument that power might be preferable to authority, as power is based on coercion, which is recognizable and can be resisted, in contrast to the potentially imperceptible manipulation underlying authority. CASE STUDY BOX 2.1 The Supreme Court of Canada: Authority, Power, and Legitimacy The text illustrates the distinction between power and authority using the example of the Supreme Court in Canada. While the Supreme Court holds significant authority in determining the constitutionality of laws, its members are appointed, not elected, and serve until the age of 75. The text raises concerns about the democratic nature of the court's authority, as its decisions on crucial issues are made by unelected individuals not directly accountable to the public. The court has made many important political decisions relating to such controversial issues as Indigenous land rights, the Doctrine of Discovery, same-sex marriage, and Holocaust denial, yet its members are not accountable to the people in the way that elected legislators theoretically are. Despite lacking an army or police force to enforce decisions, the court relies on its authority, which hinges on maintaining legitimacy through alignment with public opinion. The text suggests that the Supreme Court's authority would diminish if its decisions consistently diverged too far from public sentiment, emphasizing the delicate balance between authority and legitimacy in a democratic polity. The second alternative to coercion for establishing governance involves making the ruler legitimate in the eyes of the ruled, transforming power into authority. Legitimate authority is often based on "legal-rational" principles, as explained by Weber. In the modern world, political figures like Emmanuel Macron are obeyed not due to charisma or divine claims but because they hold a specific office, such as the presidency. Legitimacy in political systems is commonly tied to adherence to democratic principles, where institutions are accepted because they align with such principles. The mention that the president is the only part of the French polity whose constituency is the entire French electorate emphasizes the democratic nature of the political system. Unlike other figures or institutions, the president is directly connected to and represents the entire population through a democratic electoral process. This highlights the idea that legitimacy in modern governance is closely tied to democratic principles and the endorsement of the governed population. KEY CONCEPT BOX 2.2 Weber on Authority Max Weber proposed a threefold classification of authority, recognizing that societies often contain elements of all three types. Traditional authority is rooted in customs and values, illustrated by the European principle of the divine right of kings. Examples include Queen Elizabeth II and the emperor of Japan, who hold symbolic authority but lack political power. Charismatic authority is based on personal traits and is often associated with crisis leaders; while less significant in modern democracies, charisma still influences leadership perception. Legal–rational authority relies on constitutional rules (in a democratic country) or religious texts, reflecting the modern trend according to Weber. He argued that the contemporary world is moving towards legal–rational authority, emphasizing the importance of institutional structures and rules. Hoffman and Graham (2006) note that while power and authority can be defined separately, governments employ both. In democracies, where authority is predominant, some exercise of power is still necessary due to the inherent conflict between majority decisions and minority views. Conversely, authoritarian states, relying more on power, also possess some degree of authority. Hence, even in democracies, power is occasionally exercised, and in authoritarian states, there is always some element of authority. Unfortunately, the distinction between authority and power is further clouded by the reality that in many cases authority is granted to institutions or individuals precisely because they have power. Even totalitarian regimes usually have some degree of authority, if only the charismatic authority associated with political leaders such as Stalin or Hitler. Conceptual Questions about Power The meaning of power can be teased out a little further if we consider the following questions. Is Power the Same as Force? The argument presented suggests a conceptual distinction between power and force or coercion. While power is often exercised through the threat of force, the use of force may indicate a failure of power. The example of the United States using force in Iraq and Afghanistan is cited as a case where the application of force did not lead to the establishment of strong governments and borders. The distinction is emphasized with the quote from sociologist Steven Lukes, highlighting that having the means of power does not necessarily equate to being powerful. Must Power Be Exercised Deliberately? Some argue that power must be intentionally exercised to be considered legitimate. Bertrand Russell, a British philosopher, defined power as the intentional production of desired results, excluding unforeseen effects. The idea is that one must actively work towards a specific outcome for their power to be acknowledged. Polsby further emphasizes this by illustrating that benefiting from a situation without actively contributing to it doesn't demonstrate true power (E.g., taxi drivers benefit when it rains, but the increase in business they experience is an unplanned effect of the weather, which they do nothing to cause). The question of "Who benefits?" is distinct from the question of "Who governs?" as those who benefit may not necessarily play a meaningful role in creating, maintaining, or influencing the status quo. Is Power a Good Thing? Some political thinkers argue that the goodness of power depends on its use. Using power to achieve positive outcomes is considered good, with various ways in which power can be productive, transformative, authoritative, and compatible with dignity, as pointed out by Lukes. On the other hand, using power to harm others is deemed bad. From a liberal perspective, the exercise of power is generally seen as undesirable because it involves imposing someone's values on another. Liberals often advocate for limitations on power, such as through the separation of powers, to prevent any one branch of government from exerting too much influence over another. Can We Eliminate Power? The question of whether it is possible to eliminate power in society is explored by some theorists, and for many, the answer is no. According to the French philosopher Michel Foucault, power is considered inescapable, though its nature may change over time. Foucault's perspective challenges thinkers like Jürgen Habermas, Herbert Marcuse, and Lukes, who suggest that power can be illegitimately exercised and should be restricted. Instead, Foucault argues that power is omnipresent, and power relations between individuals are unavoidable. In "Discipline and Punish" (1977), Michel Foucault argues that the apparent progress in the history of legal punishment in France, moving from extreme violence to regimented incarceration, is deceptive, as both methods achieve the same goal through power relations, domination, and dehumanization of prisoners. Foucault sees history as an endlessly repeated play of domination, asserting that there is no way to escape power, although its focus and implementation can be altered. Steven Lukes challenges Foucault's conclusion, arguing that people can be free from others' power by recognizing and working to free themselves from domination. Some critics argue that discussions on power, as presented earlier, are inherently Eurocentric and narrow in focus. Notably, certain Indigenous societies have developed methods to diminish the power of individual leaders, emphasizing the distribution of political power within a community. In these societies, effective leadership is seen as temporary, dependent on specific circumstances, needs, or the unique qualities of the leader. Followers are not obligated to continue following once the leader's particular task or role is completed. European conceptions of power, centered around the accumulation of wealth and resources, are contrasted with many Indigenous views of leadership. According to Manuel and Posluns, Indigenous leadership is not measured by personal wealth but by the leader's generosity and care for the community. Accumulating material wealth is not seen as a sign of effective leadership; instead, a leader who uses their resources to benefit the community is regarded more highly, and their wealth is defined by the status, prestige, and respect earned through their acts of giving. Indigenous women have historically held a central role in leadership. Audra Simpson, a Haudenosaunee (Mohawk) anthropologist, highlights how Haudenosaunee women played a pivotal role in all aspects of political life, presenting an alternative political order to Western settler governance. They had the authority to appoint and dismiss chiefs, control property, and pass on their clan identity to future generations, contributing to the preservation of the nation. Indigenous women, such as those involved in movements like Idle No More and the Secwepemc Women’s Warrior Society, have been instrumental in creative initiatives for change, exemplified by the Tiny House Warriors movement, which opposes the expansion of the Trans Mountain Pipeline in western Canada. Manuel and Poslun's concept of leadership as giving is exemplified in the potlatch ceremony in British Columbia. This tradition involves giving away goods and has been integral to leadership in Indigenous cultures. Consedine and Consedine highlight the significance of potlatch gatherings, where political rank is determined, tribal decisions are made, wealth is distributed, and traditional rituals and dances are performed. Interestingly, conspicuous personal poverty is considered a chief requirement at these events. Similar traditions of giving exist among the Dene and Inuit. Notably, in some ceremonies, sheets of decorated beaten copper are gifted, and their value increases with each act of giving. This practice not only elevates the stature of the giver but also enhances the value of the objects themselves. Power and Theories of the State In addressing the multitude of power theories, the challenge lies in determining which one accurately describes the reality in specific contexts such as Canada or the United States. In his book "Power: A Radical View," first published in 1974, Lukes proposed three dimensions or "faces" of power. The first face is universally acceptable, defined as "A exercises power over B when A affects B in a manner contrary to B’s interests" (Lukes, 2005, p. 30). An alternative definition by Robert Dahl states, "A has power over B to the extent that he can get B to do something that B would not otherwise do" (quoted in Lukes, 2005, p. 16). Pluralism and Lukes’s Three Dimensions of Power How power is conceptualized has an important bearing on the validity of theories of the state. To see why, we need to return to the pluralist theory of the state. Pluralists measure power in terms of decision-making; this corresponds to Lukes’s first dimension above. Pluralist researchers examine decisions and preferences of groups involved in decision-making within specific policy domains. According to the pluralist perspective, if a group's objectives are partially met, it is considered to possess power (see Hewitt, 1974). The confirmation of the pluralist model occurs when no single group consistently achieves its goals in all instances. This approach, rooted in the first face of power, is advantageous for its ease of research. In the late 1950s and 1960s, numerous "community power" studies were conducted in the United States, with most supporting the pluralist theory of the state (Dahl, 1963; Polsby, 1980). While the pluralist approach has the potential to yield nonpluralist conclusions, as one group or a small set of groups may dominate, critics argue that the pluralist methodology is likely to generate pluralist outcomes (Morriss, 2002). One limitation is that the pluralist methodology doesn't prioritize issues based on importance, treating debates on various topics, such as school-crossing sign placement or the minimum wage, with equal significance. This approach overlooks the reality that some issues may be more crucial than others. Additionally, it doesn't consider the possibility that an elite group might allow a small local group to have its way on less important issues, like a school-crossing sign, to ensure the elite's influence on more substantial matters, such as the minimum wage (see Box 2.3). KEY CONCEPT BOX 2.3 The First Face of Power and Its Critics The decision-making approach to measuring power, corresponding to Lukes' first face of power, is exemplified in Table 2.1. The table presents the outcomes of four issues, each with three groups expressing positions. All three groups achieved their goals at least on some occasions: Groups A and B succeeded on Issues 1 and 2, while Group C accomplished its objective on Issue 4. Pluralists would interpret this as evidence that no single group consistently achieved its goals across all issues, suggesting a wide dispersion of power. The decision-making approach, while capable of producing nonpluralist conclusions (such as one group consistently getting its way on all issues), critics argue that it is likely to generate pluralist conclusions. One reason for this tendency is the pluralist assumption that all issues carry equal political importance, which may not reflect the true political reality. Table 2.2 illustrates this potential distortion, as it overlooks the possibility that an elite group could prevail on the most crucial issue(s) while other groups only succeed on less important ones. For instance, in the given example, Group C wins on fewer issues overall but still manages to influence the most heavily weighted issue (Issue 4). Consider the scenario where Groups A and B represent trade unions, and Group C represents a business organization. If Issues 1–3 involve granting workers an extra 15-minute coffee break at different times during the workday, and Issue 4 grants employers the right to prohibit strike action, it is evident that Issue 4 is significantly more important for business interests and poses a significant restriction on trade unions. However, a pluralist methodology might overlook this power dynamic, as it treats all issues as equal in political importance. Pluralists make a second assumption that the barriers to entry for groups into the political system are low, implying that any group with a case or grievance can easily enter the decision-making arena and express their concerns. However, critics argue that this assumption is dubious, as certain groups, like the unemployed or the homeless, may lack the resources or expertise to organize effectively. Additionally, some groups, such as landed immigrants without citizenship or historically disenfranchised communities like First Nations peoples in Canada, face significant barriers to political participation. For example, until 1960, First Nations peoples had to forfeit their official status as "registered Indians" to gain Canadian citizenship and the right to vote in federal elections. In the 2019 elections, there were efforts to encourage Indigenous peoples to vote, emphasizing their dual citizenship and the right to participate in both Indigenous and settler political systems without compromising their Indigenous identities. Other groups may not even bother to organize because they are convinced that they have no chance of succeeding. By focusing on the groups that are active in the decision-making arena, pluralists may miss a range of interests that for various reasons never appear in that arena. Third is the related assumption that the issues discussed in the decision-making arena are the most important ones. In other words, the pluralist approach ignores the possibility that an elite group, or even a ruling class, has determined what will and will not be discussed. The "second face" of power, introduced by Peter Bachrach and Morton Baratz in the 1960s, goes beyond the pluralist decision-making approach (the "first face") by recognizing that power is not only exercised in public, observable ways but also in more subtle ways. This includes situations where a dominant elite strategically keeps certain issues that may threaten its interests off the public agenda, restricting contention to relatively unimportant and "safe" matters. This kind of power involves creating barriers to the public discussion of specific grievances or using social bias to limit certain options while favoring others. While Bachrach and Baratz identified this agenda-setting as a form of power, Steven Lukes criticizes their approach for oversimplifying by assuming that interests are consciously articulated and observable. Lukes argues that this kind of power extends beyond conscious and observable interests. The third face of power, as explored by empirical studies (Blowers, 1984; Crenson, 1971), involves non-decision-making where important issues for certain groups do not appear on the political agenda. To identify this form of power, researchers start by identifying covert grievances—issues that exist but are not openly discussed. The next step involves examining reasons for their exclusion from public discussion. Possible explanations include prevention through force or coercion, political consensus where decision-makers decide there's no need to present choices to the electorate, or the use of rules and procedures to postpone decision-making until more evidence is collected, such as through legislative committees or royal commissions in the Canadian context. Examples of non-decision-making include situations where the anticipation of failure discourages a group from participating in the decision-making process or where decision-makers choose not to oppose powerful interests due to expected costs. Charles Lindblom's study found that business interests hold power in decision-making due to their economic position, a phenomenon even more pronounced today with increasing wealth concentration. Governments recognize the role of businesses in delivering favorable economic outcomes, such as growth and low unemployment, making them more likely to accede to business demands. The power of business is further heightened when governments must contend with multinational companies that can relocate their operations to another country if their demands are not met. The crucial point here is that business interests don’t need to lobby decision-makers or demonstrate on the street to be heard. Thus, pluralist researchers using the decision-making approach to measure power may not identify business interests among the various interests with a stated position. Yet governments will automatically consider business interests because they anticipate business’s influence. The third dimension of power involves the ability of an elite group or ruling class to influence, shape, or determine the desires and demands that groups express in the decision-making arena. Unlike the first two dimensions, this dimension operates more subtly by impacting the very wants and preferences of political actors. In essence, power is exercised not only by getting others to do things against their will but also by molding their preferences and influencing their inherent desires. KEY QUOTE BOX 2.4 The Third Face of Power Is it not the most insidious exercise of power to prevent people, to whatever degree, from having grievances by shaping their perceptions, cognitions, and preferences in such a way that they accept their role in the existing order of things, either because they can see or imagine no alternative to it, or because they see it as natural or unchangeable, or because they value it as divinely ordained and beneficial? (Lukes, 2005, p. 28). Pluralists are criticized for not delving into how individuals and groups form their preferences and for assuming that expressed preferences align with their true interests. For elitists and Marxists, this is a serious omission, since the ability of dominant groups to exercise ideological control is a key aspect of their power. Critics argue that elites, through control over communication and socialization, can shape individual preferences to ensure that potentially threatening demands are kept off the political agenda. This highlights the importance of understanding how ideological control, particularly through the media, can influence perceptions and create a situation where a seemingly pluralistic society may be subject to false consciousness among its people. Interests and Power Despite the force of their arguments, critics of pluralism face methodological difficulties of their own. If power is exercised in more subtle ways, how do we go about measuring it? We saw that it is possible (though not easy) to identify non–decision-making, but how do we figure out if individual preferences have been shaped by dominant forces in society. Luke's third face of power involves the ability to distinguish between individuals' or groups' perceived interests and their actual interests. This is exemplified by the complex case of smoking. While some smokers may be aware of the health risks and choose to continue due to perceived benefits like relaxation or weight control, others might quit if fully informed. The question arises whether those aware of the risks but still choosing to smoke can be deemed to act against their best interests, highlighting the difficulty in assessing and defining individuals' true interests (Dearlove & Saunders, 2000, p. 368). The conflict over "real interests" is exemplified in the struggles for the enfranchisement of First Nations peoples in Canada. Before 1960, Indigenous individuals had to forfeit their status as members of their specific nation to gain the right to vote in federal and provincial elections. This meant a challenging choice for First Nations people: to vote and attain the same "legal" status as other Canadians, they had to renounce their national identity and their affiliation with a group that had signed a treaty with the Crown. Fleras and Elliott point out that First Nations prefer to define themselves based on their collective rights to self-determination rooted in ancestral occupation, rather than being integrated as an ethnic component into a Canadian multicultural mosaic, which would diminish their claims (1999, p. 189). Although social contract theorists from Thomas Hobbes to Carole Pateman take it for granted that all people want to vote and be equal citizens, this case should make us question that assumption. Not every society privileges the same values and has the same goals, and in cases of settler colonialism in which Indigenous governments were deliberately targeted for destruction, Indigenous peoples may not wish to play only within the defined political arenas established by European colonizers. James C. Scott provides an innovative critique of the "third face of power" argument, challenging the assumption that dominated groups will always comply with those who attempt to manipulate them ideologically. Contrary to this assumption, Scott argues that some dominated groups may feign acceptance of the dominant worldview promoted by rulers while secretly fostering an underground counterculture that challenges these dominant norms. This strategic approach is observable in various contexts, including cases of slavery, serfdom, caste domination, and at a micro level, in interactions between prisoners and guards or teachers and students. Scott's argument suggests that a group may outwardly conform to the ideologies imposed by those in power, but simultaneously harbor dissenting views beneath the surface. While Lukes questions the accuracy of Scott's interpretation, asserting that evidence doesn't conclusively negate widespread consent and resignation, both scenarios—concealed resistance and genuine consent—remain possible. The challenge lies in the difficulty of discerning the true goals and strategies of a group without insider knowledge, emphasizing the complexity of power dynamics and the limitations of external observation (Lukes, 2005, pp. 127–128, p. 131). Socialism and Power Socialism as defined by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels has largely disappeared from the world stage. Few if any states, other than China and Vietnam, claim a Marxist heritage these days, and China certainly seems to have more in common with capitalist industrial states than with anything Marx would have envisaged in the 19th century. The concept of false consciousness, developed by post-Marxian socialists, particularly Antonio Gramsci and Herbert Marcuse, explores the manipulation of the working class by the ruling class through ideological means. Gramsci emphasized the notion of hegemony, where the dominant class establishes a form of domination that appears legitimate to those within the system. Elites not only determined legal and illegal matters but also shaped societal norms and values, influencing the collective mindset in each territory. According to Gramsci, intellectuals played a crucial role in challenging this domination as they could observe how individuals were ideologically influenced. Herbert Marcuse, in the 1960s, highlighted how capitalist states created a situation where a significant portion of the population believed the state to be benign or even beneficial, despite its actions often being against their interests. Marcuse pointed to the increasing need for the state to use violence in response to public protests as evidence of its true nature. Both Gramsci and Marcuse underscored the role of intellectuals in exposing and challenging the ideological manipulation perpetuated by the ruling class. In capitalist societies, substantial inequality persists; however, the advent of universal suffrage and the emergence of left-of-center governments have influenced the distribution of resources. The establishment of the welfare state and the implementation of free education have positively impacted the lives of many individuals in contemporary liberal democracies. Nonetheless, certain socialists argue that the creation of the welfare state primarily serves the interests of capital owners, contending that robust healthcare and education are crucial for developing and sustaining a productive workforce. These critics further assert that reforms benefiting the working class are typically implemented as concessions to prevent social unrest rather than genuine commitments to social equality. In the current political landscape, many socialists are addressing widening wealth gaps, attributed partly to globalization and years of right-of-center tax cuts favoring the affluent. Particularly prominent in the United States, Progressive Democrats introduced the Green New Deal in 2019, aiming for federal efforts to achieve net-zero greenhouse gas emissions. Championed by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the proposed reforms connect building a carbon-neutral economy to combatting global warming. Ocasio-Cortez also advocates for progressive policies like free higher education, universal healthcare, and guaranteed employment. The Green New Deal has gained popularity among Democrats, including congressional representatives, President Joe Biden, Vice President Kamala Harris, Bernie Sanders, and former Vice President Al Gore. Several state governors, such as Andrew Cuomo of New York, also support these initiatives. The existence of a climate emergency necessitates increased government regulation of industrialization to mitigate negative environmental impacts, as argued by Holden and Gambino (2019). Despite partisan debates, most Americans support concrete policies to address global warming, potentially contributing to the popularity of President Biden in the 2020 elections. According to a 2020 Climate Nexus poll of nearly 2000 registered US voters: Almost 70 percent expressed significant concern about climate change, surpassing concerns about the nation's direction or approval of then-President Donald Trump. A majority of voters, seven out of 10, believed that the government should do more about climate change. About 59 percent indicated strong or moderate support for a Green New Deal, while only 25 percent opposed such a robust measure (Meyer, 2020). List of Key Terms Constituency-An electoral district. False consciousness-A belief or perspective that prevents someone from assessing the true nature of a situation. The concept reflects the Marxist idea that capitalism makes it impossible for most people living within the system to see the true nature of their exploitation. Power theorists such as Steven Lukes have also used it to refer to a more general inability to understand one’s circumstances. First Nations-One of three officially recognized Indigenous peoples of Canada, alongside Inuit and Métis. First Nations with legally recognized status are members of one of 634 government-recognized governments or bands and can benefit from treaty rights associated with membership. Those without status are not so affiliated. Hegemony-Political, social, and economic domination. In international relations, hegemony may refer to the general dominance of a particular country over others. The concept was developed by Antonio Gramsci and is used to theorize relations of domination and subordination in both domestic and international spheres. Indigenous peoples-In Canada, normally divided between First Nations, Inuit, and Métis. The Indigenous peoples of continental Australia are known as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. Inuit-Indigenous peoples of what is now the Canadian Arctic and subarctic, with Inuvialuktun, Inuinnaqtun, and Inuktitut as their traditional languages. Methodology-A particular way in which knowledge is produced. Methodologies vary considerably depending on the field—history, anthropology, language, biology, medicine, and so on. Different methodologies invariably incorporate a particular set of assumptions and rationales about the nature of knowledge, although they are not always stated explicitly.