Part 1.2 - 3-6 PDF - Political Sciences Past Paper

Q1 - Political sciences | Anna Sonnenschein 2. POWER, AUTHORITY AND LEGITIMACY Max Webber (1921): “The concept of power is sociologically amorphous” → In fact, from an analytic/scientific point of view, the idea of power i...

Q1 - Political sciences | Anna Sonnenschein 2. POWER, AUTHORITY AND LEGITIMACY Max Webber (1921): “The concept of power is sociologically amorphous” → In fact, from an analytic/scientific point of view, the idea of power is vague → First to understand the notion of power in all its the dimension Colin Hay (2002): “Power is to political analysis what the economy is to economics” → Main problem with this concept: it is vague but we have to understand it because it’s essential in political science When you learn political science, you must learn about power → Power is a central notion in political science a. What is power for political science Plural approach to what power is: The substantialist approach: power as something that one can possess or lose → Power is something that you can exercise → Can be gained and lost The institutionalist approach: it leads to the identification of power with a state and the institution so here, power is the leaders, those occupying the official roles of power → Legal definition → Power is in the rules that we apply → But distribution of authority and exercise of power must not be confused o those who have power don't forcibly exercise it e.g King Phillipe The relational (or interactionist) approach: this is a conception of power which holds that power is not considered as something, but as a relation, for you have power over someone, thus implying a social relation between social individuals or social crews → Power is always “over” someone ▪ Robert Dahl (Who governs, 1961): - “the ability of a person A to get a person B to do something s/he would have not done without the intervention of A” - I have power over you because I can make you do this ▪ Peter Bachrach and Morton Baratz (Dynamics of non-decision-making,1962): - where the power of A over B leads B not to act or not to adopt a particular behaviour - I have power over you because I can keep you from doing that ▪ Steven Lukes (Power, a radical view, 1974): - invisible power linked to the internalization of constraint (e.g. totalitarian power) - give people the illusion to act freely but they actually act according to your will 3  Q1 - Political sciences | Anna Sonnenschein Power and authority: Max Weber (Economy and Society, 1921) makes the distinction between two types of authority [ Macht = strength/force ] → power through force, through constraint, unstable by definition (if strength disappears, the power can/will disappear) [ Herrschaft = authority/domination ] → the relation of power happens in a legitimate framework (the person being governed accepts it) o a power which only rests on force or constraint is precarious, fragile and won't last → It is this recognizing of power by the governed that makes it stable → presupposes that the relation of power takes place within a legitimate framework → legitimate power, in the sense that rulers can produce acceptance by the ruled, not because they can exercise coercion but because the ruled recognize the right of the rulers to exercise power → legitimate framework gives a certain stability to the relation of power - An example of authority: The Supreme Court in the USA Legitimacy: the recognition granted to the person exercising power. → you accept the fact that this individual who gives order and prescribes behaviours is entitled to do so Constraint: the guarantee of achieving, through various means, the achievement of one’s will in the absence of legitimacy or when it is insufficient Both are in fact intermingled → every power relation in politics is a battle and this is always a dual resource for the power: legitimacy on the one hand and constraint on the other hand they're not separated, it's a dual resource Why do individuals show “a minimum of will to obey”? → By simple habit seems natural → For emotional reasons: you recognize and adhere to the leader → For material reasons: you obey because you have an interest in obeying (ex : salary) → By ideal: belief that obeying will allow you to achieve a go What is fundamental to the stability of power? → That individuals believe in its legitimacy - A successful enterprise of authority is above all a successful legitimation enterprise (Max Webber) → Authority is based on the relationship itself based on belief b. Legitimacy and the exercise of authority The notion of ideal-type according to Max Weber Ideal-type = A set of abstract concepts derived from observation and from “de-composition” thanks to the sociological analysis of concrete social situations → Abstract models that gather the abstract concepts of a social phenomenon, in order to compare it to the real phenomenon : to find the similarities of a phenomenon, no matter the place, time,… → A stylized reconstruction of reality in order to understand different cases when compared to the ideal- type (i.e. political parties, electoral regimes, political systems, etc.) 4  Q1 - Political sciences | Anna Sonnenschein The 3 types of legitimate/ideal-type authority Traditional authority Legal-rational authority Charismatic authority - Derives its legitimacy from customs - exercise of power is organized by - linked to an individual, or more and is based on habit, tradition written rules defining the rights and precisely to the belief in the duties of each and every one, the exceptional quality of the individual - Naturalisation of power, it governors and the governed → power through seduction and produces an acquired reflex of fascination obedience - form of domination that depersonalizes the exercise of it - Exist in exceptional or transitory - Necessity to act in accordance to = obedience to rules and functions situations : needs to be an ideal tradition or legitimacy will vanish ex : laws, judges, historical need for a charismatic (need to act in accordance to the leader tradition, the idea people have of - Juridicisation of power relations within the function) (ex : financial scandal society : political rules are clearly - It's more fragile, precarious and in Spain with former king Juan Carlos codified limited in time, as opposed to other lead to a questioning of the types of domination monarchy) - Rulers must submit themselves to the → It disappears with the leader rules they instore, abide to higher and then we go back to a - People are used to obey and principles (ex : human rights) and traditional or legal-rational type respect this authority because they submit themselves to judicial and of domination. are used to them and respect the executive power → inherently unstable (Weber) tradition Ex : Constitution Ex : Royal family Ex : Ghandi, Nazi rulers,… These 3 types of domination are only ideal types: in reality, they intermingle (combine) in different historical contexts. In our democratic societies, the exercise of power is extremely codified. → There is a form of legal-rational domination, but the adherence to the democratic rules/legal-rational domination relies on habits: the fact that leaders have authority on those who elected them is natural to us c. Political power The specificities of political power What are the specificities of political power regarding other types of powers? We can distinguish three main figures that characterize political power: → political power is exercised on the whole of society: o we can oppose this to the power of parents only over their children for instance → those who hold it define the prerogatives and limits of all powers in society o it's sort of a meta power = power over all the other power that exist o Ex: it will determine the limits of the legitimate parental authority/power over the children in the private sphere → the necessary condition for the exercise of political power to take place (in all societies, past and present) is that it may legitimately result in sanctions, including physical constraint: o it's always about forbidding others to use physical constraint but claiming for itself the monopoly of violence/physical constraint o It can be used against all members of society, whitout exeption 5  Q1 - Political sciences | Anna Sonnenschein Political power and the State In modern societies, political power tends to become institutionalized in State structures → The State can impose obligations and implement sanctions → State sanctions are decided by political institutions and applied by judicial and administrative institutions; they are “institutionalized” = considered as legitimate → The State is the embodiment of political power (executive, legislative and judiciary) representation c. Conclusion: a gendered perspective on power The end of the separation between the public and the private sphere The “personal is political”, implications: → Political power and the forms of domination which follow from it are also deployed in the private sphere → Reveal the political character (i.e. the social relations of power and domination) of places, behaviours, and facts commonly perceived as personal matters, and to transform these personal questions into political problems → Conceptualization of “patriarchy” → New questions are considered as legitimate fields of study for political science: not only political parties, voters, public policies, but also family, sexuality... classical Classic question in a new light Politics are not only structures, functions, and activities but also relations of power : o Question of the consent to domination (self-discipline) o Analysis of techniques of domination : o Naturalisation (women “naturally” unfit for the exercise of political power) o The male “universal” 3. A portrait of the State revoir, pas trop compris Introduction The State is the dominant form of political organization = very important part of our social realities → Nearly 200 states → The most fundamental aspects of our lives are determined by State decisions o Time changes o Holliday o Age of marriage o Administration o Education o …. But they are so self-evident that we don’t even realize their importance, it seems natural to follow these decisions because we are used to it → Pierre Bourdieu: an internalization of a “spirit of the State” The State is everywhere, but it is a problematic concept in the social sciences = very difficult to define. → What exactly is a State? Where do State come from? How to characterize them? 6