Political power, authority and the state

In this chapter, how is the distinction between power and authority introduced?

Power is the ability to influence or coerce others to get outcomes; authority is power regarded as legitimate by those over whom it is exercised, so they accept rulers' right to rule.

Why is the US Supreme Court used to illustrate the difference between power and authority?

It has no army or police to enforce decisions, so it relies on acceptance by elected branches and the public; it has great authority but limited direct coercive power, and would lose legitimacy if it moved too far from public opinion

What are Max Weber's three ideal types of authority?

Traditional authority (based on customs and long‑standing beliefs, e.g. divine right of kings); charismatic authority (based on a leader's personal qualities, often in crises); and legal‑rational authority (based on office and impersonal rules, typical of modern states)

Why does Weber regard charismatic authority as unstable compared with legal‑rational authority?

Charismatic authority rests on a single individual, so their death or loss of appeal quickly undermines it, whereas legal‑rational authority is tied to offices and rules that can survive particular leaders

How is authority related to coercion and consent?

Authority is described as legitimate power where rulers gain acceptance not just by coercion but because the ruled recognise their right to govern; coercion creates obedience at high cost, while authority shapes minds and behaviour at lower cost.

According to this section, why is authority a key concern for political theorists?

No rulers can rely on coercion alone for long; they must convert power into authority to secure stable obedience, so questions about when and on what basis political systems are legitimate are central to political theory

What is the first face of power according to Lukes, and how do pluralists measure it?

Power is when A gets B to do something B would not otherwise do; pluralists measure it by observing who wins and loses in open decision‑making on policy issues

How do critics use issue 'weighting' to challenge the pluralist decision‑making approach?

They show that a group can lose on many minor issues but win on the most important issue, so simple counts of wins and losses can hide elite dominance on high‑stakes questions

What is the 'second face of power' identified by Bachrach and Baratz?

Power is also exercised through non‑decision‑making, when elites keep certain grievances or demands off the political agenda by shaping rules, procedures and institutions so that only relatively harmless issues are publicly discussed

How does Lindblom's analysis of business power illustrate non‑decision‑making?

Governments anticipate business reactions because firms create jobs and growth, so they concede to business interests without overt lobbying; policy options that might drive firms away are never seriously considered

What is Lukes' 'third face of power' and why is it called the most insidious?

It refers to shaping people's perceptions, beliefs and preferences so they accept their role in the existing order and do not even form grievances; power works by influencing what people think is natural, unchangeable or beneficial

How does Crenson's study of air pollution in Indiana relate to the third face of power, and what criticism is raised?

He argues that in a company‑dominated city pollution control never became an issue because of business influence and weak support, which Lukes treats as a case of preference‑shaping; critics reply that residents may have consciously weighed jobs against cleaner air, so their 'real' interests are hard to infer

According to the key points, why is analysing these three faces of power important for theories of the state?

Because deciding whether pluralist, elitist or Marxist accounts best describe a polity depends on how power is measured; focusing only on the first face supports pluralism, but adding non‑decision‑making and preference‑shaping reveals how ruling groups can dominate even in apparently pluralist systems.

What main problem do critics of the third face of power highlight about 'real interests'?

It is extremely hard to show conclusively that a person's expressed preferences are not in their real interests, so claims that people are ideological dupes risk being patronising and subjective

How does James Scott challenge some uses of the third face of power?

He argues that what looks like compliance may be a hidden strategy of resistance: dominated groups may outwardly adopt ruling ideas while privately developing 'counter‑cultures' that subvert dominant norms

What is Hay's main objection to the third face of power?

He says it relies on a condescending image of ordinary people as unable to perceive their true interests, with the theorist claiming a superior vantage point from which to discern those interests

How are smoking and support for nuclear deterrence used to problematise talk of 'false consciousness'?

Some smokers or citizens backing nuclear weapons may fully understand the risks but still value relaxation, social benefits or security more highly, making it hard to say objectively that they act against their best interests

How do elite‑background studies try to show the existence of a ruling elite, and what is their limitation?

They reveal that top positions in many institutions are disproportionately filled by people from similar social and educational backgrounds, but this only shows shared recruitment patterns, not that a single, cohesive ruling class consciously dominates decision‑making

How do pluralists interpret the presence of elites compared with critics of pluralism?

Pluralists accept that elites exist but argue that multiple competing elites preserve pluralism; critics say that to prove a ruling class one must show a coherent group with distinct values whose coordinated actions dominate decision‑making

How do Marx and later Marxists explain the lack of revolutionary consciousness in the proletariat?

They argue the ruling class controls ideas: 'the ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas'; workers develop 'false consciousness', reinforced by ideological hegemony (Gramsci) and a culture that presents the state as benign (Marcuse)

What roles do Gramsci and Herbert Marcuse assign to ideology and the state in advanced capitalism?

Gramsci stresses ruling‑class hegemony through civil society and intellectuals; Marcuse argues the capitalist state manufactures consent by appearing beneficial while actually exerting power, revealed when it represses protest.

How do Miliband and Poulantzas differ in their Marxist account of state power?

Miliband focuses on agency, seeing the state as controlled by a capitalist elite with similar backgrounds and business interests; Poulantzas emphasises structure, arguing state actors are constrained to act in ways that reproduce capitalism and the long‑term interests of the bourgeoisie, even when making welfare concessions

What main difficulties do Marxists face when applying ruling‑class theory to modern liberal democracies?

They must explain continued class rule despite universal suffrage, welfare states and policy reforms; showing elite social backgrounds or business influence is not enough to prove a single cohesive ruling class consciously dominates outcomes.

How do some Marxists use social outcomes to infer where power lies, and what is the criticism?

They treat persistent inequalities of wealth, income and welfare as proof that the benefiting class holds power; critics reply that outcomes cannot simply be equated with deliberate exercises of power, since reforms may genuinely redistribute and we cannot know what would have happened without concessions.

According to the chapter conclusion, how do pluralist vs elitist/Marxist concepts of power compare?

Pluralist, decision‑focused concepts are more easily measured but incomplete; elitist and Marxist, structural concepts better capture hidden power but are harder to test empirically, which is why debate over which best explains the modern state remains unresolved

How do the slides illustrate the difference between power and authority using modern examples?

Power requires coercion and creates obedience (e.g., Covid lockdowns in democracies); Authority requires consent and creates acceptance. The key insight: no ruler can survive using power alone—even authoritarian systems (e.g., Iran enforcing hijab) need some authority. This challenges the idea that any government can govern by force alone

What triggers revolution in traditional authority systems according to the slides?

Revolution happens when the staff surrounding the ruler (the inner circle or nobility) lose faith in them. Traditional authority rests on personal loyalty to the ruler and age-old sacred rules, so if those closest to power withdraw support, the system collapses

Why is charismatic authority inherently unstable and transitory?

Charisma is based on recognition by followers and personal qualities of an individual; it cannot easily transfer to another person. When the charismatic leader dies or loses authority, the system becomes unstable. Charismatic followers form an emotional community devoted to the leader, making institutions weak and rules easily changed—creating systemic uncertainty.

What characterizes legal-rational authority and how does it differ from democracy?

Legal-rational authority derives from the status of an office within constitutional rules or religious documents (e.g., Islamic law), not from individuals. It is predictable, impersonal, and based on observable laws binding everyone including 'superiors.' It requires the rule of law—abstract, intentionally established rules—but is NOT necessarily democratic; bureaucracy is its purest form

How do the tobacco and oil industry examples illustrate the second face of power (non-decision-making)?

Tobacco companies knew smoking harmed health but used PR, funded 'science,' and lobbied to keep health risks off political agendas. Similarly, Exxon's scientists modelled climate risk in the 1970s, but the company funded campaigns casting doubt on climate science and lobbied against regulation—delaying serious policy action for decades. Elite actors literally prevented these issues from being treated as public policy emergencies.

What does the table of weighted issues reveal about the first face of power analysis?

The table shows Group C (business) wins on 'Issue 4' worth 5 points while Groups A and B (trade unions) win on Issues 1-3 worth 1 point each. This illustrates that measuring all decisions equally is misleading: power lies where you can influence the most important issues, not just win on minor ones. The first face ignores this stratification of issue importance

What are the two main mechanisms preventing issues from reaching the decision-making arena?

Filibuster: acting in an obstructive manner to delay or block votes (e.g., prolonged speech in legislatures). Law of anticipated reaction: actors don't even bother proposing demands they know will be rejected because they anticipate opposition from powerful groups. Both keep certain issues off the agenda without explicit suppression