Politics and Power

Power

The ability to shape actions, behaviour and systems. It is not just coercion, it is productive, relational and embedded in social structures (Foucault and Wolf). Critique: too broad, difficult to locate responsibility

Legitimacy

The state depends on it, authority is constructed not natural (Weber, Hobbes)

Modern power

Manages life, biopolitics governs populations rather than individuals (Foucault)

Four modes of power:

Eric Wolf. Personal- individual ability, Interactional- control over others, Tactical- control over institutions and Structural- shapes the entire system. Power is multi layered but it doesn’t explain legitimacy, why do people accept that power?

Productive power

Foucault, power produces knowledge norms and behaviour.

State

Weber, state is a monopoly on legitimate violence e.g. police v criminal force but it ignores global/transnational power

Leviathan

Hobbes, state formed through social contract. People gave up freedom for security, political authority constructed through collective agreement.

Sovereignty

Internal: control within state, External: independence internationally, supreme authority

Biopower

Foucault: power that manages life and populations

Old power

Sovereign power, the right to kill. Power shows itself through death “take life or let live”

New power

“make live and let die” managing life, keeping people healthy and increasing productivity. Optimise life not destroy it

Necropolitics

Mbembe: power still decides who lives and dies e.g. war zones, borders but there is an overemphasis on violence

Bureaucracy

Weber: system of rule based on rational-legal authority e.g. government departments, rationalised forms of domination

Types of authority

Weber, traditional- custom, charismatic- personality, rational-legal: rules Different systems of legitimacy underpin political authority

Big man vs Chief

Melanesian big man: earned power, unstable, based on generosity Polynesian chief: inherited, stable, hirearchical. Power depends on social structure. Leadership forms vary across political systems

Charisma

Weber, authority from belief that leader is extraordinary. Creates strong loyalty and inspires action, emotionally driven power but it is unstable as it is reliant on belief and if people stop believing power collapses

Rituals

Geertz, an event where poeple actively participate and create meaning together. Rituals show what society believes and shape how people think

Ritual vs Spectacle

Handelman: in a ritual people participate and there is uncertainty/transformation. In a spectacle, it’s passive, people watch and there is no change happening. Designed to show power e.g. military parades

Spectacle

Guy debord, reality is replaced by images and appearances e.g. social media politics. People don’t experience politics directly anymore, instead political reality is increasingly mediated through images rather than directly experienced. Citizens are passive observers not active participants

Old politics

People involved, real participation

New politics

Media driven, image based, passive. Contemporary politics increasingly operate as a spectacle where citizens become passive observers of mediated representations of power

Foucault v Weber?

Weber- power as legitimate domination, state focused Foucault- power is diffused, productive

Sovereign power v biopolitics

Sovereign power operates through the right to “take life or let live,” whereas modern power (biopolitics) governs populations by regulating, optimising, and managing life through institutions such as healthcare and surveillance.

Is power just coercive?

While power can involve coercion (Weber), it is more accurately understood as productive and diffuse, shaping behaviour and knowledge through social structures (Foucault).