Societies as Organized Power Networks: A Theory of Social Power
The Rejection of the Unitary Conception of Society
Michael Mann begins by challenging the traditional sociological orthodoxy that views societies as unitary, bounded totalities or social systems.
Fundamental Thesis 1: Societies are not social systems (closed or open), dimensions, levels, or totalities. They are instead constituted of multiple overlapping and intersecting sociospatial networks of power.
Implications of this rejection:
There is no single bounded society in geographical or social space.
Because there is no system, there are no "subsystems," "dimensions," or "levels" of a totality.
Social relations cannot be reduced "ultimately" or "in the last instance" to a single systemic property like the mode of production or the cultural system.
The distinction between "endogenous" and "exogenous" change is unhelpful because there is no bounded totality.
There is no internal "evolutionary" process within a system, and "diffusion" does not occur between bounded totalities because humanity is not divided into such units.
Individuals are not constrained by "social structure as a whole," rendering the rigid distinction between "social action" and "social structure" problematic.
The nation-state model, which dominated nineteenth- and early-twentieth-century sociology, mistakenly equates the state with the totality of society. While states, cultures, and economies are important networks, they rarely coincide. - Michael Mann critiques the traditional view of societies as unitary, bounded totalities, asserting that societies are instead made up of overlapping and intersecting sociospatial networks of power. - Key Implications: - No singular, bounded society exists in geographical or social space. - The absence of overarching systems means there are no defined "subsystems," dimensions, or levels. - Social relations cannot be exclusively reduced to singular systemic properties like production modes or cultural paradigms. - Individuals possess agency beyond social structures, challenging the traditional distinctions between social action and structure.
The IEMP Model of Social Power
Fundamental Thesis 2: A general account of societies is best provided through the interrelations of the four sources of social power: Ideological, Economic, Military, and Political (IEMP) relations.
Nature of the IEMP sources:
They are overlapping networks of social interaction, not dimensions of a single totality.
They are organizations and institutional means of attaining human goals. Their primacy stems from their specific organizational means, not the strength of the human desires they satisfy.
IEMP as "Tracklaying Vehicles": This metaphor (adapted from Max Weber) suggests that the sources of power do not follow pre-existing tracks but lay different gauges of track across historical terrain, determining the direction of social development during episodic moments of change.
Collective vs. Distributive and Authoritative vs. Diffused Power
Collective Power: The capacity of persons in cooperation to enhance their joint power over third parties or nature. It is functional and cooperative.
Distributive Power: The power of one actor over another (A over B), involving a "zero-sum game" where one's gain is another's loss. It is exploitative and involves social stratification.
Persistence of Stratification: The masses often comply not due to consensus or force alone, but because they are "organizationally outflanked." They lack the collective organization to resist the organized minority at the top, whose control is institutionalized in laws and norms.
Authoritative Power: Power willed by groups and institutions, involving definite commands and conscious obedience (e.g., an army command structure).
Diffused Power: Power that spreads spontaneously and unconsciously throughout a population, resulting in similar social practices (e.g., market exchange or national/class solidarities). These are often perceived as natural or moral common interests.
Extensive vs. Intensive Power:
Extensive Power: The ability to organize large numbers of people over far-flung territories for stable cooperation (e.g., a militaristic empire).
Intensive Power: The ability to organize tightly and command high levels of mobilization or commitment (e.g., a general strike).
Infrastructure and Logistics of Power
The capacity to organize and control people, materials, and territories depends on logistical infrastructures.
Owen Lattimore's Radii of Integration:
Military Action: The most extensive radius, divided into inner (conquest) and outer (tribute/punitive raids).
Civil Administration (The State): Less extensive than military reach.
Economic Integration: Historically the least extensive, often limited to local village markets due to transport costs.
Quantitative Logistical Limits: In preindustrial history, the maximum unsupported march for an army was approximately . Routine military control beyond this distance was difficult to centralize, leading to the federal nature of extensive preindustrial societies.
Long-distance trade in premodern times was restricted to high value-to-weight ratio items (luxuries, animals, slaves).
The Four Sources of Power: Distinctive Organizational Means
Ideological Power: Derives from the human need for meaning, norms, and aesthetic/ritual practices. It can be:
Transcendent: Creating a "sacred" authority (in Durkheim's sense) that surpasses the reach of secular authorities.
Immanent: Enhancing the morale and cohesion of an existing group (like a class or nation).
Economic Power: Derives from the social organization of extraction, transformation, distribution, and consumption of material objects. It involves "circuits of praxis" that link intensive local labor with extensive exchange networks.
Mann uses the term "class" as a purely economic concept.
A "ruling class" is an economic class that successfully monopolizes other power sources.
Military Power: Defined as "concentrated-coercive" power. It is the most concentrated instrument of power, mobilizing physical violence. It has a dual sociospatial reach: a core of direct coercion and an extensive penumbra of terrorized compliance.
Political Power: Defined as the "centralized-territorial" regulation of social relations. It is located at a "center" and exercised outward.
State power involves both domestic regulation and "geopolitical diplomacy" (interstate relations).
Despotic Power: Formal power of state elites.
Infrastructural Power: The real capacity to penetrate and coordinate social life.
The Concept of "Promiscuity" and Interstitial Emergence
Functional Promiscuity: Organizations and functions do not have a one-to-one relationship. Economic roles are performed by states, armies, and churches; ideologies are used by classes and states.
Interstitial Emergence: Human beings often pursue goals in the "interstices" (crannies or edges) of dominant institutions. These new networks eventually produce powerful emergent networks that reorganize social life.
Example 1: The Pike Phalanx. The military innovation of Flemish and Swiss infantry (c. 1300 A.D.) defeated the feudal levy. This was an "interstitial surprise" where a military organization from the margins of feudalism restructured the core power configurations, strengthening centralized states.
Example 2: Pristine Civilizations. The first civilizations (e.g., Mesopotamia, Indus Valley) often arose as small states within a larger cultural/civilizational unit. A religiously centered culture provided a way to organize social relations (economic storage, trade rules, diplomacy) that state or military power could not yet reach.
Methodology and Scope
The history covers the "leading edge" of power development from neolithic societies to Great Britain in 1760 A.D.
Historical Sociology vs. Comparative Sociology: Mann argues that societies are not self-contained units for simple comparison but unique regional interaction settings. The study focuses on "world time," where each power development affects its surrounding context.
Omissions: Mann explicitly notes the absence of gender relations in this volume, arguing that patriarchy remained largely constant until the 18th-19th centuries.
The development of power is described as "neo-episodic" (Ernest Gellner) — occurring in structural transformations that have a cumulative impact.
Human Nature: Grounded in the assumption that humans are restless, purposive, and rational beings seeking to increase their enjoyment of life, which provides the dynamism for history.