Social Sciences
Power and Authority
Power and authority are concepts that refer to the ability to influence or control others. Power is the capacity to enforce one's will, while authority is the right to do so. Power can be exerted through various means, such as coercion or persuasion, while authority is typically derived from a formal position or social structure. Both concepts play a crucial role in shaping social relationships and institutions.
Written by Perlego with AI-assistance
Related key terms
1 of 5
9 Key excerpts on "Power and Authority"
eBook - PDF- Jonathan S. Hearn(Author)
- 2017(Publication Date)
- Red Globe Press(Publisher)
The chapter concludes by suggesting that the modern era, with its values of individualism and autonomy amid mush-rooming systemic social power, evinces deep ambivalences about power, and that these in turn have shaped the ways we theorize about power. 3 Chapter 1 Introducing Key Issues Introduction The philosopher Bertrand Russell once declared that ‘the fundamental con-cept in social science is Power, in the same sense in which Energy is the funda-mental concept in physics’ (2004: 4). I agree with Russell on this basic point: power is not just one of the things that social scientists study, but the central thing. This book aims to convince the reader of that. This might appear to be a bold claim. We assume that fields such as politics or international relations are centrally concerned with power – but all social sciences? The argument is simple. The social sciences, understood broadly as having strong affinities with much of the humanities, seek to understand causation in human affairs. Almost all definitions of power fundamentally link it to the ability to have an effect on the world, to make a difference, to cause things to happen. (Rus-sell called it simply ‘the production of intended effects’ (2004: 23).) If we are interested in why society develops in the way it does, if we want to have an effect on the direction of social change, then we are interested in the nature and scope of human power. This does not deny that some or even much of what happens occurs for causal reasons that are beyond human control. But our long history has been one of bringing more of the world, including each other, under our control – enhancing our causal capacities. Of course, ‘the harder they come, the harder they fall’. The more we have control of, the more we have to lose control of, and the more we become aware of the limits of our powers.
eBook - PDF- Stanley R. Barrett(Author)
- 2002(Publication Date)
- Praeger(Publisher)
Thus, F.G. Bailey (1980), a field worker who has devoted much of his academic life to the study of politics at the micro, informal level, 20 Conceptualizing Power favors persuasion. From C. Wright Mills' perspective (1967:23), aimed at the macro level of society and state, coercion does the trick, augmented by manip- ulation and authority. My own inclination is to treat power as the master con- cept, with the other basic terms subsumed under it. This makes sense, I suggest, in relation to power's current high profile. It is hard to imagine a situation in which authority, influence, or any of the other terms could have challenged cul- ture as our key concept. Only power appears to have the magnetism to shift the polar direction of the discipline. Multiple, ambiguous, and even contradictory definitions of concepts are the norm in the social sciences, as any one who has looked into community or class (and of course culture) will know only too well. Power is no exception. For Hobbes (1971:2) power is ''man's present means to any future apparent good," and for Russell (1938:35) "the production of intended effects." Harris (1971:415) defines it as follows: "Power is control over man and nature." Nicholas (1976:52) states: "Tower' is control over resources, whether human or material," while for Bailey (1980:3) "power is the capacity to make people do things, whether or not they wish it." Of course, implicit definitions can be extracted from slogans such as power comes out of the barrel of a gun and the pen is mightier than the sword, and from expressions such as puppy power and pussy power. Contributing to the variety of definitions are several competing assumptions about the nature of power: 1. Power as a personality attribute. 2. Power as a substance, a thing, a force, something that can be grasped or harnessed, or allowed to slip away. 3. Power as a social relationship. 4. Structural power. Most anthropologists today reject the first two assumptions.
eBook - ePubWho Rules America?
The Corporate Rich, White Nationalist Republicans, and Inclusionary Democrats in the 2020s
- G William Domhoff(Author)
- 2021(Publication Date)
- Routledge(Publisher)
Chapter 1 Concepts, Definitions, and Power Indicators DOI: 10.4324/9781003231400-2 This chapter provides general definitions and empirical findings relating to concepts concerning power. It presents an overview of the four main organizational networks that are the basis for the power arrangements that exist in all societies and explains how they interact in the United States. The paradoxical social psychology of power is introduced. The concept of “class” is also introduced, and its two dimensions, economic and social, are discussed. Traditional American perceptions of power, class, and color are discussed on the basis of sociological and historical studies. “Cultures of resistance,” which develop when people are subjugated, along with “cultures of resentment,” which emerge in powerful groups when they are challenged, are explained. The conspiratorial theories that often emerge in cultures of resentment are examined. Finally, the ways in which the distribution of power can be studied in detail, through the use of “power indicators,” are introduced. In a word, this chapter prepares the way for clear sailing in later chapters when the concepts and findings in it are applied to the United States of the 2020s. Power Is a Relationship: The Social Science View of Power Power is first of all a relationship, whether between individuals or between groups of individuals. Power at the group level, which is the focus of this book, has two intertwined dimensions. Collective power, which is the capacity of a group, class, or nation to be effective and productive, depends upon the degree to which the individuals within that group, class, or nation have been able to develop positive social relationships and respect for each other, which lead to the necessary social morale and cooperation to develop organizations. Organizations are sets of rules and roles that human beings develop in order to accomplish a particular purpose in an easily repeated and routine way
eBook - PDF- Roger Smith, Jo Campling(Authors)
- 2018(Publication Date)
- Red Globe Press(Publisher)
Power is ‘the multiplicity of force relations immanent in the sphere in which they operate and which constitute their own organisation’ (Foucault, 1981, p. 92). The insight offered here seems to be that power is inherent in all social interactions, that it is complex, and that it therefore has a kind of self-reinforcing character, whereby its exercise tends to confirm its legitimacy. Thus, for example, certain kinds of abusive and exploita-tive behaviour may come to be ‘normalized’ if they are not con-fronted. The problem with Foucault’s analysis, though, is that it is essentially circular, and does not allow for a full understanding of the historical sources of power or the development of a capacity to chal-lenge or change its relationships. 22 Ideas of Power In concluding this discussion of the search for a definition of power, it is worth reminding ourselves that There is no consensus among theorists regarding the nature of power, the way it operates in the social and political world, [or] the manner in which it relates to associated concepts (such as authority, domination, resistance and empowerment). (MacKenzie, 1999, p. 69) Despite this, it is possible to offer a conceptualization of power which may be helpful in the present context. It can be described as the capacity, held individually or collectively, to influence either groups or individuals (including oneself) in a given social context. This encom-passes both the individual and social dimensions of power, although it clearly makes no attempt to give an account of its dynamics, or any inequalities in its distribution. For the present, it may be sufficient to rely on this working defini-tion, but it is clear that it must be developed and contextualized in order to provide any kind of detailed understanding applicable in the practice setting.
eBook - PDF- Richard Hugman, Jan Carter(Authors)
- 2017(Publication Date)
- Red Globe Press(Publisher)
Nevertheless at all these levels questions of rights, justice, integrity and so on are still central to thinking about ‘good’ practice. So, in the final part of this chapter, we consider in what ways social workers can achieve ‘good practice’ while exercising Power and Authority. This is not an argument for a technocratic framework, but rather puts the case that social workers must grasp ethics as a dynamic element of practice in the integration of theory and action. Power and Authority: the inevitable ground of social work Explanations of power in social work refer largely to a concept of the socially situated capacity for one person or group of people to secure the compliance of another person or group of people, irrespective of the lat-ter’s material or subjective interests (Hugman 1991 , 1998 ; Rees 1991 ; Smith 2008 , 2013 ; Gilbert and Powell 2010 ; Belcher and Tice 2013 ). In this sense, when we speak of power we are actually referring to social relations, as opposed to the characteristics of any particular person who exercises power. The exercise of power does not depend on whether any individual has the ability to act or choses to act, but whether their structured role creates the potential for such action. From this, authority can be seen as the exercise of legitimate power, in which all parties to social relationships accept the situation. Authority is clearly evident in circumstances when there is a shared agreement about the interests of the different parties (Hugman 1991 : 34), such as when a service user seeks the views of a social worker. It can also be said to be exercised when such agreement is not pre-sent but the exercise of power is accepted as legitimate. This distinction, RETHINKING VALUES AND ETHICS IN SOCIAL WORK 66 while complicated, is important because it raises questions about whether power in social work is inherently a negative phenomenon. Approaches to understanding power in social work can be divided, roughly, into two types.
eBook - PDFPolitical and Civic Leadership
A Reference Handbook
- Richard A. Couto(Author)
- 2010(Publication Date)
- SAGE Publications, Inc(Publisher)
8 S OCIAL O RIGINS OF A UTHORITY N ATHAN W. H ARTER Purdue University P olitical rule depends on some combination of per-suasion, coercion, and authority. Persuasion involves making an appeal to the hearts and minds of a pop-ulace about the merits of a particular course of action. Persuasion generally pertains to discrete decisions on a case-by-case basis. In contemporary politics, of course, not every decision can be submitted to the populace. Not every person will concur with those that are submitted to the populace. Nevertheless, at some point the social order must close around a decision and enforce it. Coercion entails the use of force to impose compliance with a deci-sion, however it was made. As an empirical matter, every regime must resort to some coercion simply for the sake of maintaining order. Authority is a complementary concept, though separate from coercion and persuasion. Authority resides in the sense of legitimacy enjoyed by a ruler before the need for a decision even arises. And that sense of legit-imacy originates in the people being ruled. A sense of legitimacy is not necessarily created in a formal enact-ment, whereby people ratify a compact or elect a particu-lar ruler; it can be implicit in the habits of obedience one finds even among the disfranchised, possibly grounded in subconscious drives. Later, this chapter will examine the hypotheses of Sigmund Freud as a representative of this approach. A ruler might justify commands based on some claim to authority, yet if the subjects do not agree with that justifi-cation, then their compliance would be grounded in some-thing else. Of course, if they do not comply at all, then the ruler is no ruler to them. It is the disposition of followers at any given point in time that determines whether the ruler possesses authority. To detect the social origins of authority, therefore, one must consider other reasons why people would want a ruler.
eBook - PDFOrganizational Power Politics
Tactics in Organizational Leadership
- Gilbert W. Fairholm(Author)
- 2009(Publication Date)
- Praeger(Publisher)
These perspectives hold promise for further elucidation of this central element of social theory. Unchecked, power can be viewed as a corrupting influence destructive of man’s higher propensities, even of life itself. This view has, as noted elsewhere, persisted. Lord Acton’s dictum that power corrupts has been a hallmark of social theory. How- ever, we can discern an alternative perception in social thought—namely, that power is second in importance to society behind social altruism. Adherents to this perspec- tive see power as a way to social advancement. Ideas such as duty, responsibility, legitimacy, and love have been at the center of this branch of social thought. Power, they say, has a role in defining and applying these higher ideals. Contemporary power literature has become more complete and the approach more realistic. Now, writers are dealing directly with concepts such as authority, force, control, and conflict as significant elements of social relations (Telford & Gostick, 2005) and as mechanisms to both describe and predict situational alter- natives (Wrong, 1979). The terminological taboo under which the idea of power has suffered for decades has lifted. Instead of one coherent concept, there are many. Although we can relate each concept to the underlying idea of power, they have not coalesced into a full-blown power theory. Among the ideas that are begin- ning to shape a power theory are those of motivation, self-esteem, competence, and control. Others include causation, helplessness (powerlessness), stimulus- response, and locus of control. Kuhl, Schnelle, and Tillman, (2005) created a new organizational theory and practice called lateral leadership. The foundation of lateral leadership is shared understanding, power, and trust (Jurkiewicz & Brown, 1995). Lateral leadership is a flexible leadership method that can be adapted to different situations. The lateral leader uses communication to facilitate change within the organization.
eBook - PDF- Cees van der Eijk(Author)
- 2018(Publication Date)
- Amsterdam University Press(Publisher)
Lukes’ perspective on power is discussed later in this chapter. Influence A concept closely related to that of power is influence. For this concept too, we find a large number of defin itions or descriptions in the literature. The terms power and influence are often seen as being close to interchangeable, or linked in a manner where one is seen as a specif ic form of the other. A conceptual analysis of the pros and cons of various defin itions, along similar lines to those discussed earlier in this chapter, has been presented by Mokken and Stokman, to whom we can refer for further detail. They arrive at the following defin ition, which I also subscribe to in this book: Influence is the capacity of actors to determine partly the actions or choices of other actors within the set of action or choice alternatives available to those actors . (1976: 46) Influence thus presumes the existence of multiple choices or behavioural options for those subjected to it, and manifests itself in changing the likeli-hood of each or some of these options. Influence thus leads to actors (or ordinary people, see footnote 6 above) becoming more – or less – inclined to opt for (a) particular option(s) available to them. Here, too, as in the case of power, it is not necessary that influence is applied against the goals or interests of those who are so influenced. Whether or not that is the case is not a matter to be settled by defin ition, but by empirical research. Clearly, influence and power, as defined above, are quite dif ferent relational phenomena, and it is quite possible that power relations and influence relations overlap. However, these defin itions allow for power to exist in the absence of influence, as well as for influence to exist in the absence of power. The domain specif ic ity of power and influence Power and influence have been def ined above in terms of their impact on the availability of actions or choices available to others or their selection of one of these options.
eBook - PDFLeadership
Regional and Global Perspectives
- Nuttawuth Muenjohn, Adela McMurray, Mario Fernando, James Hunt, Martin Fitzgerald, Bernard McKenna, Ali Intezari, Sarah Bankins, Jenny Waterhouse(Authors)
- 2018(Publication Date)
- Cambridge University Press(Publisher)
Hierarchies Hierarchies form in groups and organisations when a certain level of complex activity is reached, requiring systems and job allocations to be arranged to solve a problem, produce a good or deliver a service. The essence of hierarchies is that power is unequally distributed so that those in more senior positions have the Personal power – Power derived from others’ evaluation of a person being regarded as likable, knowledgeable or competent. Hierarchy – An unequal distribution of power, where senior positions have the authority to set tasks for people with less power to achieve a task. Chapter 8 Power, polit ics and inf luence | 193 authority to set tasks for people with less power to complete. Those in more senior positions should have technical competence and high levels of knowledge, but are mostly selected to work at a more generalised level to design and implement strategies that provide overall coherence to the organisation’s activities. The most senior people with most power also have responsibility for changing the organisation’s mission and the strategies designed to meet that mission. The two most important determinants of social hierarchy are status and power (Magee & Galinsky, 2008 ). Power needs to be distinguished from status, which can be defined as ‘the respect one has in the eyes of others’ (Magee & Galinsky, 2008 , p. 351). Status often emerges from the social groups to which someone belongs. For example, a physician or an electrical engineer is likely to be accorded higher status than, say, a nurse or an electrical tradesman. Over time, social status can alter. For example, religious priests and ministers have almost always been considered to have relatively high status in Western countries.
Index pages curate the most relevant extracts from our library of academic textbooks. They’ve been created using an in-house natural language model (NLM), each adding context and meaning to key research topics.
