Moslem Zolfagharkhani,
PhD.
Sabzevar Tarbiat Moallem University, Sabzevar, Iran.
“… power is present in the most delicate mechanisms of social exchange: not only in the State, in classes, in groups, but even in fashion, public opinion, entertainment, sports, news, family and private relations, and even in the liberating impulses which attempt to counteract it”. (Barthes 460)
I
Power, as a term surfaced in people’s dialogues and speech or as a common word used here and there, in Robin Tolmach Lakoff’s words is:
… vibrant, the very word conjuring up images of strength, force, action. Whether positive or negative, those images are strong. Power is physical: it changes reality, it gets things done or undoes what exists. It creates effects that can be seen, felt, and measured. Power is the engine of the 747 that lifts the behemoth off the runway; it is the “plow that broke the plains”; the firing squad; the nuclear bomb under discussion at the conference table; the parent who can give or withhold the keys to the car; the boss who can hire or fire at whim. All of these operate to change reality for better or worse. We may admire power or resent it, but we can see its operations and feel its physical effects on us. (12)
Or it may be approached and appreciated linguistically as:
embodied in the lives of people with very real bodies saying things to each other, in their actual languaging, which includes uttering explanations, commands, dismissals, threats, promises as well as giving indications of acceptance, obeyance, compliance, submission or agreement. (Krippendorff 101-132)
Thus it “arises in languaging, can be contested in languaging, can be overcome in languaging and is, thus, embodied in the languaging among real people”. (Ibid.) And consequently, in a language-based frame of mind, language “ represents power since perception, cognition, and social relations are all mediated by the discourses prevalent in culture.” (Baildon 87) Incidentally, power can be wielded over human beings as well as over dead matter or non-human things. In the modern world, many of the changes and transformations are the result of power over matter that in turn is the upshot of science. Power exerted on humans can be either directly, or by direct physical one over the body. The case in point is when one is imprisoned or killed, and then power is at work both
physically and directly. A body is, further, under power when punishment or reward is used as elements of inducement. One may also be influenced by the power over opinion for which propaganda is an appropriate example.
Sundry social organizations and institutes exert different forms of power depending on the target and the way of achieving exercise of power. The military and the police employ coercive power over the body while some commercial and economic institutes exercise power over individual by use of punishment and reward, or premium. Social organizations like churches, schools, hospitals, and political institutes tend to influence over opinion and to grapple with masses’gray-matter. Incidentally, one should notice that the law is another important derivation for power in communities. Therefore, power of the Law is the coercive power of the State having more complexities. Law is a set of regulations that is exercised by the State in order to deal with its own citizens.
The theory of the role of the State in the works of Liberalism usually views legislative power in terms of limitation on the State’s ability to employ justifiable force regarding behavior justifications. Consequently, it does not conceive the exercise of power as coercive in nature, because power is limited by legality where to be justly exercised. On the other hand, liberals consider power as coercive that limits individuals and demarcates in all cases so that they may not freely plump for any proceedings. Power and authority are necessarily not synonymous. James Harrington (1611-1677), the seventeenth-century political philosopher, distinguishes de facto power meaning the possession of power as a matter of fact with de jure authority meaning authority by right or by means of justification. Harrington reveals that power without authority is a salient feature of the modern form of Government, corresponding the de facto possession of power by a sovereign, someone who finds it unnecessary to answer to the individuals and citizens falling under his or her jurisdiction so that s/he reigns without the authority of their approval or consent.
Incidentally, one can distinguish two typical forms of power run in the political history of human societies. One is traditional power and the other is naked power. Habit is a basic and fundamental force of traditional power so that it does not find it necessary to justify itself from time to time. This power is much or less under the shadow of religion or quasi-religious beliefs. It can also be called power of assent, for it is supported mostly by public opinion. Naked power usually employs military as its tool. Julius Caesar and Alexander the Great could change the course of history by their military powers and armies. The whole Roman Empire yielded to Christianity by the force of tyranny. This military power relies on wealth or fanaticism. With traditional and naked powers, there is sometimes revolutionary authority that is the demand of the majority of population. Furthermore, this revolutionary authority is not necessarily exercised by forms of naked power. It asks for the popular support than the military force or tyranny. The Reformation in Europe was successful in replacing the Catholic Church just by public assent than by force. The Chinese Republic was proclaimed in 1911, but the apathetic public did not
support parliamentary constitution so that some military governors brought unity to the country by the help of nationalism. Iranian Revolution in 1979 is an example of the revolutionary power that depended upon a large population of the country united by a new creed, sentiment, and desire.
Power of individuals can be distinguished from power of organization or institution, although the two are interrelated and joint. An individual gains power in one way, and an organization attains power in another way. A party may be on top of one community while some individuals of other parties control the public and exercise power over population. A prime minister selected by his political party might have acquired power within an organization but not the nation. Different forms of social and political organization give power to different types of individuals so that different states of society appear. One form of power of individual is the hereditary power. Here, incidentally, the admired and approval qualities are not acquired from outside but are from leisure and inevitable superiority. Monarchical and Aristocratic powers are examples of this hereditary power where qualities like king’s divinity, blue-blooded aristocrat, courteous behavior, and knightly chivalry are emphasized. In our own age, plutocracy is largely hereditary against which some Socialists raise their voice and work.
In the course of history, as pointed out before, power took variegated forms and modes depending on power holders and the subjects over whom power was enacted. Returning back to earlier ages of human’s life and career, one comes across two traditional powers widespread in man’s communities and societies. Indeed, in order to come to terms to more modernistic and new-fangled configuration and silhouette of power, and to essay at unlocking the convoluted lines of power relations, an enquiry into the archives of human interactions and nature seem crucial. Incidentally, if Marx found wealth and Freud distinguished sex as key to human nature, power is transformed into a stimulus for not only man’s nature but also for both wealth and sex as well. That is why in his meticulous searches and probes, Michel Foucault, the French prominent thinker, threw some archaeological and genealogical approaches to some social agencies and human habits. Therefore, although a study of some forms of earlier authorities seems old-fashioned for modern man, if not tautological, two seminal and vigorous forms of power should be touched upon; namely ecclesiastical and monarchical authorities. Interestingly, if a chessboard, of the famous pastime, is a microcosm of a big scenario for a battle where hierarchical powers of ‘King’ and ‘Bishop’ are in action, it signifies, initially and remarkably, the rooted loci of sovereignty circulated in epochs of human history, the realm of real life as well.
Generally, the echelons of both the king and the pastor have been in a volatile situation in power structures. There were occasions, however, when one arrived at a tendency to develop into the other. A king’s desire to own both his sovereignty and sacredness and the clergyman’s choice of ruling some provinces are the cases found in the history of man. The Caliph led Muslim’s people and was also a religious figure in the
world of Islam. Today in Iran, the supreme leader of Shiite is a clergyman who is called Ayatollah, both responsible for the most important political and social decisions and for masses’ spiritual problems.
In its most primitive shape, a priest, it is believed, to enjoy both religious and magical powers by the help of these strengths, was either able to create a disease or remove it. This so-called medicine man who was able to connect with some supernatural beings, whether by some magical spells or some religious words or hymns, is believed to do good or harm persons. Hence, later great religion commanders over the public had their development from this more simple form of suggestion and control over others. The priest caste could acquire class and power by the laity’s respect for the wise and older members of the community. This is the case for those more old religions that are not derived from some founders, but, in fact, return back to the savage and primitive communities where the so-called priest caste was not obviously differentiated. Furthermore, with the passage of time and the development of societies, this class of religious figures occupied a specific rank and dignity among the populations, and consequently a substantial status in the community.
From eleventh to thirteenth centuries, in most of the European countries, it was the Pope who ruled and not the king. Within this time, the Church, being educated and informed, showed a higher civilization. The kings were busy with the feudal system and the threat of anarchy in the State. By preaching disdain for the mundane, the priests could achieve superiority over the monarch. Being wealthy and powerful, they were endowed with the public advocate and protection which gave them motives to vie with the kingly power. The reasons for this perhaps might be enumerated thus:
First, the Papacy was not hereditary, and was therefore not troubled with long minorities, as secular kingdoms were. A man could not easily rise to eminence in the Church except by piety, learning or statesmanship…. Secular sovereigns might happen to be able, but were often quite the reverse; moreover they had not the training in controlling their passions that ecclesiastics had. Repeatedly, kings got into difficulties from desire for divorce, which, being a matter for the Church, placed them at the mercy of the Pope. … Another great strength of the Papacy was its impersonal continuity…. by far the greatest strength of the Church was the moral respect which it inspired. (Russell 51-52)
Hence, it is not a claim that in the course of history, the victory was mostly with the theological power than the secular one. Incidentally, it had been the king’s prudence and forethought to voice a reverence for the ecclesiastics and to appeal to them at the time of quandaries. The substantial liaison between Ghajar kings and the clergymen in Iran proves the king’s thoughtful policy in adopting such a decision to reinforce and fortify his monarchal pillars and to balance the power relations in the country.
As for king and the kingship’s evolution, one should remember again the prehistoric and the primitive epoch of man’s life. The king is one with the highest echelon on the top of the power’s pyramid, and while having his most own will-power, the fate of his people, whether with legitimacy or none, is in has hands. He is the commander with a God-like figure who makes decisions about the substantial issues of nation or the country, at the time of war, peace or chaos. In the primitive societies, he may meet some sacredness so that his mana is so strong that no laity can look at him. In the present day, among some preposterous groups or guerillas, there is one commander-in-chief who is only visited by limited members for collecting decrees and orders; Mullah Mohammad Omar in the new- established belligerent military group of Taliban in Afghanistan is the case in point. Going back to the prehistoric eras, one views two secular and religious chiefs in the savage communities by whom, it is assumed, power balance is fulfilled like the Mikado in old Japan.
Before the establishment of a government and a supreme king, people’s cardinal affairs were organized and regulated by some customs, and it was later that “migration and foreign invasion are powerful forces in the destruction of custom, and therefore in creating the need of government”. (Russell 56) History acknowledges that kings were mostly usurpers or foreign invaders. That is why dynasties have short lives and do not last forever. Generally, the new king succeeds to the throne within some religious ceremonies so that it is legitimized by devotional agencies. Indeed, the pastoral power is confirmed, sustained, and secured in such crucial rituals. Whether kings voiced the want of an ecclesiastic or not, royalty viewed it as a cardinal support for the royal family. Charles I knew this fact and voiced it by ‘No Bishop, no King’.
II
“A Man can never be oblig’d in Conscience to submit to any Power, unless he can be satisfied who is the Person, who has a Right to Exercise that Power over him. If this were not so, there would be no distinction between Pirates and Lawful Princes, he that has Force is without any more ado to be obey’d, and Crowns and Scepters would become the Inheritance only of Violence and Rapine.” (Locke 240)
Precursors to the Modern period who argued about the essence and nature of power in sociological discourses are political thinkers such as Hobbes (1588-1679), Locke (1632- 1704), and Machiavelli (1469-1527) who discussed power and its attributes in details. Later thinkers commented on the ideas and works of these early theorists. For example, Clegg (1989) discusses with Hobbes and Locke to come across an account of power as capacities. It seems that the various approaches declared by Hobbes, Locke, and
Machiavelli and also later related definitions of more modern thinkers, all are an attempt to render an account of power corresponding in the construction of the social. Therefore, the works of these theoreticians can be marked as precursors of Modernity. Throughout their writings, Hobbes, Locke, and Machiavelli did not simply focus on definitions of power, rather they emphasized the results of power, its relation with subjects, issues connected with exercise of power, freedom, and responsibility. For Hobbes and Locke, the difference between subjectivities and the social, nature and passion, and man, most especially, as a social animal in a social formation are of vital significance.
For the first time in the seventeenth century, Hobbes commented on the issue of order and voiced that “all subjects exchange a degree of personal power of social stability in a social contact with the Sovereign”. (Westwood 8) According to Macpherson (1962), Hobbes endeavoured to think and write based on the religion, social, economic, and political issues of his time. As social philosopher, Hobbes used to be fanatical, extremist, and frankly speaking an atheist at the time when religious and moral issues were not questioned. For him, the social does not merely refer to the sovereign or the concept of order but also with the problem of civil society. Hobbes’s political theory is not a very consistent one. His theory is a reference to the citizenry in early capitalism i.e., “a collection of human atoms that struggle daily for survival in a world where there is a scarcity of material goods”. (Skirbekk 187) He reveals that the state exists for the individuals and that without the citizens it has no value. Hobbes may not be called a liberal if liberalism is meant to support tolerance. Hence, there is the possibility to trace liberalism back to Locke (Latin: libertas, ‘freedom’). If liberalism is defined in terms of the notions like individual, contract, and state, not by moral values, then Hobbes might be judged as a predecessor of Liberalism. In other words, Liberalism (liberalist) deals with individual, contract, and state while liberality (liberal) attends to moral and positive attitude in favor of tolerance and juridical freedom. For that reason, Hobbes can be called a ‘liberalist’, not a liberal, while Locke can be envisaged as both a liberalist and a liberal. Based on these definitions and terminology, one can trace some interesting connections between ideologies at different stages of Modernity. Broadly speaking, the first stage included early capitalism marked by a hard struggle for survival and the need for a monarch (Hobbes’s thoughts). Next stage came across a more established capitalism in which the citizens think of inviolable rights vis-à-vis the Sovereign or the absolute King (Locke’s idea). The last stage copes with an established private capitalism and laissez-faire liberalism (Adam Smith’s notion). In all these three phases of liberalism, individual and the state are viewed as synonymous, but a changing view is present in the human nature, that is from self- preservation, through inviolable rights, to pleasure and profit.
Power as right and capacity results in the necessity of a Government. Therefore, Government is constituted based on some people’s and organization’s expectations to observe the operation and practice of some laws. The rest of the community obeys these laws, enacted by some political members, where most of the citizens consent on the
holders of the power. But consent alone is not enough for the efficiency of a sovereign power. It requires the right and the capacity as supplements in order to be effective and trustworthy. According to Locke, a right that is achieved through some obligations and pressures will lead to coercion. In fact, such a political power is not invocated by right so that the consequences would be tyranny and despotism. Locke also reveals ‘Law of Opinion or Reputation’ that is:
A dispersed form of social regulation independent of direct central control…the idea of such a dispersed form of regulation underlies both Lukes’ and critical theory’s arguments concerning an illegitimate and insidious power that affects the very thoughts and desires of its victims, thereby preventing them, and the society in which they live, from attaining the condition in which social life may be properly governed on the basis of their consent. (Hindess 140)
In his book The Prince (1513), Machiavelli deals with ethnography of power as it is built and re-built in the system of relations in the palace. It is not absolute and does not rely on the prince or monarch. Power is employed to increase and highlight those strategies that produce a wider scope of action. Machiavelli offers us an important part of the exercise of power, which is the role of violence through military metaphors. Machiavelli’s theory is a doctrine of the mechanics of Government. He presupposes that man is an egotistical creature who has a full desire for things and power. As resources become limited, conflict is inevitable. Because of the individual’s demand for protection against the aggression and invasion of others, the State is constituted. Anarchy is on the rise when law is not enforced efficiently; therefore, it is the task of all absolute rulers to provide security for the people. Rulers should not forget that human beings are evil and they must be rigid and cynical to protect people’s lives and properties. Machiavelli makes a distinction between two groups, one who works to gain power and the other who has already gained power. He regarded the ancient Roman republic and Switzerland in his day as examples of pure and uncorrupted ones where people governed themselves. But he views Italy as a society where a state should be created. In such a society, a strong and rigid Prince seemed necessary. Machiavelli’s notion of power and its exercise are not immoral or amoral but are moral in so far as the aim is to hinder chaos. Therefore, the goal is a powerful and proper state or the best possible one where citizens can trust the Prince.
While Aristotle regarded politics and ethics as a unit, Machiavelli viewed politics and ethics as different concepts; for him the end justifies the means in politics. These means are manipulative and can be beyond moral evaluation but the ultimate goal is to achieve peace and order. According to Machiavelli, it is the Prince’s will which reveals law and morality and the ultimate aim is political stability. His belief of manipulative politics brought him notoriety in later ages. Some men belong to the government interpreted Machiavelli’s doctrine of politics as manipulation, as justifying limitless
displays of power; Mussolini is an example. Machiavelli’s treatment of ‘ends’ and ‘means’, it appears, has prompted even some Greek philosophers and Christian theologians or some Islamic fanatics to take it for granted that some harmful and immoral actions (means) might lead on to other desirable ends.
Among Hobbes, Locke, and Machiavelli, it seems that little credibility should be given to Machiavelli as a theorist of power. Hobbes’s Leviathan (1651), and Locke’s An Essay Concerning Human Understanding (1689), and Two Treatises of Government (1689) give us an account of freedom and responsibility and some sketches of power and its exercise. Hobbes observed a strategic deal between the subjects and the sovereign in which freedom is exchanged among subjects for the sake of security. As for violence, Hobbes explained its threat being an aspect of the human condition and nature. According to Barry Hindess, Hobbes distinguished the variability of power and its heterogeneity but was unable to recognize the importance of this for the formulation of power. Hindess judged that “…by interpreting power as an underlying essence of effectiveness, Hobbes (and for too many of his success) is able to acknowledge the heterogeneity of sources of power without recognizing the significance of that heterogeneity”. (141) Dealing with the concept of the social, these three thinkers could render some essential notions. Hobbes’s judgment of a social contract in which collectivity is viewed beyond the individual and Machiavelli’s account of ethnography of power all put the individual in relations to others. Arguing the concept of the social good, Locke could come across the issues of laws, rights, and responsibilities. Being empiricists, all these precursors to the modern sociology were able to insist on the complexities of power and also on its differentiations. Furthermore, they were successful in portraying the two faces of the individual i.e., ‘social man’ and ‘natural man’. It was their treatment of these conceptions of human nature, whether ‘violent’ in the case of Hobbes or ‘wicked’ in the case of Machiavelli, that prepared grounds for later discussions on reason and on man as a rational creature.
France of the 1700s witnessed some political and philosophical alterations. In the war between the supporters of the nobility and the clergy and those of the Enlightenment, the victory was with the latter for whom the individual, reason, and progress were the major slogans. However, there were some objections against these notions at that time. Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) was a serious campaigner who showed his negative reaction to Enlightenment philosophy. Enlightenment philosophers emphasized and practiced a cultivation of feelings. The individual and self-interest were significant issues for the Enlightenment philosophers while for Rousseau the community and the general will were vital. Affirming ‘return to nature’, Rousseau viewed man as basically good and thought that evil originated in civilization. For him, civilization and sciences led the people to an artificial and degenerate life and also pervert the natural good in man.
As for individualism that runs from Hobbes through Locke and on to the French and British liberalists of the 1700s, Rousseau tended to defend religion, morality, and community against attempts to attribute all valid insight to the natural sciences. For
liberalists, individualism meant fully developed individual with self-interest, desires for profit and prosperity, property, and so on. They viewed all these prior to the development of the State. As state could protect private property, it was bound to be valued. Rousseau advanced a line of argumentation that followed the state of nature and ended in a social contract. Therefore, for Rousseau, reason and science are important as far as they come to help in the ordering of human affairs that in turn secure the general will. In fact, his ideas traced the concept of power not in terms of the individual but the genuine community which, it seems, was taken by others to introduce both the national state (Hitler), and the party state (Lenin) so that arbitrary rulers will impose their will as the general will. Hence, Rousseau’s organic theory of society, emphasizing the ties between people and ignoring the institutions, leads to an irrational and romantic cultivation of community.
10
WORKS CITED
Baildon, Mark C. “Power and Privilege” Proseminar in Curriculum, Teaching, and Educational Policy. Michigan State Uniersity. Spring, 2000.
Barthes, Roland. “Inaugural Lecture” College de France. In Susan Sontag (Ed.), A Barthes Reader. New York: Hill and Wang, 1982.
Hindess, Barry. Discourses of Power. Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1996.
Krippendorff, Klaus. “Undoing Power” Critical Studies in Mass Communication, 1995. 12, 2: 101-132.
Lakoff, Robin Tolmach. Talking Power. New York: Basic Books, 1990.
Locke, J. Two Treatises of Government. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988. Russell, Bertrand. Power. London: Routledge, 2004.
Skirbekk, Gunnar and Nils Gilje. A History of Western Thought. London: Routledge, 2001. Westwood, Sallie. Power and the Social. London: Routledg