PYQs:

•    Foucault's concept of power (UPSC 2023/10)

•    Bases of Power (22/10)

•    Examine the nature and meaning of power. (20/15)

•    Comment: Politics as a power concept (08/20)

•    Distinguish power from authority. How does reliance on authority affect the nature of power? (96/60)

•    Distinguish between Power and Authority. (15/15)

•    Explain the relationship between power, authority and legitimacy. (18/15)

•    Comment: “Power flows throughout the system like blood in the capillaries of our body.” (Foucault) (10/20)

•    Comment in 150 words: “Nothing against the State, nothing over it, nothing beyond it.” Mussolini (18/10)

•    Comment: Views of Lenin, Michels and Duverger on political parties. (99/20)

•    Comment: “In so far as national events are decided, the ‘power elite’ are those who decide them.” (C. Wright Mills) (02/20)

•    Attempt a comparative examination of the view of Marx and Weber on the ‘Power’. (11/30)

•    Comment in 150 words: “Power is never the property of an individual; it belongs to a group and remains in existence only so long as the group keeps together.” (Hannah Arendt) (14/10)

•    Discuss the political philosophy of Hannah Arendt. (03/60)

•    Comment on Hannah Arendt’ s conception of the ‘political’. (150 words) (12/12)

•    Discuss Hannah Arendt’s analysis of the role of ideology in modern totalitarian regimes. (16/20)

•    Critically examine Hannah Arendt’s conceptual triad of labor, work and action. (19/20)

•    Comment: Theory of circulation of elites (92/20)

•    Illustrate from contemporary Indian experience the theory of circulation of elites. (95/60)

Introduction:

What is “power”? Most people have an intuitive notion of what it means. But scientists have not yet formulated a statement of the concept of power that is rigorous enough to be of use in the systematic study of this important social phenomenon.

•  Power is here defined in terms of a relation between people and is expressed in simple symbolic notation. 

•   From this definition is developed a statement of power comparability, or the relative degree of power held by two or more persons. 

•  With these concepts it is possible for example, to rank members of the United States Senate according to their “power” over legislation on foreign policy and on tax and fiscal policy. 

•  Some people have more power than others is one of the most palpable facts of human existence. Because of this, the concept of power is as ancient and ubiquitous as any social theory can boast. 

•   If these assertions needed any documentation, one could set up an endless parade of great names from Plato and Aristotle through Machiavelli and Hobbes to Pareto and Weber to demonstrate that a large number of seminal social theorists have devoted a good deal of attention to power, and the phenomena associated with it. 

•   Power is related to taking decisions and for the implementation of those decisions. No organization, whatever may its nature be, can do its duty or achieve objectives without power.

Thinkers’ perspective on power:

Robert Dahl:

•  Robert Dahl in many of his works has defined power and analyzed its various aspects. In his “A Preface to Democratic Theory”, Dahl calls power a type of relationship in respect of capability and control. Take a very simple example. There are two men—A and B. If A possesses the capability to control B, then it will be assumed that A has the power. So, power involves a successful attempt to do something which he could not do otherwise.

Karl Deutsch:

•  Karl Deutsch says that power means the ability to be involved in conflict, to resolve it and to remove obstacles. Though Deutsch defines the concept in the background of international politics, its relevance to national politics is, however, undeniable. In domestic politics or pluralistic societies there are many competing groups and all struggle to capture power or to influence. The group which succeeds finally will be called powerful.

D. D. Raphael:

•  D. D. Raphael (Problems of Political Philosophy) has analyzed power from various aspects. He is of the opinion that naturally power may be used to mean ability and hence his definition of power is a specific kind of ability. Why specific kind? Let us quote him: “The ability to make other people do what one wants them to do”.

Foucault's concept of power:

•  Michel Foucault, a French philosopher and social theorist, offered a distinctive and influential perspective on power. His concept of power transcends traditional notions and explores the intricate ways in which power operates within society, institutions, and individuals.

The Dynamics of Power

1. Power as Everywhere:

•  Foucault challenges the idea that power resides only in specific institutions or authorities. Instead, he posits that power is omnipresent, woven into the fabric of everyday life.

2. Microphysics of Power:

•  Foucault's focus extends beyond grand structures of power to the minutiae of daily interactions. Power operates at a micro-level, shaping individual behaviours and relationships.

3. Power/Knowledge Nexus:

•  According to Foucault, power and knowledge are inseparable. Institutions, through knowledge production, reinforce and legitimize certain forms of power.

Thinkers' Perspectives

1. Panopticon by Jeremy Bentham:

•  Foucault was influenced by Bentham's Panopticon, a prison design with a central observation tower. This architectural model symbolizes the constant surveillance and internalization of discipline.

2. Max Weber's Ideas:

•  While Foucault diverges from Weber's concept of hierarchical authority, he acknowledges the importance of Weber's understanding of bureaucracy and rationalization in the exercise of power.

Contemporary Examples

1. Surveillance Capitalism:

•  In the digital age, corporations collect vast amounts of data, creating a system of surveillance capitalism where individuals are constantly monitored and influenced.

•  Foucault's ideas resonate with the pervasive nature of power in contemporary digital societies, where information is a key mechanism of control.

2. Discourses on Health and Body Image:

•  Media, advertising, and medical discourses construct norms around beauty and health, influencing individual perceptions and behaviours.

•  Foucault's power/knowledge nexus is evident as societal norms, often reinforced by authoritative knowledge, shape individuals' understanding of their bodies.

3. Social Media and Self-Surveillance:

•  People voluntarily share their lives on social media, engaging in self-surveillance. This self-presentation is influenced by societal expectations and the desire for social validation.

•  Foucault's idea of internalized surveillance aligns with how individuals actively participate in their own monitoring, conforming to societal expectations.

Criticism

1. Lack of Agency and Resistance:

•  Nancy Fraser criticizes Foucault for not adequately addressing issues of resistance and the possibilities of transformative agency within power structures.

2. Neglect of Economic Factors:

•  Cohen suggests that Foucault's focus on power relations and discourses tends to sideline the economic factors that significantly shape social structures.

3. Historical Accuracy:

•  Habermas argues that Foucault's historical analyses often lack precision, leading to an overgeneralization of power dynamics across different historical periods.

4. Overemphasis on Discourse:

•  Noam Chomsky argues that Foucault's focus on discourse may downplay material conditions and the concrete economic and political realities that shape society.

Conclusion

Foucault's concept of power remains a significant contribution to social theory, challenging conventional views and prompting a reevaluation of power dynamics. By emphasizing the ubiquity of power and its entanglement with knowledge, his ideas provide valuable insights into the complex ways in which individuals and societies are shaped and governed.

Nature of Power:

•  When there is only one actor or element the issue of power does not arise. It is because power implies the ability to influence or control others or to get things done by others. So power is always viewed in the background of relationships.

•  In the second place, “power is disaggregated and non-cumulative; it is shared and bartered by numerous groups spread throughout society and representing diverse interests”. In any pluralist society there are numerous groups and they all compete among themselves at various levels to capture political power or to influence the agencies who exercise their influence. Hence it is observed that power is not concentrated at any particular center. There is an unequal distribution of power like an unequal distribution of wealth.

•  Thirdly, in a class-society there are diverse interests and each power center represents a particular interest. In any capitalist society there are several classes, both major and minor, and each class strives for the realization of its own interests which are generally economic.

•  Fourthly, Maclver is of the opinion that power is a conditional concept. Power, Maclver says, is an ability to command service from others. But this ability, he continues, depends in some measure upon certain conditions and if the conditions are not fulfilled properly power cannot function. Power is not something which is permanently fixed. It is subject to change and it has a source.

•  Fifthly, power (used in political science) is a very complex notion. How it is used, what consequences it produces, how it is to be achieved-all are in real sense complex. No simple analysis can unearth the various aspects of power. Different people use different terms to denote power. For example, Dahl uses the term ‘influence’ to mean power.

•  Power is latent force, force is manifest power, and authority is institutionalized power.

•  Power appears in different ways on different occasions, be it either in a formal organization, or in an informal organization or in organized/unorganized community

Forms of Power 

Political Power:

•  Bertrand Russell has defined power as 'the production of intended effects'. In other words, power denotes the ability of a person to fulfill his desires or to achieve his objectives.

•  The significance of power in the political phenomenon was brought out by traditional Political philosophers like Niccolo Machiavelli in his work “THE PRINCE”, Thomas Hobbes in “LEVIATHAN” and Nietzsche as well as by modern writers like Max Weber, Catlin, Merriam, Lasswell, Kaplan in” Power and Society”, Watkins, Treitschke and Hans J Morgenthau in “scientific man v.s Power Politics”. 

•  The exponents of the 'power' view of politics focus on the study of ‘the acquisition, maintenance and loss of power'.  The study of politics is concerned with the description and analysis of the manner in which power is obtained, exercised and controlled, the purposes for which it is used, the manner in which decisions are made, factors which influence the making of those decisions and the context in which those decisions take place.

•  During the early phase of development of modern political science Frederick Watkins in his work State as a Concept of Political Science in 1934 had observed that "The proper scope of political science is not the study of the state or of any other specific institutional complex, but the investigation of all associations insofar as they can be shown to exemplify the problem of power".

•  Politics as a power concept was later on looked by William A. Robson who confirmed about the nature of Politics and Political system in the perspective of power "It is with power in society that political science is primarily concerned—its nature, basis, processes, scope and results ... The 'focus of interest' of the political scientist is clear and unambiguous; it centers on the struggle to gain or retain power, to exercise power or influence over others, or to resist that exercise".

•  The concept of political power is a key concept in the study of politics for if politics is the resolution of conflict, the distribution of power within a political community determines how the conflict is to be resolved.

Conclusion:

Politics as a power concept it is generally agreed but Political philosophers claimed that Politics is the struggle for power or the influencing of those in power, and embraces the struggle between states as well as between organized groups within the state. Politics is an organized dispute about power and its use, involving choice among competing values, ideas, persons, interests and demands. 

Advanced Reading: Realistic perspective regarding power:

The major emphasis of realist is to seek power in order to survive the sovereignty of the state, for the purpose of politics, should be defined as the supremacy of coercive power rather than that of legal authority. Because, the one that is sovereign is the one that can substantiate its claim, and the state certainly does so because it possesses the power of armed force. 

•  In the ‘Leviathan’ of Thomas Hobbes, he tells us that man desires power and even greater power, which becomes the root cause of competition among individuals. 

• But at the same time, men like to live in peace in order to enjoy the power that they possess. 
• So, they are disposed to live under a common power. 

•  After Hobbes, Hegel talks about absolute sovereign power of the state to the extent of discarding all ethics of international morality. Among the leading advocates of this theory, Prof. H. J. Morgenthau says that politics is nothing but a struggle for power. The power theory found its concrete manifestation, when the Italian Dictator Benito Mussolini declared ‘nothing against the state, nothing above it’ giving birth to the ideology of fascism.

Conclusion:

Power is thus one of the key concepts in political theory. It is the ability to control others and make them do what one wants. It is both normative and empirical, i.e., it is also a fact as well as a value to be pursued. It is a very comprehensive term, identified with related themes like authority, influence, control and the like. It is integrally connected with the case of political legitimacy. Legitimate power is authority. On the other hand, influence is a wider term where sanctions may not be used. Power is then a special case of influence.

Difference between Power and Authority

•  In political theory, power is the central issue, whether it is clothed in law that qualifies it or whether authority that renders obedience to it voluntarily sustains it. Power is force, exercised by the state in the name of law. 

•  The concepts of “power” and “authority” are related ones. But a distinction between them is necessary. Both the terms refer to different properties. But, because of their logical grammar being commonly misconstrued, unnecessary difficulty has arisen. 

•  However, they are the names of not different, but related entities of which one somehow depends on the other.

Power:

•  The precise connotation of power became difficult, when the term became inter- changeable with several related themes like control, influence, authority, force, domination, coercion and the like. Power capacity includes skills and techniques in the use of consent and constraint, as well as the ability to persuade, threaten or coerce to gain ascendancy over other states. States vary notably in power capacity. 

o  Robert Dahl in his work Modern Political Analysis in 1991, defines power as a kind of influence; it is exercised 'when compliance is attained by creating the prospect of severe sanctions for non-compliance'.

o  Stephen L. Wasby in his book “Political Science: The Discipline and its Dimensions in 1972” has similarly observed: "Power is generally thought to involve bringing about an action by someone against the will or desire of another."

Authority:

•  In common parlance, Authority consists of two important components which are Power and Legitimacy. (Authority = Power + Legitimacy). The authority to give orders is the right of recipience. For example, when a minister is authorized (or empowered) by a statute to make regulations, this not only allows him to do something (i.e., he has the right of action) but also imposes an obligation on citizens to conform to the regulations that he may make. Thus, his authority gives him a right to issue them.

•  Authority is Legitimate Power. In layman’s notion to sharply distinguish between power and authority we can think of power as a naked sword and authority may be envisaged as a sword in its scabbard. Power can be based on brute use of force, but authority is exercised with reasonable use of force and legitimate means. Power is based on fear or force, legitimacy is based on respect and willing compliance. 

Max Weber (1864-1920) attempted to identify authority prevalent in the modern state. He attributed three types of authority. 

1. Firstly, traditional authority involves the right to rule as established by tradition, such as hereditary or dynastic rule. 

2. Secondly, charismatic authority results from exceptional personal characteristics of the political leader, or his magnetic personality, as exemplified by Hitler. 

3. Finally, legal-rational authority emanates from the political office held by an individual, where he is appointed through the prescribed procedure, such as merit-based selection, promotion, election, rotation or nomination.

Historical background of authority:

•  Historical applications of authority in political terms include the formation of the city-state of Geneva, and experimental treatises involving the topic of authority in relation to education include Emile by Jean-Jacques Rousseau. As David Laitin defines, authority is a key concept to be defined in determining the range and role of political theory, science and inquiry. 

•  The relevance of a grounded understanding of authority includes the basic foundation and formation of political, civil and/or ecclesiastical institutions or representatives. In recent years, however, authority in political contexts has been challenged or questioned.

Criticism on the Weberian model of authority:

•  Political Scientists like David Beetham point out that Weber's ‘Three legitimating ideas’, while helping us understand what is distinctive about modern as opposed to the pre-modern systems of authority, are inadequate for characterizing the different regime types which have existed in the course of the twentieth century.  

•  Unlike Weber who would try to fit regimes into the three typologies, or alternatively, see regimes as mixtures of two types, Beetham prefers a broad framework for understanding the processes and grounds of obedience. His framework consists of three levels or standards for understanding political authority. 

Reliance on authority affecting the nature of power:

Authority is the most effective instrument of exercising power in the sphere of politics. The reliance on authority is directly proportional to governability, which means the more reliance on authority or use of legitimacy the more will be the acceptability of governing institutions and the nature of power will be based on consensus. Thus, leading to a state where power is not mere means of domination but an instrument of reasonable force necessary to run a state.

•  The power to make other people do what a person requires may depend on the fact that he holds a special office. 

o  By virtue of holding that office, that person has the authority to ask certain requirements of other people.

o  People do what he requires because they acknowledge his authority. 

o  He requires his authority and others’ acceptance of it. 

•  We can, therefore, think of authority as a specific kind of ability or power to make other people do what one wants them to do. 

•  This specific ability or power is coordinated with coercive power. 

o  The possession of coercive force is one way of getting people to do what a person requires; it is one specific form of power. 

o  The possession of authority, if it is acknowledged, is another. 

Conclusion:

Authority refers to a modified form of power in that it is not simply a manifestation of the capacity to change, but also a right to change. The element which gives authority this distinctive character, is legitimacy. It is legitimacy, which makes obedience to authority willing and binding. Until the advent of modernity, the idea of delegitimate authority had remained marginal to the understanding of political authority. Max Weber with his contribution enriched the concept of authority, he clearly defines the three models of authority and Legitimacy. 

Theories of Power

Theories of Power were majorly distinguished under three strands. Each one is way different from each other but the common between them is the way they explain power as it is the common thread between them. 

●  Michael foucault on power 

●  Marxian theory of Power

●  Liberal Democratic Theory 

Foucault on power:

Foucault’s analysis has opened up new ways of looking at power in society, not so much as a juridical concept as a socially networked relations of domination and subjugation. To understand the real nature of power, one has to move away from the juridical edifice of sovereignty, the state apparatuses and the accompanying ideologies. Instead, attention should be paid to domination and the material operators of power. One should focus on the form of subjection and the inflection and utilizations of their localized systems and on the strategic apparatuses. 

•  According to Foucault, in common parlance, power has been viewed in reductionist term. 

•  It is the top-down vision that has always looked at power as a striking force and a visible and effective meat-power. 

•  Those who hold power at the top are favorably stationed to take advantage of a number of apparatuses and devices–particular techniques, knowledge, modalities of political power. 

o  In other words, they have the means of power to which they have access because of the strategic positions they occupy. 

•  A senior bureaucrat, because of his position, can easily accord sanction to a project or stop it when things are not working out to his satisfaction. 

•  In Foucault’s analysis, to ascribe all phenomena of power to the prevailing power apparatuses is a form of unrealistic reductionism. 

•  Power, in this view, is not what and where people think it is. In reality, it is the expression of hundreds of micro-processes defining various currents coming from a multitude of different sources.

Foucault is generally critical of "theories" that try to give absolute answers to "everything." For this reason, he makes clear that power cannot be completely described as:

•  A group of institutions and/or mechanisms whose aim it is for a citizen to obey and yield to the state (a typical liberal definition of power)

•  Yielding to rules (a typical psychoanalytical definition of power); or

•  A general and oppressing system where one societal class or group oppresses another (a typical feminist or Orthodox Marxist definition of power).

Advanced Reading: C. Wright Mills:

•  Maverick sociologist and social critic C. Wright Mills produced the influential book ‘The Power Elite in 1956’, six years before his death. 

•  The power elite, according to Mills, is composed of men who occupy positions of authority in major institutions and organizations in the economic, political, and military arenas.

o  These power elites are wealthy, have prestigious jobs, and wield extraordinary decision-making powers. Even their decisions not to act can be influential.

o  The concentration of wealth and power into the hands of the few is especially noteworthy, according to Mills, as economic, political, and military institutions are more connected than separate.

•  C. Wright Mills asserted that by occupying the strategic command posts of the social structure, they form a more or less compact social and psychological entity and have become self-conscious members of a social class. 

•  People are either accepted into this class or they are not, and there is a qualitative split, rather than merely a numerical scale, separating them from those who are not elite.

•  The idea of such decision-making stratum implies that most of its members have similar social origins, that throughout their lives they maintain a network of informal connections, and that to some degree there is an interchangeability of position between the various hierarchies of money and power and celebrity. 

•  Power elite is composed of men whose positions enable them to transcend the ordinary environments of ordinary men and women; they are in positions to make decisions having major consequences. Whether they do or do not make such decisions is less important than the fact that they do occupy such pivotal positions: their failure to act, their failure to make decisions, is itself an act that is often of greater consequence than the decisions they do make. 

Advanced Reading: Marx and Weber:

Marx viewed the concept of power in terms of Class perspective. According to this theory political power is the product of economic power. 

•  In other words, the tree of political power grows on the roots of economic power; the edifice of political power is raised on the foundation of economic power. 

•  Economic power is vested in the ownership of means of social production.

Marx asserted that power is held by a minority (the elite or bourgeoisie), who had access to capital and could use their capital to capture power, social hierarchy and generate wealth.

“Political power, properly so called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another” – Karl Marx.

•  Max Weber explored the political, epistemological, and ethical problems of modernity, and understood how closely connected they were and allowed no way back to package “power” into the sole tradition of political theory. 

•  Weber’s definition of power in society has remained the starting point for many sociologists. 

•  He defined power as being: “the ability of an individual or group to achieve their own goals or aims when others are trying to prevent them from realizing them. 

o  From this analysis, we can derive that Weber identified power as being either authoritative or coercive.In contrast to Karl Marx, Max Weber focuses on political power and generalizes it to economic power. He emphasized that economics alone could not explain the power structure prevailing in the society which is a result of various historic and sociological factors. 

•  Karl Marx’s perspective on power recognized 'class' as the organizing category for exercising power in society. Those who managed to grab ownership of the means of social production organized themselves into the 'dominant class' which in itself is the power structure which exercises and influences power through its domination. 

•  While on the other hand Max Weber deals power primarily in the context of society and state and does not limit the origin of power on the grounds of economy.

Advanced Reading: Mussolini:

•  State is the central figure in the study of political science. State is the core concept of analysis in political science. 

•  J.W. Garner has rightly said that “political science begins and ends with the state”.

•  “Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State.” Benito Mussolini’s formulation remains one of the most enduring definitions of modern totalitarianism. Italy’s Fascist regime was the first to declare itself totalitarian, and it envisioned a radically new social order engineered by the state.

o  It is also one of example of fascist state along with that of Hitler in Germany. 

o  Mussolini himself was the philosopher of fascism. 

o  He said no one, be it individual or institution can be against state. 

o  According to him, individuals have no rights but only duties towards the state. 

o  One should be ready to sacrifice oneself at the altar of the state. 

o  He used to say the Leader is superman and even he is above the constitution and unquestionable obedience towards it. 

o  Benito Mussolini’s formulation in this statement remains one of the most enduring definitions of modern totalitarianism.

o  This notion was his simplified understanding of fascism, the authority of state remains unchallenged.

Conclusion:

The statement “Everything in the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State”, directs towards fascism which is a political ideology. It is deep-seated as an authoritarian nationalism. There is supremacy of the state and nothing can view beyond the state. 

The state is totalitarian and controls both public and private life of its subjects. There are no rights but only duties of citizens towards state and there should be absolute obedience to the state. 
Fascism is a type of far-reaching authoritarian nationalism that evolved in early 20th-century Europe, influenced by national syndicalism. 

Hannah Arendt 

Hannah Arendt’s concept of Power:

•  Hannah Arendt was a German Jew philosopher. She is among one of those political philosophers who distinguished between 'violence' and 'power' to arrive at a constructive view of power. In her view, when rulers use force to fulfill their design against the wishes of the people, it may be called 'violence'. On the other hand, power essentially belongs to the people. 

•  Analysis of power in society is not concerned with the question: 'Who rules whom?' It has nothing to do with 'command-obedience relationship'. Hannah views political institutions as 'manifestations and materializations of power'. In other words, when people act according to the principles of power, their achievements take the form of political institutions.

•  In her notable work On Violence (1969) Hannah Arendt gives some hints of her very complex concept of power. She suggests that power is 'not the property of an individual'. It 'corresponds to the human ability not just to act but to act in concert.' She believes that power relations are essentially cooperative. Power in this sense belongs to a group and remains in existence only so long as the group holds together. Power is the quality of individuals acting and speaking together. While the outcome of their power may be retained in the shape of various political institutions, power itself cannot be stored or held in possession.

•  The public character of power and its significance was brilliantly brought out by Hannah Arendt in her essay 'On Public Happiness' (1970). Arendt holds that power keeps the public realm together While violence threatens its existence. According to Arendt, power is the quality of the people constituting the public realm. Arendt warns: "Where genuine power is absent, violence may emerge to fill the gap."

Conclusion:

Arendt' s concept of power condemns the use of force or violence by the state and exhorts the people to cooperate in order to create and sustain a social order in which power is not the possession of an individual but it is jointly associated with a group of people who are part of social order.

Advanced Reading: Political Philosophy:

•  Hannah Arendt (1906-1975) was born in Hanover, Germany. She was a public intellectual, refugee, and observer of European and American politics. She is especially known for her interpretation of the events that led to the rise of totalitarianism in the twentieth century. Arendt understands “politics” as public debate by a community about meaningful aspects of their shared life together.

•  Hannah Arendt once said in describing political western tradition, “Our tradition of political thought had its definite beginning in the teachings of Plato and Aristotle. I believe it came to no less definite end in the theories of Karl Marx.”

•  Hannah Arendt’s political insights offer fertile and robust ground in understanding politics in a more uncanny and original way. Arendt’s depiction of the bipolarity of human action i.e., political and anti-political, indeed provides us the ways and means to deal with politics and what makes politics a pure, quixotic political activity.

•  Arendt wishes to interrogate and challenge the entire tradition of political philosophy for its lack of sense of historicity and ability to protect political life from the gradual encroachment of sociality.

•  Arendt’s thought was almost generally accepted as a celebration of the polis way of life. This polis, according to some political thinkers, is supposed to take the status of a paradigm by which modern political experiences are judged. This thesis is usually referred to as Arendt’s Graecomania.

•  Arendt celebrates the sphere of politics, called the vita activa, since it is the sphere where individuals reveal their unique selves through ‘action.’ Hannah Arendt refused to measure the worth of the political realm by the standards of contemplation or the vita contemplativa.

•  Arendt’s articulation of political thinking is a gradual process that takes place through her treatment of many different subjects at different levels and through different perspectives.

Conclusion:

Arendt does not see politics as simply a transactional activity by individuals endowed with the capacity to act. But rather, politics offers novelty and it is its own end, a form of culture, although elusive, its essence. Arendt argues that politics is its own end, that is, it is done for its own sake, not for the sake of something else other than itself. As an activity, it is not directed toward another end, as if politics is a means to an end. Arendt does not subscribe to a so-called instrumental conception of politics.

Advanced Reading: Role of ideology in modern totalitarian regimes:

•  Hannah Arendt (1906–1975) was a thinker of the first order but one who defies easy categorization. She fits uneasily into a category such as liberal, conservative, libertarian, or radical. And while she humbly eschewed the title philosopher. Her greatest contribution to political thought is her analysis of the rise of the twentieth-century totalitarian state.

•  Arendt’s views on the political and the anti-political by drawing much of her thoughts from two of her major works namely: The Human Condition and The Origins of Totalitarianism but, of course, her works are not limited to it. Arendt, however, tends to define ideology in dynamic terms, insisting that it is mainly a broad formula for social change.

•  Hannah Ardent argued that ideology is the tool which enables the state to mobilize its manpower and other resources for a goal which is declared to embody the absolute truth. 

•  In her view, Ideologies are known for their scientific character, they combine the scientific approach with results of philosophical relevance and pretend to be scientific philosophy. The word "ideology" seems to imply that an idea can become the subject matter.

•  Arendt presents totalitarian society as a society which has been deliberately atomized so that it may become the material for total domination. In the perspective of Ardent, development of a dominant ideological social structure leads to emergence of a totalitarian regime.

•  “The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the convinced Communist, but people for whom the distinction between true and false no longer exists.”—Hannah Arendt

•  To conclude we can say that when ideology is conceived as an instrument of motivating people for the achievement of predetermined goals, it comes close to totalitarianism. Some writers like Hannah Arendt therefore assert that ideology in this sense is found only in totalitarian systems, it has no place in an open society.

Advanced Reading: Concept of labor, work and action

•  Arendt distinguishes and categorizes three fundamental elements of human activities: labor, work, and action. Each of these holds a certain character and undertakes particular processes.

•  “The new beginning inherent in birth can make itself felt in the world only because the newcomer possesses the capacity of beginning something new, that is, of acting.” - Hannah Ardent 

•  Ardent believes that though labor, work, and action are distinct in operations and processes, these three assume an equal role in an overall activity of human beings. Arendt places ‘labor’ and ‘work’ to the household – the private realm, while ‘action’ to the public realm. Ardent also revealed that the capacity to do things on their own, to create or begin something new, and to expect the unexpected is due to freedom. 

•  She explains “Labor assures not only individual survival, but the life of the species. Work and its product, the human artifact, bestow a measure of permanence and durability upon the futility of moral life and the fleeting character of human time. Action, in so far as it engages in founding and preserving political bodies, creates the condition for remembrance, that is, for history.”

•  Further explaining her stand, she clarified this does not mean that ‘action’ is better than labor and work since these two pre-political activities are prerequisites by which one needs to satisfy before one decides to enter into the public realm.

Conclusion:

Labor is concerned with “life itself,” an activity that aims for the survival of the body. Work is concerned with “worldliness,” or craftsmanship. It directs the person’s activity to build human artifices. It is an activity that aims for immortality, while action is characterized by human plurality, freedom, and equality. Plurality, according to Arendt, “is the condition of human action because we are all the same, that is, human, in such a way that nobody is ever the same as anyone else who ever lived, lives, or will live.”

Theory of Circulation of Elites

Introduction:

•  The circulation of elite is a theory of regime change described by Italian sociologist Vilfredo Pareto (1848–1923).

•  Changes of regime, revolutions, and so on occur not when rulers are overthrown from below, but when one elite replaces another. The role of ordinary people in such transformation is not that of initiators or principal actors, but as followers and supporters of one elite or another.

•  Pareto’s theory of the elites has exercised a massive influence and has proved altogether more acceptable. But as he states it, his theory is just the beginning of wisdom. To begin with. he concentrates solely on the traits of inferiority and superiority and of psychological type.

The Concept:

•  According to Pareto, all men are not equal. They differ among themselves in regard to their capacities and abilities. Some are more intelligent, efficient and capable than others. On account of this difference in regard to abilities, there is social stratification. Some belong to the superior class by virtue of their higher qualifications.

Pareto has distinguished two classes of elites. These are: 

•  Governing Elites. In this class are included persons who are directly or indirectly concerned with administration. These persons play a highly important role and enjoy a prestigious place in society.

•  Non-Governing Elites. In this class are included persons who are not connected with administration but occupy such a place in society that they somehow influence the administration.

In every society there are two main groups: 

•  The one is concerned with the government and usually controls the means of production and is therefore rich.  

•  The other group is constituted by those who are poor and governed. 

An elite may degenerate into non-elite and an non-elite may rise to the level of elite. This exchange between classes is technically known as circulation of the elites.

No society can maintain status quo indefinitely, there are bound to be changes which may adversely class does its best to prevent the entry of the member of non-governing class into its fold, it is not always successful in this.  

As Pareto observes, history is a graveyard of aristocracies. They do not last long; they are doomed to disappear by thinking down their membership. 

The up and down movement of the elite takes place in two ways:

•  Firstly, some non-elite by their merit may rise to the level of elite.

•  Secondly, by revolution the entire governing class may be reduced to the status of the governed. 

•  Indeed, in the opinion of Pareto, the circulation of the elite is necessary for healthy social change. 

•  A slowing down of this circulation of individuals may result in a considerable increase of the degenerate elements in the classes which still hold power, and on the other hand, in an increase of elements of superior quality in subject classes. 

•  In such cases the social equilibrium becomes unstable and the slightest shock will destroy it. 

•  A conquest or revolution produces an upheaval which brings a new elite to power and establishes a new equilibrium.

Characteristics of elites:

1. The individuals not belonging to either of the governing elite or non-governing elite are called non-elite.

2. The class of elite is universal and continuous process.

3. The elite manipulate overtly or covertly the political power.

4. The elite is having the capacity to establish superiority over others.

5. The members of the elite class will always try that the non- elites should not influence social, economic and political processes in any manner.

6. The non-elites respect only such elites who are liberal in outlook and approach, because they alone can help them to come nearer to each other.

7. Circulation or upward and downward circulation amongst the members of the elite and non-elite is a typical characteristic of the elite.

•  Following the Machiavellian formula, Pareto states that the elites are able to manipulate and control the masses by resorting to two methods: Force or Fraud, which corresponding to Machiavelli’s famous anti-thesis between the ‘Lions” and the “Foxes”.

•  The “Foxes” are the elites abundantly endowed with residues of the first class (Residues of combinations). They are capable of innovation and experiment, prefer materialistic to idealistic goals, but lack fidelity to principles and use strategies that vary from emotional appeal to unadulterated fraud.

•  The “Lions” are conservative elites in whom the second class of residues (Persistence of aggregates) predominates. They have faith and ideology; they display group loyalty and class solidarity; they gain and retain power by the use of force.

Criticism:

•  Pareto fails to provide a method of measuring and distinguishing between the supposedly superior qualities of the elite. He simply assumes that the qualities of the elite are superior to those of the mass. His criterion for distinguishing between “lion and foxes” is merely his own interpretation of the style of the elite rule. 

•  Moreover, Pareto fails to provide a way of measuring the process of elite decadence. He suggests that, if elite is closed to recruitment from below, it is likely to rapidly lose its vigour and vitality and have a short life.

•  Talcott Parsons criticized Pareto that he failed to define the conditions governing changes in the proportions of residues. He has not said anything about biological and genetic factors, “bearing upon these changes.”

•  Mitchell also criticized that Paretean scheme has a meta-physical strength along with an empirical weakness.

•  Pareto’s concept of residues and their part in the social change is not clearly defined.

Conclusion:

•  But in spite of these criticisms his circulation of elites is a very important contribution to study of sociology.

•  ‘By the circulations of elites, “Pareto wrote, “the governing elite is in a state of continuous and slow transformation. It flows like a river, and what it is today is different from what it was yesterday. Every so often, there are sudden and violent disturbances. 

•  The river floods and breaks its banks. Then afterwards, the new governing elite resume again and slow process of self-transformation. The river returns to its bed and once more flows freely on.”