Power, in sociological terms, is a subject that has many different definitions, resulting in a wide variety of views and concepts of what it is, how it is studied and how it can be manipulated. In this essay I hope to analyse this definition with reference to some of the many theories proposed by sociologists over the years. It can be said without doubt that power is exercised by one party or another within all social relationships. However, this power can be manifested in many different forms within these relationships, and is often dependent on the form of social relationship that is in operation.
For example, a social relationship could be in the form of two individuals interacting. E. g. Husband and wife.
In this case the form and balance of power is not set, (although, according to traditional values, some would argue that the male has power over the female. ) in modern day situations these are determined by many complex factors such as, social class, level of earnings, and the effects that having children have on a relationship.The power in this form of relationship is very different to that of an individual to an institution, for example a conductor's relationship to an orchestra. In this relationship the power is pre-determined and firmly with the conductor.
It is non-interchangeable; the orchestra must follow the conductor's instructions in order to accomplish their goals. However, this is a very different form of power to that in a one-on-one relationship, as here there is no struggle for power, the orchestra have no desire to take the power from the conductor as they are all working toward a mutual goal.This analysis contradicts the initial definition of power stating that power is the capacity to enforce behaviour against their will. This theory is in keeping with Talcott Parsons' view of power, which states that power is a 'system resource', "a generalised facility or resource in society, which enables the achievement of collective goals through the agreement of members of a society to legitimise leadership positions whose incumbents further goals. "1 The contrasting view of power is that held by Max Weber, among others.
Weber's definition was that power was, "the probability that an actor in a social relationship will be in a position to carry out his own will despite, despite resistance, regardless of the basis on which this probability rests. "2 This view can be said to be no less right or wrong than that of Parsons, although it may not fit the example of the orchestra and conductor, it could be more explicative of a relationship between two institutions such as two armies. In this relationship there is an absolute power struggle, with both sides attempting to impose their will onto the other.In this relationship there is cooperation between the two sides, both are trying to over power the other. The overall goal of war is to force the opponent into submission, therefore making the opponent do something that they would not otherwise do, which brings us back to the original definition of power. When talking about real life situations, the tragic events of September 11th 2001 are very interesting to analyse with respect to who had power and who didn't.
The United States of America is said to be the world's only 'super power'.This term relates to the country's economic status and defence capabilities, both of which are currently matched by no other country. The fact that America is the most powerful country in the world means that by the definition of power they have the capacity to impose their will on any other country or person throughout the world. Yet, as we know from the events of September 11th, this is not entirely true. It is widely thought, however so far unproven that Osama Bin Laden and his Al-Quaida terrorist organisation were responsible for the hijacking and crashing of the four aeroplanes.
Assuming that this is true, the organisation must also be said to be powerful. They indeed forced America into acts they would have not wished to carry out ordinarily, such as sending thousands of emergency workers into a life-threatening situation, where in fact many did actually loose their lives. They were also forced into an act of retaliation, which culminated in waging war against the government of Afghanistan, obviously actions that they would have preferred not to have to take.They also were forced into taking economic measures to avoid a major recession.
All this evidence would indicate that the Al-Quaida organisation had power over America as they enforced actions upon the country that they did not wish to take. However, America eventually proved their superior power by forcing the government out of Afghanistan, and forcing the leading members of Al-Quaida into hiding. Despite the fact that this example clearly fits the definition of discussion, there is another aspect to this example not yet discussed.Within both sides of the overall power struggle there were smaller but no less significant forms of power. Bertrand Russell defined three main forms of power over human beings; direct physical power over the body; inducement by reward and punishment; and influence by opinion.
In the example the first form of power is most evident, however, if you are to examine more closely, there are examples of the other two forms of power as well.In the American military there is a leadership hierarchy, this involves a power structure as well, although a different kind of power. The power in this relationship is more of the second and third types mentioned. The more senior officers have more power as they are respected by their juniors, and have the authority to command them. On the Al-Quaida side there is evidence of this kind of power as well, by the obvious hierarchy of the organisation, but in addition to his there is an abundance of the final form of power; influence by opinion.This is mostly in the form of propaganda, terrorist organisations often use propaganda to recruit new members and convince them to carry out their attacks.
So the underlying question as to the sufficiency of the original statement is whether you can have power without making people do things against their will. It could be argued that the types of power discussed such as conductor and orchestra do not wish to coerce those they have power over into doing things against their will.However, in the original definition it states that power is having the capacity to achieve this, and whether or not these people wish to use this, they do undoubtedly have this capacity. After all a conductor could, if he so wished, alter the performance of the orchestra. Therefore I think it is impossible to have power without having at least the capacity, if not the intention, to control the behaviour to some degree of the people you have power over.
If you weren't able to control anything then you would have no means with which to exert your power and therefore have no power.
