Please type your name here
Please type your instructor name here
The concept of ‘Power’ in Political Science
Power, most simplistically defined is the ability of an individual to influence others or act in a given situation so as to influence or control or even manipulate the situation for a specific purpose. Power and its usage is something that has evolved as long as the human history itself. There is political power, power of position, power of an authority, all having different meanings and relevance to different situations. Power has been discussed and was a subject of literature right from the times of Socrates till now.
/>
The concept of power is ubiquitous. There are enough social theories that speak of power. Literature from Plato, Aristotle, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Pareto, to Weber have demonstrated several social theories that drew attention to power. Power with all its synonyms has different meanings and influences on people. Power is associated with individuals because of their position or simply their ability to convince people to do or act in a certain manner. Power is not a relation; it is rather a very complex topic. Power is associated with a variety of situations like wealth, authority and politics.
Power can actually be distinguished into soft power and hard power. The ability to influence actions, decisions, through coercion of influence is called soft power. Hard power, on the contrary, is the typical concept of military and economic might, in an effort to influence and enforce one’s will on another. Power is often associated with wealth, as money can be used to promote social prominence or can even be used to bribe, cajole, or even block various forces in a specific interest. Power is also closely related to realism, because power provides a sense of security through a simple logic that others will not influence you, when you have the ability to influence them.
There is also a sociological angle to power and there is a strong debate that there is an enabling nature to power. Michael Foucault saw defined power as “a complex strategic situation in a given social setting,” making power both constraining and enabling. Power may be acquired through authority, delegated authority, social class, resources, personal charisma, ascribed power, expertise, persuasion, knowledge, force, group dynamics, or tradition. Theorists like Galbraith, Grier, among others have defined power that could be aggressive and even manipulative.
Power tactics are common in an effort to push or promote people into specific action. The tactics could include acts of bullying, criticism, demanding, collaborating, and complaining, evading, humour, inspiring, manipulation, supplicating, socializing, or even negotiating. These power tactics can also be categorized into three different ways, namely, softness, rationality, and laterality.
Soft tactics usually take advantage of the relationship between the influencer and the target. They are often indirect and interpersonal. Hard tactics are direct and forceful and are aimed at creating concrete outcomes. However, hard tactics are not powerful than soft tactics. Typical rational tactics use reasoning, logic, and sound judgement at one end of the spectrum, and using emotionality and mis-information on the other end of non-rational tactics. Typical bilateral tactics include collaboration and negotiation, and usually have reciprocity as a fundamental concept. Unilaterality on the other hand is enacted without participation by the target, including dis-engagement and fait accomply.
Power is sometimes very intoxicating, especially for those who wield it. The forms of power and its influence on civil society are a very interesting subject to learn from, especially for those students of philosophy. The role power plays and the rain dance affect that it can have on individuals is well played out in the American history and its leadership, and this paper further studies the role power has played in American politics over the last few decades.
American polity has moved very far from the days of minors and railroad builders to an extremely objective and value based system that it is today. Gone are the days of intense lobbying today as the world moves forward. American politics has moved from being a rightist approach to that of a balanced and matured polity keeping in minds, as usual, at the uppermost level the interest of the American citizens either in the United States or anywhere else in the world.
The American political system today, directly or indirectly, seeks to influence all those systems in the world that have a direct impact on its citizens. There have been instances where Americans have actually warned many nations about prospective terrorist strikes. These warnings have been possible due to the superior intelligence systems.
Henry Kissinger, in his book The New World Order gives the readers a true picture of the rise and fall of international relations among the European superpowers from Richelieu to The Second World War, and later, the tribunal of American foreign policy during the Cold War. As already stated, the outline of this book encompasses a lot of historical information by weaving it together in an excellent manner. While at a level of generalization, imposed of inevitability by the need to keep the book within the range of thousand pages, that sporadically calls into question the accurateness of the Kissinger's discernment of national, though not extensively global events, and obliges him at other times to exclude a few ideas which might improve understanding of the various themes presented in the book.
One of the most important and essential premises of Kissinger in this book is what he refers to as the ‘legalistic or ‘Wilsonian’ foreign policy of the United States all through the nation’s era of international relations. By referring the American foreign policy to be ‘legalistic’ the author means to say the same to be an ethical foreign policy. The author proudly states that no other nation of the world has influenced its foreign policy and international relations as determinedly and ambivalently as the United States in the twentieth century.
There is an amazing connection between the enduring wars and conflicts on one side with diplomats struggling to balance the circumstances on the other side. It is this deed of diplomats that probably drive the conduct of the various countries during times of warfare and reconciliation. So it can be aptly right to infer that the deeds of combat drive diplomacy, and diplomacy drives warfare on the other hand.
Constitutional governments are normally characterized by precise manacles that are actually recognized by the law of the land and imposed on power holders in order for them to make sure that the rights of their countrymen would not by any chance contravened. Constitutionalism exemplifies the standard that government is ordered by, and operated on behalf of the people. On the other hand, the same is believed to be subject to numerous restraints in order to make sure non-abuse of power.
Kissinger writes in a convention old for Europe but only in recent times recognized in the United States, by George Kennan and Walter Lippmann particularly, both of whom he often cites to support his own perceptions. ‘Like Lippmann in several of his later books, and like Kennan in his American Diplomacy, Kissinger does not write as a historian but as a pamphleteer using history to make his case.”
No society other than the United States has more firmly insisted on the permissibility of involvement in the domestic affairs of other states, or more fervently asserted that its own principles were unanimously applicable. That was exactly the trend of the United States foreign policy in the twentieth century. Fascinatingly, none other than Henry Kissinger knows this fact better. This is because he was involved in this trend for more than a decade. “When Kissinger was the secretary of state, several hundred thousand Bangladeshis were killed during and after the war of liberation of East Pakistan, now Bangladesh. He became a controversial figure because of intervention in the domestic affairs of other countries.”
What needs to be appreciated here is the fact that the warnings have gone way beyond to traditional American allies. This alone is a reflection of changed scenario and the maturity with which the American polity is being able to handle the requirements of today’s world. As reality changes, American politics have also changed and adapted themselves to new reality.
An enormous amount of spirit and racial unity made the Black power Movement a dynamic even in the American History. A point that is to be noted in this regard is that all this was achieved through non-violence whereas in the case of the black power movement, Malcolm X passed a strong message to all black youngsters that the racism by the white community can be effectively handled only by force and not through the path of non-violence (Learn History).
The Black Power Movement resulted in many positive developments. The most significant of all the positive developments was the kind of influence it had over the black community.
The Black Power Movement was a very significant and important event in the history of the United States and was also believed to be one which instilled a feeling of superiority and self-respect among the black community. The Black Power Movement was believed to be an effort among black people to gain independence in terms of economic status, social status and political status.
The implementation of black power took a wide range of forms, such as implementing militant acts of insolence, founding businesses owned by blacks, forcing schools and colleges to create and implement various programs with relevance to black studies, electing people from the black community to work in public offices, and organizing communities of black group people. By the early 1970's the Black Power movement had dissolute most of its goals which were adopted from the civil rights movement.
The Autobiography of Malcolm X written by Alex Haley is an extremely serious novel that speaks about Malcolm X who was the man behind the Black Power Movement that took place during the 1960s and various other serious yet delicate political issues that took place in the history of the United States of America. Malcolm X narrated and edited the book that for the most part was written and organized by Alex Haley. Massive amount of information on the socio-economic and cultural situations prevailing in the life of black citizens of the United States between the years 1925 – 1965 is presented in this great work.
At every turn of his life, Malcolm holds such strong views that it is foreseeable that his worldview at the time of writing or narrating the book to Haley. Therefore, from the very start, the readers become familiar with Malcolm both through his personal life history and through the views the history inspires the narrator to express.
The Great Depression has been explained in the book by highlighting its role in the poverty that prevailed in those days with specific reference to the standard of living of Malcolm X and his family. Another historical event that has been highlighted in the book is the Second World War and this event is described in chapter four of the book. However, the author does not focus much on explaining about this event. Along with these, one another event of American history that has been discussed in detail in the book is the Civil Rights Movement and this comprises major part of the book. Actually, Civil Rights Movement forms an integral part of Malcolm X’s Autobiography.
When it comes to the case of Malcolm X, he personally believed in pursuing aggressive and violent behavior towards the problems of the blacks and the Afro-Asian community. Violence as history has proved time and again is not a solution to any problem. Probably, it only serves to garner the attention and raise mass hysteria in a short window of time. Other than that, violence contributes to larger degradation of social values, social behavior, and society at large. It serves no useful means in the longer run. This can be seen from the days of the aggressive behavior of Alexander the great, Mussolini, Hitler in the recent times. Peaceful approaches have generated values and knowledge for generations to com. This is evident from the days of Socrates, Buddhism, and more recently Mahatma Gandhi.
It is unfair and possible even disrespectful to talk about someone who is not around to defend self, more so when the personality is larger than life deeply rooted in history and has affected possible course of the future itself. It is extremely difficult to do such an analysis. However, while risking being disrespectful it is not a very bold statement to say violence is a primer instinct and is worth condemning. Violence in any form for whatever reason is condemnable. There can be no justification for violence in any situation.
The inspiration for President Obama – Mahatma Gandhi has repeatedly demonstrated successful use of non-violence as a principle and the world has followed it and so many difficult issues have been successfully resolved through deliberations – may be protracted but successful in the longer run.
The 44th President of the global superpower – the United States of America - Barack Obama is considered to be following the footsteps of its 16th President Abraham Lincoln. This trend can be noticed since the time he started his campaigning for his race to the White House. Barack Obama, previously a Senator from the state of Illinois, announced his intention to run for president on the birthday of Abraham Lincoln “from the steps of the Old State Capitol in Springfield, the site of Lincoln's "House Divided" speech, which launched Lincoln's own campaign for the Senate (Gerard).”
President Barack Obama despite taking over as the President under one of the most challenging situations, when unemployment was at the highest, the arms of economic recession having got a firm beer hug hold on the Americans, this man took it head on. Barack Obama chose to take long term approach to most of the problems following the footsteps of his idols Abraham Lincoln and Mahatma Gandhi and even today his image and popularity ratings are still taking a beating. This is when the Americans are behaving like typical Americans, hunger for immediate results, a sense of urgency, and instant gratification. Possibly, features of an adolescent culture, unlike many other cultures that have a history of thousands of years and are more likely and conducive for long term solutions.
Malcolm X is a typical American response for instant gratification. Violence is a means to it, according to him. Patience, perseverance, and stoic determination are necessary for taking a long term approach. It is with the intermittent long term approaches that the American polity has taken, the American society and social fabric has been strengthened. Myopic approaches do not result in anything other than instant gratification and more often than not compromising certain core principles of the general life and the string of humanity.
Works Cited
Adams, James Truslow. The Epic of America. Boston: Little Brown and Company, 1932.
Barrow, Mandy. World War II. n.d. 28 September 2014. <http://www.woodlands-junior.kent.sch.uk/Homework/Britain.html>.
Bohlen, Charles E. Transformation of American Foreign Policy. NY: W.W. Norton & Co,, 1969.
CountrysQuest. Industrialization and Urbanization - The New South. 2009. 28 September 2014. <http://www.countriesquest.com/north_america/usa/history/industrialization_and_urbanization/the_new_south.htm>.
Ellen Carol DuBois, Lynn Dumenil. "Shifting Boundaries: Expansion, Reform, and Civil Reform, 1840-1865 : Chapter 05." Ellen Carol DuBois, Lynn Dumenil. Through Women's Eyes: An American History with Documents (Second Ed). Bedford: St. Martin's, 2008.
Foucault, Michel. "Omnes et Singulatim: Towards a Criticism of 'Political Reason'." Stanford University. Stanford: Stanford University, 1979. 226.
Frederickson, George H. "Toward a New Public Administration." Hyde, Jay M. Shafritz & Albert C. Classics of Public Administration. (7th Ed). Boston, MA: Wadswroth, Cengage Learning, 2012. 296.
Gerard, Leo W. "Obama: Follow the Philosophical Steps of Lincoln." The Huffington Post 18 January 2009.
Goodnow, Frank J. "Politics and Administration." Hyde, Jay M. Shafritz & Albert C. Classics of Public Administration. (7th Ed.). Boston, MA: Wardswarth, Cengage Learning, 2012. 29.
Hodge, Cody. American Revolutionary War: Radical action or conservative reaction? 2010. 28 September 2014. <http://www.helium.com/items/1297501-american-revolution-radical-or-conservative-action>.
Hossain, Mohammad Amjad. "Smart power diplomacy dwindling." 03 December 2010. The Daily Star. 06 ecember 2010. <http://www.thedailystar.net/newDesign/news-details.php?nid=164518>.
Kaufman, Herbert. "Administrative Decentrralization and Political Power." Hyde, Jay M. Shafritz & Albert C. Classics of Public Administration. (7th Ed.). Boston, MA: Wardsworth, Cengage Learning, 2012. 264.
Keerti, DR. B. "Ethics of War and Diplomacy" Times Now - Prime Time. Times Now. Mumbai, Mumbai. 26 September 2014.
Kissinger, Henry. "The New World Order." Kissinger, Henry. Diplomacy. NY: Simon & SchusterPaperbacks Book Center, 1994. 915.
Learn History. USA - A Divided Union 1941-80. n.d. 30 September 2014. <http://www.learnhistory.org.uk/usa/blackpower.htm>.
Reed, Fred. Hopeless but not Critical The Problem of Race in America. n.d. 27 September 2014. <http://www.fredoneverything.net/Underclass.shtml>.
Rothenberg, Paula S. Race, Class, and Gender in the United States: An Integrated Study. New York: Worth, 2014.
Routledge. "First World War Studies." Journal of the International Society for First World War Studies (vol:4, Issue: 1) (2013).
Taylor, Kimberley Roberts & Stephen. United States of America. 2000. 28 September 2014. <http://www.cyborlink.com/besite/us.htm>.
The Jefforsonian Libertarian. The American Revolution - The Most Radical. 17 March 2009. 28 September 2014. <http://jeffersonianlib.blogspot.com/2008/12/american-revolution-most-radical.html>.
The United States Government. "Declaration of Independence." 04 July 1776. The Charters of Freedom - a new world is at hand. 28 Sepember 2014. <http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html>.
U.S. Department of State - Office of the Historian. American Entry into World War I, 1917. 2012. 27 September 2014. <http://history.state.gov/milestones/1914-1920/wwi>.
Wendt, Alexander. "Anarchy is What States Make of It." American Political Science Review 1994, 88 ed.
Winik, Jay. "Ethics and Foreign Policy." 1994.
