Sociology of Power and Leadership

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
The ‘Who Governs’ Problem
Analysis and Operation of Power
The Power Influence: Ambiguity of Leadership
Conclusion
References

Introduction

Sociologically, power is an individual’s ability to express will impulsively on others. There would be an expression of power between individuals despite resistance to compliance in any sort by a subject. The imposition of power, however, should not be done coercively. In sociology, power subsumes political power and physical power. The word power could nearly be thought of as the word influence. Whereas power functions reciprocally, though not always equally reciprocally, influence on one from another could be indirect. For instance, role models can influence their fans without necessarily expressing power on the later. Quansan considers power as follows:

More generally, one could define ‘power’ as the more or less unilateral ability (real or perceived) or potential to bring about significant change, usually in people’s lives, through the actions of oneself or gregarious beings (Quansan, 2009, p. 1).

This paper discusses power rather intensively. By this, the effect of unequal distributions such as wealth, knowledge, statutory positions, and access to ruler-ship which determine the imposition of will from one to another is studied, radically. This radical presentation will be built from both the political and theoretical views.

The ‘Who Governs’ Problem

The issue of quest for governance has a long history and still remains very relevant in present times. Obviously, the question of who assumes governance was thoughts-posed in Athens long before free thinkers like Aristotle and Plato took the matter up for study. Presently, developed and democratic America still grunts over challenges to decide who takes over power for leadership. The relevance of democracy is emphasized globally these days because societies are more convinced it is the best way to decide who is directly saddled with responsibility of influencing policies, decisions, and implementations. Through democracy, society supposes that power is within the control of the populace. And, individuals have says in what influence them. But then, the very base by which democracy stands is totally dependent of the contestation for even beneficiary in power, and it is not out of place to define democracy as ‘we must be partakers in the wills that govern us– we must be part of power’. Therefore, societies world over are accepting and adopting democratic governance as the best form of power expression, and the best form of implementing will. Unilateralism of power as stated by Quansan (2009, p. 1) is therefore meaningful. The total democratization of society is hardly achievable because of variation in factors that create power. Dahl argues:

Now it has always been held that if equality of power among citizens is possible at all– a point on which many political philosophers have had grave doubts– then surely considerable equality of social conditions is a necessary prerequisite. But if, even in America, with its universal creed of democracy and equity, there are great inequalities in the conditions of different citizens, must there not also be great inequalities in the capacities of different citizens to influence the decisions of their various governments? How does a “democratic” system work amid inequality of resources (Dahl, 1961, p. 5).

Dahl’s (1961, p. 5) argumentative point is interesting. It is interesting because it has emphasized that domestication of power is a mirage. Power will always remain a tussle because resources are not even. Power determinants: wealth; knowledge; statutory positions; access to ruler-ship; and the likes, are not even neither are they equal in distribution. Moreover, the very will to influence the wills of others is not common among individuals. This uncommon drive in individuals is referred by Bull as ‘order’; which is not parallel as stated in the following:

The order which men look for in social life is not any pattern or regularity in the relations of human individuals or groups, but a pattern that leads to a particular result, an arrangement of social life such that it promotes certain goals or values. In this purposive or functional sense, a number of books display order when they are not merely placed in a row, but are arranged according to their author or subject so as to serve the purpose or fulfill the function of selection (Bull, 1977, p. 3).

The instance when a fraction of absent voters is counted by political manipulations to ensure a winner in a political election is an expression to attain uncommonness– an expression to pattern will for domination – to express inequalities. This has marginal effect on the social system of society. Little wonder then that it is the elite who run things politically. Dahl states that:

Concentration of power in the hands of an elite is a necessary consequence, in this view, of the enormous inequalities in the distribution of resources of influence – property, income, social status, knowledge, publicity, focal position, and all the rest. In this view, majorities, parties, interest groups, elites, even political systems are all to some extent pliable; a leader who knows how to use his resources to the maximum is not so much the agent of others as others are his agents. Although a gifted political entrepreneur might not exist in every political system, whenever he appeared he would make himself felt (Dahl,1961, p.6).

What Dahl (1961, p. 6) has referred to as a “gifted political entrepreneur” is nothing more than the individual who has strong will to drive the wills of subjects – the individual who best knows how to trace a footpath to the seat of governance.

Analysis and Operation of Power

The manifestation of power is relational. This means power cannot meaningfully be expressed among parties in a social relationship. Like the word good is relative and comparative, for power to be in expression, there must be a social chain that would bind and limit subjects and the will driver. This view is shared by Quansan who states:

Power almost always operates reciprocally, but usually not equally reciprocally. To control others, one must have control over things that they desire or need, but one can rarely exercise that control without a measure of reverse control – larger, smaller or equal – also existing. For example, an employer usually wields considerable power over his workers because he has control over wages, working conditions, hiring and firing. The workers, however, hold some reciprocal power: they may leave, work more or less diligently, group together to form a union, and so on (Quansan, 2009, p. 49).

Because the operation of power is reciprocal and relational, power is spoken of sociologically as existing in a balance between parties. As stated earlier, parties or individuals in the power chain both have powers; except, in relative strengths; this constitutes the equality or inequality, the stability or subjectivity to which power is changed periodically. Sociologists typically analyze parties-power-relativity rather as constraints, put not power (Quansan, 2009, p. 23). Foucault (Aldrich & Wotherspoon (Eds.), 2001) clearly says “Power is everywhere…because it comes from everywhere”. This view is best discussed by Quansan who states:

Foucault’s works analyze the link between power and knowledge. He outlines a form of covert power that works through people rather than only on them. Foucault claims belief systems gain momentum (and hence power) as more people come to accept the particular views associated with that belief system as common knowledge. Such belief systems define their figures of authority, such as medical doctors or priests in a church. Within such a belief system — or discourse — ideas crystallize as to what is right and what is wrong, what is normal and what is deviant. Within a particular belief system certain views, thoughts or actions become unthinkable. These ideas, being considered undeniable “truths”, come to define a particular way of seeing the world, and the particular way of life associated with such “truths” becomes normalized. This subtle form of power lacks rigidity, and other discourses can contest it. Indeed, power itself lacks any concrete form, occurring as a locus of struggle. Resistance, through defiance, defines power and hence becomes possible through power. Without resistance, power is absent. This view ‘grants’ individuality to people and other agencies, even if it is assumed a given agency is part of what power works in or upon. Still, in practice Foucault often seems to deny individuals this agency, which is contrasted with sovereignty (the old model of power as efficacious and rigid) ((Quansan, 2009, p. 24).

Power is viewed as a process in social theories of structuralists. It is viewed as a social relationship that is ongoing, and never static to social-structural.

The Power Influence: Ambiguity of Leadership

Dahl (1961, p. 89) says the relationship of the leaders to the citizens in a democracy is ambiguous and brings about difficult in attempting to identify who takes the mantle of leadership in a democracy that is pluralized. This is so because the influence of leaders is enormous – influence here means imposition of will – so that the leaders assume a ruling elite statue. These ruling elites then become recycled leaders in democratic settings.

The reader / constituents ambiguity is stated by Dahl as follow:

Ambiguity in the relations of leaders and constituents is generated by several closely connected obstacles both to observation and to clear conceptualization. To begin with, the American creed of democracy and equality prescribes many forms and procedures from which the actual practices of leaders diverge. Consequently, to gain legitimacy for their actions leaders frequently surround their convert behavior with democratic rituals. These rituals not only serve to disguise reality and thus to complicate the task of observation and analysis, but – more important – in complex ways the very existence of democratic rituals, norms, and requirements of legitimacy based on a widely shared creed actually influences the behavior of both leaders and constituents even when democratic norms are violated. Thus the distinction between the rituals of power and the realities of power is frequently obscure (Dahl, 1961, p. 389).

Conclusion

This paper has discussed power from a sociological view and has emphasized that power will always remain a tussle because resources are not even. It has stressed that power determinants including wealth, knowledge, statutory positions, access to ruler-ship, and the likes, are not even neither are they equal in distribution. These results to interpreting why certain person assume permanent recycle in power over others.

References

Aldrich, R. A. & Wotherspoon, G. G. (Eds.). (2001). Who’s Who in Contemporay Gay & Lesbian History: From World War II to the Present Day. New York: Routledge.

Bull, H. B. (1977). The Anarchical Society: A Study of Order in World Politics. New York : PALGRAVE.

Dahl, A. R. (1961). Who Governs: Democracy and Power in an American City. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Quansan, C. B. (2009). The Rise and Fall Africa’s Most Powerful 20: From 1970 to Date. Makurdi: Oracle.

Click Here To Order Now!