Authority, Power and Legitimacy

Introduction

Traditional authority is seen as the legitimate power driven from sanctity of traditional norms,
values and culture. This implies that the ability and right to rule is determined by traditions
and culture, authority is often hereditary or inherited. Here therefore is the luck of rationality
of the traditional form in that qualification of the holder of authority is not logical or sensible
in that it is not the most qualified but the heir that gains the authority. Further, traditional
authority maintains the status quo as even the heir operates in line with the established
culture, norms and customs to maintain the legitimacy hence does not facilitate social change,
political, and other forms of change. The holder of traditional authority therefore exercises
limited rationality in his exercise of the authority which makes the traditional form less
rational relative to other however his authority remains stable and unchanged overtime.

Put in Webers words The creation of new law opposite traditional norms is deemed
impossible in principle

(Weber 1958, 4).

Charismatic authority on the other hand is driven from the concept of charisma or charm
or personality magnetism of the holder of authority (Blau, 1963). This form of authority
therefore is defined as the right and ability to exercise power as driven from the charismatic
influence of the individual or groups of individuals. It is therefore seen as a non-formal type
of authority driven from personal attribution and neither law nor tradition yet might
overlaping to these forms. As an overlap therefore a leader i.e. Shaka of the Nguni

s Zulu in south Africa, can have traditional authority but hold it with charismatic authority.
Charismatic authority is often change driven and as argued by Riesebrodt (1999) Weber
argues that charisma played a strong - if not integral - role in traditional authority systems. He
argues that charismatic authority is necessary in the transition from traditional authority to
legal rational authority. The irrationality of charismatic authority is often in its power
structure legitimatised not within the limits of tradition or law but and its stability is
dependent on the increasing or decreasing charisma of the authority figure. It can be seen
therefore as blind attribution and exercise of authority as it is an authority devoid of power
boundaries.

1
The Legal-rational type of authority is power legitimatised by two key aspects, the legal
and the rational which in other ways are the content (legal) or process (rational). The legal
rational authority is therefore a result of procedural and substantial consensus in its
establishment. It is therefore impersonal but institutional/office based.

Bower identifies five distinguishing features of the legal and rational aspects of the legal
rational authority and these are; basis of legitimacy, grounds for legitimacy, source
of legitimacy, nature of power and source of power. The legal/formal aspect of legal rational
authority has is basis of power from belief in the "right" of person to hold authority and the
ground for this belief(ground of legitimacy) is the legal structure (established laws) and the
source of the legal structure or legal framework is organisation/formalisation which springs
from consensus building. In terms of power, the legal/formal aspects nature of power is
based on the organizational constraints and prerogatives granted and the source of power is
not traditional nor charismatic but is derived from the legal structure or the legal
framework of the organization. The rational aspect however is the determinant of the legal
structure/framework. The rational aspect in terms of legitimacy has belief in effective utility
of person's actions and commands as the basis of its legitimacy implying that the authoritys
command is believed to be of general greater benefit having the basis of this belief
of legitimacy from the identified qualification of the individual before acquiring the authority
which is also the basis of the acquiring the authority, they are qualified for it. The source of
legitimacy therefore is the social and societal acceptance of the individuals qualification
for the authority. The nature of the power here is in the technical competence of the authority
figure and the source of the rational authoritys legitimacy is in the exposed and intrinsic
skills and competencies.

The legal rational authority is therefore a combined form of authority whose basis
of legitimacy, source of legitimacy, nature of legitimacy, nature and sources of power are both
legal(based on the legal and institutional frame work) as well as rational (based on the
individuals competence, skills and qualification to exercise the authority) the authority here
therefore is not only rationally based as one with the qualification but not legally mandated
cannot exercise it and in the same vain, one cannot be legally mandated to exercise the
authority without being qualified to exercise it as the legal framework is rationally
determined.

Comparative analysis

2
Using bowers five distinguishing features, the reasons of the argument that the legal rational
authority is more rational (reasonable, logical or sensible) than the other types of authority
can be upheld. Legal rational authority is thus more logical or reasonable firstly because of
its basis of legitimacy which is the belief of right of the office bearer to hold the authority
impersonality as a qualified individual acting on the basis of utility benefit for all. This is
unlike traditional authority whose basis of legitimacy is birth/heredity or patrimonialism
hence arbitrary and not rational. The aspect of organisational utility is not sort for in the
traditional authority but the maintenance of the status quo. Charismatic authority is not
impersonal hence has continuity problems with the demise of the charismatic leader. Further,
it looks at the charm or appeal of the leader without consideration of institutional
and personal qualifications for exercise of authority which may lead to abuse of power or
luck of ability perform despite the great charismatic appeal.

In terms of ground of legitimacy, legal rational authority is grounded in the legal

structure/framework as well as the individuals ability to
interpret it understand it and effectively execute it with the consideration of either
qualification or experience or both. Its legitimacy is therefore grounded into the institutional
structure and the institutional legalframework as well as the fitting of the individual into that
structure and legal framework. The traditional and charismatic typologies however has no
formal institutional and legal framework to guide actions, limit power and determine
qualifications and the holder of authority is has not been therefore subjected to a pragmatic
test or assessment of competence in a legally based manner. This makes both the traditional
and charismatic authority less rational forms of authority relative to the legal rational forms
of authority.The source of legitimacy too sets legal rational authority apart from the rest in
that its sourceis an organisation with both procedural and substantial consensus with both a
job descriptionand a job specification. The job description determines the duties and authority
of the officewhile the job specification determines the qualifications and needed personality
attributes andtechnical and professional competences. Charismatic authority however does
not haveorganisational form of consensus as there may be no need of an organisation for
charismaticauthority to emerge. Traditional authority though having some aspects consensus
does notformalise specific enough to ensure that the formal qualifications of office bearers
are welltaken into account. The rationality therefore of both the traditional and charismatic
authoritiesare underscored relative to the legal rational one.In terms of power however, it is
almost unlimited in the non-formal types which includecharismatic and traditional types of
authority. The luck of formal boundaries and limits of authority leads to abuse of authority
with no formal channels of accountability. The legal

rational authoritys nature and source of power is driven from the legal prerogatives and

3
constraints of the authority given to the structures of the organisations hence the individualsin
those structures. Legal rational authority gives authority and constraints as well
asaccountability to the exercise of the power hence the power has limits.ConclusionIt is clear
therefore that the most rational(reasonable, logical or objective) form of the threetypes of
authority is as argued by weber to be the legal rational authority. Legal rationalauthority
ensures the authority its structure, nature and basis as well as source and ground isimpersonal,
formal, rational, and accountable and combines both individual qualifications toexercise
authority and laws based on both procedural and substantial consensus of theorganisation
with established structures and offices.

Bibliography

Blau, P. M. (1963), Critical remarks on Webers theory of authority, The American

PoliticalScience Review, 57 (2): 305-316.Bower T (1971), Formal and Rational Authority
Some Notes, Hypotheses and Applications, Kansas Journal of Sociology

Winter 1971Cline, A., (2012) What is Authority? Differentiating Authority, Power, and
Legitimacy,www.about.com/ (10/02/13)Collins, R. (1986), Weberian Sociological Theory,
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. Dana, W. (2012) Traditional, Legal-Rational, and
Charismatic Authority Weber, M., (1947), The Theory of Social and Economic Organization,
A. M. Henderson and Talcott Parsons (trans.) and Talcott Parsons (ed.). New York: The Free
Press.

http://www.academia.edu/3482786/Authority_Power_and_Legitimacy

What is Authority?

Differentiating Authority, Power, and Legitimacy

The term authority refers to an abstract concept with both sociological and psychological
components. As a child born of a myriad of different social situations which have some rough
similarities, no easy definition exists. Of particular concern throughout the literature on the
topic is the entanglement of the concepts of authority, power, and legitimacy. This is a
concern not only in the abstract (by which I mean that scholars discuss and disagree on how
the three are entangled), but also in the concrete because scholars themselves are often guilty

4
of entangling them. One is defined as a function of the other and vice-versa until the reader
doesnt know where to turn anymore for help.

Power and Legitimacy

Power is the ability, whether personal or social, to get things done either to enforce ones
own will or to enforce the collective will of some group over others. Legitimacy is a socially
constructed and psychologically accepted right to exercise power. A person can have
legitimacy but no actual power (the legitimate king might reside in exile, destitute and
forgotten). A person can have actual power but not legitimacy (the usurper who exiled the
king and appropriates the symbols of office).

Here, now, we begin to approach an understanding of what authority is because in all social
situations a person is treated as an authority only when they have both power and legitimacy.
We might consider, for example, the phrase uttered so often when someone intrudes into our
business in order to give commands: You have no authority here.

What does that mean? It might mean that the person has no legitimate claim to be heard or
heeded. It might mean that the person has no social power he has not the ability to enforce
his will over the objections of others. Or, it might be both. In any event, both must be present
for authority to exist (socially) and be acknowledged (psychologically).

Psychology of Authority
This is still not quite enough, however, because it defines authority a bit too closely to the
concepts of legitimacy and power. When a person has authority over others, it means
something a bit more than simply that they have a right to exercise existing power. The
missing ingredient is psychological the previously mentioned but not explicated issue of
acknowledgment. Both power and legitimacy are social in that they exist in the interplay
between two or more humans. Yet what goes on in the mind of person when he acknowledges
the authority of another?

It isnt simply that he accepts the factual existence of power or legitimacy; rather, its also
that he accepts that an authority figure is justified in making a decision without also
explaining the reason for that decision and persuading others to accept that the decision was
reached properly. The importance of this is not too difficult to see.

5
Exercising Authority
If I have authority over you, I can expect that when I make a decision you will go along with
that decision, even if I dont take the time to explain it to you and persuade you that it is
indeed right. In turn, your acceptance of me as an authority implies that you have already
agreed to be persuaded, implicitly, and wont demand explicit explanations and reasons.

Once I begin to explain my reasoning process and get you to agree that my conclusion was
the proper one, then you have reached your own decision. When you act, it wont be because
of me enforcing my will over you, nor will it have anything to do with the legitimacy of my
power. Instead, it will simply be you exercising your will for your own reasons.

Consider the appropriate example of a priest as a religious authority over a congregation. This
priest has the legitimate social power to see that his will and that of and his superiors is
enforced over the membership of the congregation. More than this, however, we must
understand that those members have implicitly accepted that the priest does not need to
patiently reason with each one of them in turn in order to get them to independently agree to
the decisions in question.

Why doesnt the priest explain everything? There can be many reasons - perhaps members of
the congregation lack the sophisticated training necessary in order to understand them, or
maybe there just isnt enough time. Whats important is that the priest could explain things,
but doesnt - authority means not having to explain everything but being able to wield
legitimate power anyway.

Only in a community of infinitely rational individuals with an infinite amount of time would
it be possible for everything to be fully explained all of the time. In the real world, however,
we must rely upon authority figures to make decisions for us. As a part of this, we invest
them with the power and legitimacy necessary to cause those decisions to be meaningful and
relevant.

http://atheism.about.com/od/religiousauthority/a/whatisauthority.htm (10/02/13)

POLITICAL POWER
What is the relationship between politics and political power? What is political power? What
is political behaviour? What is the relationship between political power and political

6
behaviour? What is the relationship between political power and public policy? What is the
ultimate purpose of political power? What are two major forms of political power? What is
political authority? When is political authority legitimate? What is political influence?

1. Politics and Political Power:

Many political scientists, focusing upon the concept of "political power," define politics as
the pursuit of political power and competition for political power. John M. Pfiffner and Frank
P. Sherwood define politics as "the process by which political power is acquired and
exercised." [Note 5] Politics involves the pursuit, acquisition, and exercise of political power.

a. Political Power

Political power is the ability to shape and control the political behavior of others and to lead
and guide their behavior in the direction desired by the person, group, or institution wielding
the political power. Political power is the capacity to influence, condition, mold, and control
human behavior for the accomplishment of political objectives. That is to say, political power
is the ability of one political actor--e.g., an individual citizen, a family, an interest group, a
political action committee, a political party, or the government--to effect a desired change in
the behavior of other political actors, persuading or forcing the latter to act in a manner they
would not act in the absence of the former's impact on the situation. Actor A has political
power over Actor B to the degree that he is able to motivate, inspire, incite, stimulate, or
otherwise bring about some modication of B's political behavior--a modification in behavior
favored by Actor A. A's political power, of course, would also include his capacity to induce
B to continue doing something he is currently doing, if B would discontinue the behavior in
the absence of A's inducements.

b. Political Behavior--Definition and Examples. Political behavior consists of human

activities relating to the government and its processes of authoritative decisionmaking and
action. Examples of political behavior, or political activity, include such actions as (1) voting
in elections, (2) contributing money to political parties or to the election campaigns of
candidates running for government office, (3) attending and actively participating in party
caucuses, or meetings (e.g., precinct meetings and county, district, state, and national
conventions), (4) serving on party and campaign committees, (5) serving as campaign
workers for particular candidates, (6) working for political action committees, (7) active

7
membership in political interest groups, (8) lobbying, (9) engaging in protest demonstra-
tions, (10) writing to or otherwise contacting members of the legislature or other govern-
ment officeholders, (11) disseminating political propaganda, (12) writing letters to newspaper
and magazine editors--letters discussing politics and issues of public policy, (13) writing and
publishing books, periodicals, articles, and other literature dealing with public issues, (14)
running for government office, and (15) governmental activity--the govern- ment's making
and enforcement of authoritative decisions, decisions that are vested with the authority of the
society for and in the name of which they are made and carried out, are binding on all
members of the society, and have the effect of authoritatively distributing resources and
values for the society.

While the term "political behaviour" refers to many different types of human activity, all of
these types of activity are concerned ultimately with public policy. All types of political
behaviour, in the final analysis, relate to authoritative decision making and action by the
government and to the resulting authoritative allocation of the benefits and costs of living in
the political society.

3. Political Power and Public Policy:

a. The Relationship between Political Power and Public Policy. The ultimate purpose of
acquiring political power is to use it to shape and control public policy--public policy in
general or some aspect of public policy. Those who possess political power and utilize it to
influence, shape, and control the political behaviour of others--whether to influence a
decision of a political party or a political action committee, to impact on the outcome of an
election, to influence the decisions and actions of government offices and institutions, or to
obtain for themselves election or appointment to public office and thereby gain personally the
legal right to actively and officially participate in the processes of authoritative decision
making by the government--are concerned ultimately with influencing, conditioning, shaping,
and controlling the content and direction of public policy. Political power is acquired and
exercised in order to significantly affect the government's authoritative decisions and actions
on public policy--either decision making and action on public policy in general or decision
making and action in a particular area of public policy (let's say, public education, national
health insurance, immigration, drug enforcement, civil rights, affirmative action, taxation,
energy policy, environmental protection, gun control, or regulation of abortion).

8
b. Political Power Defined in Terms of Public Policy. Political power may be defined as the
ability to influence, condition, shape, and control the content and direction of public policy.
Political power is influence or control over or participation in the making and implementation
of official decisions of government offices and institutions--i.e., the authoritative, binding
decisions made and carried out by the government for and in the name of the entire society.

4. Government, Private Citizens, and Political Power:

In a modern constitutional democratic political society, such as Britain or the U.S.A., do all
persons who wield political power hold formal positions in the government? The answer to
this question is, of course, no. One who possesses and exercises political power may or may
not be an official governmental decision maker, or an official participant in govern- mental
decision making. A political actor wielding political power may or may not hold a
government office relevant to the particular policy decision or decisions he is seeking to
mould and control. If he does hold such an office, he operates as a formal-legal participant in
the public-policy decision making processes carried on by the government. If he does not
occupy a relevant public office, he plays the role of a private citizen who, through
mobilization of political resources available to him, effectively exerts pressure on the
government and thereby influences, conditions, and modifies the government's decision
making behaviour in one or more areas of public policy. In the latter case, the citizen may act
as an individual, as a member of a politically influential family, as one who is highly
respected and strategically located in a politically influential "Old Boys" or "First Families"
network, as a member or hired lobbyist of a political interest group, as a leader or active
member of a political party or faction, or in two, three, four, or all five of the foregoing
capacities.

5. Political Authority and Political Influence:

Two major forms of political power are political authority and political influence.

a. Political Authority. Political authority is governmental power, the formal-legal authority of

the public officeholders and institutions comprising the government to make and carry out
decisions on public policy--to adopt and implement the authoritative decisions that have the
force of law and are binding on all members of the society. Political authority is the legally
established power of the government to make rules and issue commands and to compel

9
obedience to them, making use of physical force and coercion when deemed necessary.
Political authority, in short, is the legal right--the legally established power--to govern
society.

The political authority exercised by a government may be legitimate or illegitimate.

b. Legitimate Political Authority. If the political authority exercised by a government is

willingly and widely accepted by the population comprising the society the government
endeavours to control, that government will not have to rely entirely or almost entirely on
naked force to maintain order and obtain compliance with its decisions. Under these
conditions, the authority exercised by the government is legitimate, and the government itself
is legitimate.

Legitimate political authority is the legitimate right of the government to govern the entire
society, the widely recognized right of the government to adopt and enforce public-policy
decisions for and in the name of the entire political community. Legitimate political authority
is governmental power derived from willing and widespread acceptance by the citizenry of
the right of the organs of their government to make rules and issue commands and to expect
obedience to them. Legitimate political authority, in short, is governmental power based on
political legitimacy.

Political legitimacy exists in a political community, or society, when most citizens (1)
perceive the government as having the moral as well as legal right to make and enforce
decisions binding on the whole community, (2) see the decisions themselves as being
legitimate, and (3) consider it the duty of all citizens to voluntarily comply with these
decisions, thereby substantially reducing the government's need to employ armed force or
expend other resources to compel or induce compliance. The existing political regime, or
system of government, is considered to be legitimate because, according to widespread and
deep-seated feelings and beliefs among the members of the political society, those persons
occupying the offices and institutions comprising the government obtained their positions by
legitimate means and therefore have the moral and legal right to hold these formal
governmental positions and to exercise the powers legally assigned to the positions. Absent,
under normal conditions, are efforts of substantial segments of the society to employ force
and violence--armed insurrection, or rebellion--in order to overthrow the political regime, to
prevent effective enforcement of the government's decisions, or to secede from the existing

10
political community and form a separate and independent community and governmental
system of their own.

c. Political Influence. Political influence needs to be distinguished from political authority.

While political authority is the formal-legal right of the government to make and enforce
official decisions on public policy, political influence is the ability of private individuals and
groups to impact on the government's making and implementation of official policy
decisions.

Political influence is the ability of private individuals and groups to influence, condition,
shape, and thereby control the authoritative decisions and actions of those who possess the
formal-legal authority to take these decisions and actions. The individuals and groups
exercising political influence do not hold the relevant government offices and therefore do
not possess the formal-legal authority to make the official governmental decisions they seek
to shape and control; but they do have and exercise the ability to shape and control the
decisionmaking behavior of those officeholders in the government who do possess the
formal-legal authority to make the relevant decisions on public policy. Such individuals and
groups exercise significant influence over particular policy decisions made by particular
government offices and institutions. These individuals and groups have acquired and are
exercising that form of political power called "political influence." A private individual or
organization possesses and exercises political influence to the extent that its interests and
demands have to be taken into account by the government--or an office or institution of the
government--when making and carrying out decisions on public policy.

Political influence, in short, is the form of political power exercised by those who do not
possess the formal-legal authority to make and enforce particular governmental decisions on
public policy, but have and utilize the ability to condition, modify, and control the official
decisionmaking behavior of those in government office who do possess the authority to make
and implement the decisions.

d. How Exercise of Political Authority and Exercise of Political Influence Differ--An

Illustration. When the United States Congress enacts a law and provides for its enforcement,
that public institution--or set of public institutions--is exercising political authority. When the
leaders of a political interest group, a private organization, successfully persuade particular
members of Congress to vote a certain way on a pending legislative bill, when the MCs were

11
not inclined to vote that way in theabsence of interest-group pressure, the leaders of the
interest group are exercising political influence.

Power and Politics

Unit M1: Basic Concepts

P
o
w
e
r
a
n
d
P
o
l
i
t
i
c
s
U
n
i
t
P
1
12
:
B
a
s
i
c
C
o
n
c
e
p
t
s
Power and Politics Basic Concepts
www.sociology.org.uk
Page
2
Introduction
We need to begin by noting and understanding the definitions of
-
and inter
-
relationship between
-
the foll
owing concepts:
a. Power
c. Authority
b. Politics
d. Ideology
The concepts of
power and politics
are entwined / inter
-
dependent in the sense that
politics
-

13
whether of the specifically
governmental
kind (political parties, pressure
groups, etc.), the
economic
kind (bureaucracies, the organization of the workplace
into social hierarchies based upon status, etc.) or the
interpersonal
(relations
between males and females, children and adults, etc)
-
involves the exercising of
power.
What we have to be
gin by doing, therefore, is to
define
the concept of
power
(and
understand the differing
dimensions
/ aspects of power
-
coercive power, types of
authority and so forth) and relate it to such ideas as:
a. The social characteristics of the powerful and the powerless.
b. The development of ideological frameworks that legitimise the exercise of
power.
c. The social effects / consequences of the exercising of power.
Explicitly, in relation to politics and power there are two basic kinds of sociological
ques
tion that we need to explore:
a. Who rules in society?
b. How is their power created, legitimised and reproduced?
In social terms, power, almost by definition, involves the rule by the few over the
majority and we have to understand the political processes (both Structural and
Interpersonal) whereby power is legitimated (the process whereby power ceases to
be nakedly coercive and becomes power that is based upon authority.
Question:
How would you define the concept of power?
(Try to think of an exampl
e of a relationship based upon power (for example, making
your little brother / sister into your personal slave) and "work backwards" from this to
create a definition of power.
Power and Politics Basic Concepts
www.sociology.org.uk
Page
3
To begin with, it might be useful to look at a couple of definitions of power:
a. Giddens ("Sociology"):
"By power is meant the ability of individuals or groups to make their own concerns or
interests count, even where others resist. Power sometimes involves the direct use of
force, but is almost always also accompanied by
the development of ideas (ideology)
which justify the actions of the powerful.".

14
Question:
Can you provide an example that illustrates Giddens' definition and explain why you
think it represents a good example of power?
b. Max Weber:
"Power is the probability that one actor within a social relationship will be in a position
to carry out his will despite resistance, regardless of the basis on which this
probability rests.".
Another way of expressing the above is that power represents the ability to g
et
your own way, even if your "power" is simply based upon bluff...
Question:
We sometimes hear the phrase "knowledge is power". Explain what this means and
provide an example of a situation in which this might be true (for example, does the
knowledge possessed by your teacher / lecturer make them powerful?).
As I noted above, the concepts of
power
,
politics
,
authority
and
ideology
are
linked in some way and it would be useful to explore this linkage in the following way:
"
Political behaviour
", as I ha
ve suggested, covers almost all forms of human social
interaction
-
from Parliaments and political parties, through social systems
characterized by notions of dictatorship / democracy, to interpersonal relationships
such as that between an employer / employee, parent / child, teacher / student.
"
Politics
", in this sense, is a concept that can be defined as:
"A process involving the exercise of control, constraint and coercion in society".
In this respect,
any
social relationship involves some form of pol
itical relationship
between the participants because all such relationships involve a concept of power
-
whether that power is openly displayed or obscured from view. By its very nature, any
process that involves some attempt to control the behaviour of others (whether or not
it is successful) is one that is based upon power and, by extension, is political in
character.
Question:
Explain, using the example of your behaviour within the classroom, the meaning of
"political" as it is defined above.
Power and Politics Basic Concepts
www.sociology.org.uk
Page
4
In ad

15
dition, in order for any social process of interaction to take place, it must be
guided
by some form of
ideology
(a framework of belief about "what is going on").
In this respect, social relationships are guided
-
implicitly or explicitly
-
by certain
ideological
principles
/
beliefs
.
For
example
, in a classroom we believe, in ideological terms, that education is
"going on" and, by and large, we accept the nature of the political relationships
that we find in this situation (teacher / student, student /
student and so forth).
However, the vast majority of our social relationships
-
whilst underpinned by some
concept of
power
-
involve a more
-
subtle form of social control, namely "
authority
".
In this respect, people comply with the wishes of others
not
because they are
threatened or forced, but because they see the power of the person making a
demand as
legitimate
-
that the person making a demand has a right and proper
expectation that their command will be obeyed.
The following chart, based on
Max Weber
's typology of power
illustrates the
distinction between
coercive power
(that is, power based upon the use or threat of
force) and power based upon various types of
authority
.
Types of Power
Coercion Authority
Charismatic
Traditional

16
Legal
-
Rational
People are forced
to do as they are
told under threat of
punishment (for
example, in a
prison or a school
classroom).
People obey because
of the personal qualities
of t
he person doing the
telling. Well
-
known
charismatic figures
include Jesus Christ,
Hitler, Chairman Mao
and so forth. However,
charismatic figures may
arise in any social
grouping and such
people assume
positions of authority
over others on the
basis of personal
qualities of leadership
perceived in that
individual by other
group members.
Those who exercise
authority do so because
they continue a tradition
and support the
preservation and
continuation of existing
values and social ties
(for example, the Ro
yal
Family).
Those in authority give orders (and
expect they will be obeyed) because
their job gives them the right to give
orders. Anyone who fills the same
position has the right to issue orders,
which means this type of authority is
not based upon the personal qualities
of the individual. Orders are only to be
obeyed if they are relevant to the
situation in which they are given (for
example, a teacher could reasonably
expect the order to "complete your
homework by Thursday" to be obeyed
by a student in
their class. The
teacher could not reasonably expect
that the same order issued to the
student's parent would be obeyed.
Similarly, the order to "go down the
street and get me a newspaper"
would not be seen as a legitimate
order for a teacher to give his / her
student, hence the student would not
feel compelled to obey).
This form of power is the typical form

17
that exists in our society and is
sometimes referred
-
to as
"bureaucratic" power since it is based
upon the status of an individual's
position in a so
cial hierarchy, rather
than the individual herself.
Power and Politics Basic Concepts
www.sociology.org.uk
Page
5
An
example
of the
inter
-
relationship
between the concepts of
power
,
politics
,
authority
and
ideology
might be as follows:
The relationship between an
employer
and an
employee
is a
political
one, insofar
as it is based upon a particular form of
ideological
framework (Capitalism).
The
ideology
of capitalism specifies the basic or
general form
of this relationship.
The employer, for example, buys the labour power of the employee and it is the
nature of th
is basic form of relationship which makes capitalism, for example,
different to slavery (since, under Capitalism the employer does not own his / her
employee).
Political behaviour
, in the above example, represents the real, everyday, form
which the relationship between an employer / employee takes.
Power
enters the equation in the sense that the employer exercises power over the
employee in the workplace. The nature of their political relationship specifies the
broad nature of their power relationship.
I
n one sense, this is a political relationship underpinned by some form of coercive

18
power
-
the employer can make the employee do certain things that may be against
his / her will to resist. However, a better way of looking at this political relationship is
to see it in terms of authority (the legal / rational type).
The employee, for example, obeys commands given by an employer:
a. Because the nature of their (contractual) relationship effectively gives the
employer the power to exercise command.
b. The
employee recognizes that the employer has a legitimate expectation that
commands will / should be obeyed.
c. The power of the employer, however, derives from the office that
he / she holds. The employee, for example, would not be forced to recognize the
authority of the employer outside of the workplace (although, as is the nature of
our social relationships, both will be aware of their respective status differences in
any such situation). Similarly, certain commands would not be seen as the
legitimate ex
ercising of power, even within the workplace. For example, it would
not be seen as a legitimate form of power for an employer to command an
employee to break the law.
Question:
Briefly explain why you think this would not be a legitimate form of power.
(Think about higher forms of power to which both employer and employee might be
subject).
Thus, power, in this sense, is recognized as legitimate only within the confines of the
particular political relationship that specifies the form that this power shou
ld take.
Once that relationship ends (the employee leaves his / her place of work, for
example) so the power of the employer over the employee ceases to operate.
Power and Politics Basic Concepts
www.sociology.org.uk
Page
6
To link all of the above together, we can note that:
a.
Ideology
specifies the general form of a social relationship.
For example, the ideology of capitalism is different to the ideology of feudalism or
slavery. Under each system, a different form (or forms) of social relationship
apply.
b.
Politics
specifies the specific form of a social relat
ionship.
For example, the relationship between one employer / employee may be based
upon mutual trust, mutual like, mutual dependence, whilst the relationship
between another employer / employee may be based upon mutual need,
suspicion, dislike and so forth.
c.
Power
underpins the form taken by any given social relationship.
d.
Authority
legitimises that relationship, such that the participants see their
relationship as right and proper.

19
We are not, of course, restricted to the analysis of employer / em
ployee relationships
here. It is possible to analyse any form of social relationship in the above way.
Briefly analyse your relationship with your teacher / lecturer using the three
categories / concepts noted above:
Ideological aspect:
Political aspect:
Power aspect:
Power and Politics Basic Concepts
www.sociology.org.uk
Page
7
As another example, we can understand these concepts "in reverse":
Any form of political relationship at the level of individual interaction involves some
form of power. The employer, for example, derives his / her power, in
part, from the
dependent nature of the employee. The latter depends upon the former for
employment and this dependence involves the ability, on the part of the employer, to
apply sanctions, both positive and negative, to the employee.
However, relationships based purely upon coercion are inherently unstable, since
they involve a constant battle between the person doing the coercing and the person
being coerced. This idea is significant in relation to Marxist Conflict perspectives,
insofar as Marxism stress
es that the relationship between social classes under
Capitalism is fundamentally unequal and based upon power imbalances that
inevitably give
-
rise to conflict between such classes.
In this respect, naked forms of coercion tend to provoke confrontational responses. In
this sense, such an exercise of power might be termed "opaque", insofar as both
parties are aware that some form of power struggle is taking place.
Thus, naked forms of coercion tended, ultimately, to be self
-
defeating, since they
explicitly
encourage the coerced to:
a. Recognize the fact of their subservience.
b. Take steps to try and confront
-
and thereby eliminate
-
the power of others.
A more
-
successful way of wielding power is to secure the "co
-
operation" of those you
want to obey your commands (power seen in terms of authority), since the exercise
of power becomes "transparent" (that is, whilst power is being wielded, it is not seen
as such by the person being commanded).
By convincing the subject of your power that your relationshi
p is good, right and
proper, therefore, compliance with your wishes can be achieved without repeated
confrontations. Co
-

20
operation can be secured without the subject of your power
"realizing" that power is being wielded.
As an
aside
here, it is useful to note the
difference
of
interpretation
involved in
Structural Functionalist
and Marxist Conflict
analyses of the basis of social
organization.
For the Functionalist, a positivist preoccupation with "observable social
phenomena" tends to mean that the "co
-
o
perative" nature of social life is taken for
granted without questioning the idea that such "co
-
operation" may well be based
upon an underlying (unobservable) coercion.
Marxists, on the other hand, tend to theorize "co
-
operation" (which clearly exists in
any society) as the "observable manifestation" of hidden social phenomena
(economic inequality and the power relationships produced by this structural
inequality).
Think about why you "co
-
operate" with your teacher / lecturer in the learning process.
Wh
at "underlying" power relationship might exist in this relationship, such that "co
-
operation" is actually an illusion?
In this respect, ideology comes into play, insofar as it is through the successful
dissemination of ideology that the powerful are able to persuade the powerless that
Power and Politics Basic Concepts
www.sociology.org.uk
Page
8
their subordinate position is normal, natural and right
-
that the powerful have a right
to command and influence.
Finally, using
domestic labour
as an example, we can see how
Weber's typology
of power
may operate within thi
s context.
How, for example, do men ensure that women do most of the domestic labour
within the family? Consider each of Weber's categories in turn and briefly state
whether or not you think it is a useful explanation of this power relationship.

21
a. Coercion:
Although male violence against women within the family is fairly common within
our society, men do not really need to force women to do domestic labour.
b. Charisma:
Whilst some form of charismatic attraction between the sexes might exist at
vario
us points in their relationship ("falling in love" for example), this does not
constitute a particularly useful explanation in this context.
c. Traditional:
This aspect of authority is clearly significant in this context, insofar as the balance
of power between males and females is partly based upon traditional forms of
social relationship
-
women have "always" been the domestic labourer, men have
"always" been the breadwinners (except, of course, that this is not actually true
-
it
just appears to be tru
e).
d. Legal / Rational:
Again, in tandem with tradition, a significant aspect of the power relationship within
the family is based upon this form of authority. People see it as "right and proper"
that domestic labour is mainly "female work". Women, in this respect, do not have
to be openly forced to do domestic labour but, on the contrary, the force of their
socialization leads them to internalise ideas about the role of women, the role of
men and so forth, that leads "naturally" to their primary social
role of domestic
labourer.
What I have tried to demonstrate, in the above, is the idea that the concept of power
is always based upon some form of social relationship which, in turn, always involves
some form of inequality. What we have to do now, therefore, is to investigate the
origins and distribution of power in society, in order to understand the social basis of
power.
In this respect, we can begin by focusing upon the structural origins and basis of
power (and, by so doing, understand something abou
t the nature of political
relationships and political power at the level of both Social Structure and Social
Action) and, to do this, we will start by looking at the development of the modern
political State.

22