The Concept Power And Authority In Today’s Society

As I have to indicate the concept of power and authority in modern societies that is crucial to an understanding of the nature and distribution of power in society, because it plays such a large, over-bearing, part in our lives.

Theories of Power

Elite Theory (Baqir Ali)

This theory tells about the idea that rather than there being a large number of competing groups in society, here are instead a series of competing elites - powerful groups who are able to impose their will upon the rest of society.

A more-radical and theoretically well-developed form of elite theory was proposed by C. Wright Mills. Mills' analysis is based on the idea that some elite groups have emerged to control various institutions of society. Some institutions are more powerful than others (an economic elite, for example, was likely to be more powerful than an education system or religious elite), it follows that the elite groups that controlled such institutions would be maintain the balance of power in society as a whole - they would dominate politically the structural level of power.

Class Theory (Fatima and Maryam)

The class theory of power is given by Karl Marx and his Marxism. It tells that in each society there are present two classes:

• The class of rich (haves).
• The class of the poor (have not).

The class of rich is dominant class. It controls social economic, ideological and political power in society. It maintains their dominancy over the society by using power. The rich class suppresses the poor class and uses state as a tool for maintaining its dominant status. It uses political power for their dominancy in the society. Furthermore Marx tells that in every stage of social evolution the class of the rich has always used power in society.

For example, In the Middle Ages the masters used power over the slaves, in the Feudal Society, the feudal lords used power over the serfs, peasants and the land labor, and in the present Industrial society (age of capitalism), the power is being used by the capitalists for dominating and exploiting the labor or poor. The class of the rich always enforces and maintains its economic, social, ideological and political domination over the whole society.

This ruling class may use an ideology, political conviction, leadership structure, intellectual power, or morality as a means of obtaining the consent of the non-proprietors' class or other classes to establish its dominion over society. In other words, while Marx and his traditional followers argue that power is owned and still used by the economically dominant class of the rich, other scholars argue that there is no doubt that power is always in the hands of a class, but it can be any class who dominates society by using several different means.

If we apply these both theories in our locality and its institutions, the politics of Pakistan is crossed with this, by some major elites and dominance class these elites are not equal in power but they have made alliances amongst themselves and are present in every era of govern. They are the military, the bureaucrats, the land lords/feudal, the religious, the industrial and the professional elite. The power structure of Pakistan is divided into 4 major classes. The first is the ruling elite in the center of government, namely the prime minister, the cabinet, and so on. The second compromise of the 6 elites of which we spoke above. The third is composed of the middle class who includes doctors, teachers, etc. And in the last are the masses. Masses are far away from the center of the power which is why they are at the end. This can be easily proved by analyzing the composition of the big political parties.

“Pakistan inherited all these elites from Colonial India, and they were all created by the British to control the locals. For example, the British Indian Army was made up of Indians but was used against the masses. Similarly, Bureaucracy was known as the Steel Frame of British power in India, because they had influence over the locals but was loyal to the British.”

The Democratic Party which defended the cause of socialism and believed in the defense of the rights of the masses was created by the owners, namely the Pakistan People's Party (PPP), and then joined the industrial elites. Similarly, the Pakistan Muslim League Nawaz (PML-N) was founded by industrial elites with the help of the military elite. The most influential party that talks about justice is Pakistan Tekreek-e-Insaf (PTI), which is also founded by wealthy people.

Thus, when these parties come to power, these elites are given ministries and eventually occupy the position of the ruling elite. In front of the world, they claim to comply with the party's manifesto, but once they come to power, they end up working to achieve their own goals. Now, after the 2018 elections, there is hope that the masses will benefit. However, PTI also includes illustrious names. The masses must be part of the power structure to bring about real change, otherwise the power is simply transferred from one party to another, without benefiting the lower layers. Despite this, we continue to hope that Khan will keep his promises, but the past gives a gloomy picture.

Max Webber theory of authority (Tuba Sohail)

The sociologist and philosopher Max Weber proposed a theory of authority that includes 3 types of authorities, in his theory he discussed how authority is legitimated as a belief system. His essay “The three types of legitimate rule”, translated in English and published posthumously in 1958, is the clearest explanation of his theory. Weber’s three types of authority are charismatic, traditional and legal-rational authority.

Charismatic authority: Charismatic authority points to an individual who possesses certain traits that make a leader extraordinary. This type of leader is not only capable of but actually possesses the superior power of charisma to rally diverse and conflict-prone people behind him. His power comes from the massive trust and almost unbreakable faith people put in him. Charismatic authority is found in a leader whose mission and vision inspire others. It is based upon the perceived extraordinary characteristics of an individual. Weber saw a charismatic leader as the head of a new social movement and one instilled with divine or supernatural powers, such as a religious prophet. Weber seemed to favor charismatic authority and spent a good deal of time discussing it.

Traditional authority: Traditional authority indicates the presence of a dominant personality. This leader is someone who depends on established tradition or order. While this leader is also a dominant personality, the prevailing order in society gives him the mandate to rule. This type of leadership, however, is reflective of everyday routine and conduct. Weber states: “The creation of new law opposite traditional norms is deemed impossible in principle.” Traditional authority is typically embodied in feudalism or patrimonialism. In a purely patriarchal structure, “the servants are completely and personally dependent upon the lord”, while in an estate system (i.e. feudalism), “the servants are not personal servants of the lord but independent men”.

Legal and rational authority: Legal-rational authority is empowered by a formalistic belief in the content of the law (legal) or natural law (rationality). Obedience is not given to a specific individual leader - whether, traditional or charismatic, but a set of uniform principles. Weber thought the best example of legal-rational authority was a bureaucracy (political or economic). This form of authority is frequently found in the modern state, city governments, private and public corporations and various voluntary associations. In fact, Weber stated that the “development of the modern state is identical indeed with that of modern bureaucratic organizations just as the development of modern capitalism is identical with the increasing bureaucratization of economic enterprise.

The three authority types may be reinforced by traits that differentiate them from other types. Traditional authority is impersonal (unlike charisma) and non-rational (unlike legal-rational). Charismatic authority is dynamic (unlike tradition) and non-rational (again, unlike legal-rational). Finally, legal-rational authority is dynamic (unlike tradition) and impersonal (unlike charisma).

Michel Foucault (Haya and Farah)

Poststructuralist Feminist: The majority of the work on power is done by post-structuralism women's activists has been inspired by Foucault.

Foucault examines current power as a portable and constantly moving arrangement of power relations that rise up out of each social communication and in this manner infest the social body. As he puts it, “power is everywhere, not because it embraces everything, but because it comes from everywhere”.

Foucault attempts to offer a "micro-physics" of modern power. As indicated by Foucault, modern power subjects people, in the two faculties of the term; it simultaneously creates them as subjects by subjecting them to power. As we will find in a minute, Foucault's record of subjection and his record of power more generally have been to a great degree productive, yet additionally very disputable, for women's activists interested in analyzing domination. According to Foucault, modern power subjects people, in each senses of the term; it simultaneously creates them as subjects by subjecting them to power. As we are going to see during a moment, Foucault’s account of subjection and his account of power a lot of usually are extraordinarily fruitful, however conjointly quite arguable, for feminists inquisitive about analyzing domination. It ought to come back as no surprise that numerous feminists have drawn on Foucault’s analysis of power. Foucault’s analysis of power has arguably been the most powerful discussion of the subject over the last thirty years; even those theorists of power who are extremely essential of Foucault’s work acknowledge this influence.

Structuration or duality of structure: The Foucault’s influence, the empirical activity of distinguishing those who possess power and of locating power loses its importance. His approach consistently rejects the assumption in the existence of associate ordered and regulation rational agency. In Foucault’s world there's no source from that actions stem, only an infinite series of practices. Decentralization of the position of power is one among the nice innovations of his thinking, which is able to be mentioned a lot of extensively additional on. Anthony Giddens developed his approach as a continuation and conjointly as a critique of Foucault and his predecessors. He created an inclusive social theory that he referred to as structuration or duality of structure. On his view, power is a very important, if not exclusive, element of the social structure. Power is exercised by human agents and is additionally created by them, influences them, and limits them. In alternative words, power is not a high quality or a resource of individuals, or an edge in the social structure, however a social issue that influences each these parts of human society and is also created by them this is that the duality that we'll discuss over again after we flip our attention to Giddens.

The discussion of power burst through the boundaries of organization and placement and penetrated into all the domains of the social discourse. The roots of the concept are grounded in political theory and political philosophy. In the amount when the Second world war, power was a central construct only in the political sciences. The work of Luke’s and Giddens contributed to the establishing of the importance of the concept of power in the modern sociological discourse Foucault investigated the idea in new fields: drugs, psychiatry, penology, and human gender. Others continuing his add the criticism of literature, art and film, in philosophical doctrine, in feminist analysis, in social history, and in theories of planning. Likewise, we are going to modify many problems that are relevant to the topic of empowerment, like, as an instance, the human and social injury concerned in powerlessness, the structure roots of powerlessness, the requirement for a combined approach to action and structure within the social domain and an understanding of power as concomitant to social relationships.