THE DEVELOPMENT OF FRENCH SOCIOLOGY 1789

The actual founding of  Sociology as a distinctive discipline- specifically, to the work of four French thinkers 

• Alexis De Tocqueville
• Claude Saint-Simon
• Auguste Comte
• Emile Durkheim

ALEXIS DE TOCQUEVILLE 1805-1859

He and his work were such pure products of the enlightenment ( he was strongly and directly influenced by Montensquieu) especially his "the spirit of the laws" and because his work was not part of the clear line of development in French social theory from Saint Simon and Comte to the crucially important Durkheim. Tocqueville has been seen as a political scientist, not a sociological and furthermore many have not perceived the existence of a social theory in his work, but it is one that deserves a much more significant place in the history of social theory not only in France but in the rest of the world like American democracy and French revolution.

C LAUDE SAINT-SIMON 1760-1825

Saint-Simon was older than Auguste Comte and in fact Comte, in his early years, served as Saint-simon's secretary and disciple. There is a very strong similarity between the ideas of these two thinkers, yet a bitter debate developed between them that led to their eventual split.

The most interesting aspect of Saint-Simon was his significance to the development of both conservative and radical Marxian theory. On the conservative side, Saint-Simon wanted to preserve society as it was, but did not seek a return to life as it had been in the middle ages- as did Bonald and Maistre. In addition, he was a positivist, which meant that he believed that the study of social phenomena should employ the same scientific techniques that were used in the natural sciences.

On the radical side, saint-simon saw the med for sociologist reforms, especially the centralized planning of the economic system. But saint-simon didn't go  nearly as far as Marx did later. Although he like Marx, saw the capitalists superseding (replace something less efficient) the feudal nobility, he felt it inconceivable that the working class would come to replace the capitalist, many of saint- simon ideas are found in comte's work, but comte developed them in a more systematic fashion.

AUGUSTE COMTE 1798-1857

Comte was the first to use the term sociology. He had influence on later sociological theorists especially Herbert Spencer and Emile Durkheim. He believe that the study of sociology should be scientific, just as many classical theorists did and most contemporary sociologists do.

Comte was disturbed by anarchy and thinkers who had spawned both the enlightenment and the French revolution. He developed "Positivism" or "Positive philosophy" to combat what he considered to be the negative and destructive philosophy of the enlightenment. Comte was influenced by the French counterrevolutionary Catholics especially Bonald adn Maintre. However, his work can be apart from theirs on at least two grounds-

• he didn't think it possible to return to the middle ages- advances in science and industry made that impossible
• he developed sophisticated theories than his predecessors

Comte developed "social physics" or what in 1839 he called 'sociology'. This new science ultimately become the dominant science, was to be concerned with both social statics and social dynamics. Although both involved the search for laws of social life, he felt that social dynamics was more important than social statics.This focus on change reflected his interest in social reform, particularly reform of the ills created by the French revolution and enlightenment. Comte didn't urge revolutionary change because he felt the natural evolution of society would make things better. Reforms were needed only to assist the process a bit. This leads us to the cornerstone of Comte's approach- his evolutionary theory, or the law of the three stages, The theory proposes three intellectual stages through which the would has gone throughout its history. According to Comte, not only the world go through this process but groups, societies, sciences, individuals and even mind.

1. The theological is characterized the world prior to 1300. During these period major idea system emphasized the belief in supernatural power and religious figures modeled after humankind, are at the root of everything. The social and physical world is seen as produced by God.
2. The metaphysical stage which occurred roughly between 1300 and 1800. This era was characterized by the belief that abstract forces like 'nature' rather than personalized gods explain virtually everything.
3. The positivistic stage which entered into the world 1800 and it is characterized by belief in science, people now tended to give up the search for absolute causes (god and nature) and concentrated instead on observation of the social and physical world in the search for the laws governing them.

Comte's point of view, it was intellectual change that was needed, and so there was little reason for social and political revolution. Comte emphasised the need to engage in abstract theorizing and go out and do sociological research. He urged that sociologists use observation, experimentation and comparative historical analysis. He was in the foremost of the development of positivistic sociology.

EMILE DURKHEIM 1858-1917

Durkheim has been seen as an inheritor of the enlightenment tradition because of his emphasis on science and social reformism and also of the conservative tradition. Durkheim developed an increasingly solid academic base as his career progressed. Durkheim legitimized sociology in France, and his work ultimately because a dominant force in the development of sociology in general and of sociological theory in particular like.

• social facts -material and non material
• suicide 
• religion

INTRODUCTION TO POLITICAL SOCIOLOGY

Origin and growth of political sociology, definition, nature and scope, founding fathers - Karl Marx and Max Weber their contribution

Origin and growth of political sociology

Political sociology, although a new emergence in its modern form, has a long history and there are substantial contributions made by the scholars of nineteenth century. Political sociology, as an independent discipline emerged in the middle of 19^th century. It was not born by accident. Politician, political scientists and sociologists have played a major role in the evolution of this subject. There were a few important factors that contributed to the growth of political sociology. There were many factors that were responsible for the emergence of political sociology.

•      The growing dissatisfaction with the traditional nature of political science. Political science was interested in normative prescriptions and political science had always viewed the state as its star attention.
•     The growth of political sociology was made possible by political scientists who quietly accepted the invasion of sociology into the sphere of politics without any protest. Political scientists began to look at political realities from a scientific perspective or in an empirical manner.
•       Extension of area of politics
•       Distinction between state and society.

Definition

Political sociology is the product of cross fertilization between sociology and political science. It studies the impact of society and politics on each other. Political sociology studies the interrelations between state and other social structures. In simple terms it can be called ‘study of power in a social context’.

Bendix and Lipset define political sociology as that ‘political science starts with the state and examines how it affects the state”. And Smelser N. J tells political sociology can be defined as the study of the interrelationship between society and polity between social structures and political institution. It seeks to investigate and explain the interrelationship between politics, social structures, ideologies and cultures.

Nature and Scope

Political sociology is a science like any other science. It employs systematic methods of investigation, theoretical thinking and logical assessment of arguments. Political sociology collects evidence about the selected subject matter using planned and organized methods. Explanations and conclusions are drawn on the basis of carefully collected evidences. Findings and conclusions are open to inspections, criticism and testing by other researchers. Political sociology involves systematic methods of investigation, analysis of data and the assessment of theories in the light of evidences and logical argument.

The scope of political sociology is very vast

Political sociology is concerned with the way in which political arrangements depend on social organizations and cultural values. It studies the relationship between the state and society, party system and its relations to society. Politics pervades the entire society. The scope includes the effect of social attitudes on political participations, social classes and their political attitudes, social implication of voting pattern. Political sociology studies the nature of modern democracy and their forum in different socio- political contexts. It studies the impact of social groupings upon political activity, the nature of welfare state, the effectiveness of propaganda and public opinion as means of informal political education. In short political sociology includes all political and social aspects which arise time and again in contemporary societies. Political sociology studies modern institution like bureaucracy, political parties, voting propaganda etc, which are day to day issues in the life of modern masses.

Founding fathers: Karl Marx and Max Weber

Although many have contributed to the growth and development of political sociology, karl marx and max weber are said to be the founding fathers of political sociology.

Karl Marx: he was one of the most influential thinkers in the 19^th century. He was born in Germany in 1818 and his parents were Jewish, the descendent of many generation of rabbis.

·        Historical materialism

·        Class struggle

·        Alienation

According to Marx alienated labour involves four aspects

•         Worker’s alienation from the object he produces.
•        From the process of production
•       From himself
•      From the community of his fellow

Characteristics of Bureaucracy

1.     .    A formal hierarchical structure
2.       Management by rules
3.         Organization by functional specialty
4.         An ‘up focused’ or ‘in focused’ mission
5.         Purposely impersonal
6.         Employment based on technical qualifications

Criticism of Bureaucratic organization

• o   Too much emphasis on rules and regulations
• o   No importance is given to informal groups
• o   Bureaucracy involves a lot of paper work
• o   Unnecessary delay in decision making

Karl Marx: He was one of the most influential thinkers in the 19^th century, He was born in Germany in 1818 and his parents were Jewish, the descendants of many generations of rabbis. He was a man of enormous and obvious brilliance. One contemporary described him in his mid-twenties, Imagine Rousseau vottaire, Holbach, Lessing, Heine and Hegel fused into one person and you have Marx. Marx devoted his life to the cause of socialist revolution. He and his family were, as a result, hounded and spied on by the police forces of half of Europe. They lived in miserable poverty. He is known to the world as the architect of socialism and the champion of communism. He was trained lawyer, a historian, an economist, a political thinker, a journalist, a great humanist and a philosopher. He committed himself to the cause of the exploited working class. His views and thoughts were so powerful that one third of the world’s population was under the grip of his views. In his early life he was concerned more about philosophy and was deeply influenced by George W.F Hegel.

Historical materialism

Hegel had tremendous influence on Marx and borrowed the Hegelian notion of thesis, antithesis and synthesis. Historical materialism is a methodological approach to the study of society economics and history. Marx himself never used the term but referred to his approach as the materialist conception of history. Historical materialism looks for the causes of developments and changes in human society in the means by which humans collectively produce the necessities of life. The non-economic features of a society (e.g. social classes. Political structures, ideologies) are seen as being an outgrowth of its economic activity.

Hegel had tremendous influence on Marx and borrowed the Hegelian notion of thesis, antithesis and synthesis. Historical materialism is a methods logical approach to the study of society economics and history. Marx himself never used the term but referred to his approach as ‘the materialist conception of history’. Historical materialism looks for the causes of developments and changes in human society in the means by which humans collectively produce the necessities of life. The non- economic features of a society are seen as being an outgrowth of its economic activity.

According to him, for human being to survive and continue existence from generation to generation, it is necessary for them to produce and reproduce the material requirements of life like food, shelter etc. Marx thus extended this premise by asserting the importance of the fact that, in order to carry out production and exchange, people have to enter into worry definite social relations, most fundamentally ‘ production relations; However, production doesn’t get carried out in the abstract, or by entering into arbitrary or random relations chosen at will. Human beings collectively work on nature but don’t do the in which people not only do different jobs, but according to Marxist theory, some people live from the work of others by owning the means of production like land, labour, capital and organization. How this is accomplished depends on the type of society. Production is carried out through very definite relations between people. And in turn, these production relations are determined by the level and character of the productive forces that are present at any given time in history for Marx, production such as the fools, instruments, technology, land, raw material and human knowledge and abilities in terms of using these means of production.

Marx identifies the production relations of society (arising on the basis of given production forces) as the economic base of society. In simple terms the economic base of the society consisted of two things;

·        Forces of production:

Forces of production consisted of labour force, tools raw materials, technological knowledge and scientific knowledge. On the other hand relations that control and organize production.

He also explained that on the foundation of the economic base there arise certain political institution, laws, customs, culture etc. and ideas, ways of thinking, morality etc., these constituted the political/ ideological superstructure of society. This superstructure not only has its origin in the economic base, but its features also ultimately correspond to the character and development of that economic base that is the way people organize society is determined by the economic base and the relations that arise from its mode of production.

·        Relations of production:-

He also explained that on the foundation of the economic base there arise certain political institutions, laws, customs, culture etc. and ideas, ways ot thinking, moralities etc.  These constituted the political/ ideological superstructure of society. This superstructure not only has its origin in the economic base, but its features also ultimately correspond to the character and development of that economic base that is the way people organize society is determined by the economic base and the relations that arise from its mode of production.

Class Struggle

Marx conceived society consisting of classes and argued that classes are the most important groups in almost all the societies. According to him different classes are antagonistic to each other. Class is a social group where members share the same relationships to the forces of production. Thus during the feudal stage there are two main classes distinguished by their relationship to land, the major forces of production. They are the feudal nobility who own the land and the landless serf who works the land, similarly in the capitalist society there these bourgeoisies or capitalists who own the forces of production and the proletariats or working class who own only their labour. Marx based his theory of class struggle on the inevitability on conflict of two opposing classes’ society. Classes are interest of the capitalist class is to pay workers as little as possible, to exploit them in order to make more profit whereas the interest of the working class is to raise wages, and eventually to abolish capitalism entirely.

Alienation

Alienation refers to the sense of powerlessness, isolation and meaninglessness experienced by human beings when they are confronted with social institutions or condition that they cannot control and consider oppressive. For Marx the social arrangements in capitalist society alienated the worker. They failed to provide him with the opportunities for a meaningful and creative existence. The worker is alienated because he neither receives satisfaction from his work nor receives the full product of his labour. Marx’s theory of alienation is the contention that under capitalist t condition workers will inevitably lose control over their work. Workers thus cease to be autonomous beings in any significant sense under pre- capitalist conditions a black smith eg or a shoemaker would own his own shop. Set his own hours, determine his own working conditions, shape his own product and have some say in how his product is bartered or sold. His relationships with the people with whom he worked and dealt had a more or less personal character. Under the conditions of modern factory production, by contrast the average worker is not much more than a replaceable cog in a gigantic and impersonal production apparatus.

Criticism on theories of Marx

1.     He was criticized for regarding the sociological factors as dependent variables rather than independent variables and subordinating them to economic interpretation of history.

2.      He also failed to anticipate the adaptive capacity of capitalism. However his general theories of economic determinism and dialectic materialism and his specific theories of class struggle class consciousness and alienation have stimulated a great amount work.

3.     Marx tried to give his theories a firm ground on the basis of evidence which he sought to examine in a systematic and rigorous manner.

Max Weber

Max Weber was a great German sociologist who has left a deep imprint in political sociology. He was one of the founders of modern sociology and began his interest in social sciences when he was 13. He was a man interested in the practical affairs of government and politics. He was born in a comparatively rich protestant family and his father was quite active in politics.

Religion and Economy

Weber wrote extensively on the subject of religion. His essay on protestant ethic and the spirit of capitalism is his major contribution to sociology. He observed a close connection between religion ideas and economic forces, such as the Calvinists played a role in creating the capitalistic spirit. Weber first observes a correlation between being protestant and being involved in business, and declares his intent to explore religion as a potential cause of the modern economic conditions. Weber found that, according to protestant religious, individuals were religiously compelled to follow a secular vocation with as much enthusiasm as possible. A person living according to this worldview was more likely to accumulate money. Further, the new religious, such as Calvinism and Protestantism forbade wastefully using hard earned money and labeled the purchase of luxuries as a sin. This religion also frowned upon donating money to the poor or to charity because it was seen as promoting beggary. The way these issues were resolved, Weber argued, was to invest the money, which would give a large boost to capitalism. In other words, capitalism evolved when the protestant ethic influenced large numbers of people to engage in work in the secular world, developing their own enterprises and engaging in trade and the accumulation of wealth for investment. The protestant ethic was therefore the driving force behind the mass action that led to the development of capitalism while Marx argued that it is economy that determined the nature of religion, Weber observed that it is religious conviction and beliefs that determined the basic characteristics of the economy.

Bureaucracy

Weber’s another important contribution in his theory of bureaucracy Weber’s interest in the nature of power and authority and his realization of the inevitability of rationalization in the operation of large scale enterprises in the fields of politics, administration and in business. Bureaucracy is understood as large scale formal organizations of the modern societies with specialized functions. Bureaucratization and rationalization go hand in hand because bureaucracies are organized to rational principles.

Characteristics of Bureaucracy

•      A formal hierarchical structure: - Each level controls the level below and is controlled by the level above. A formal hierarchy is the basis of central planning and centralized decision making.
•        Management by rules: - Controlling by rules allows decisions made at high levels to be executed consistently by all lower levels.
•      Organization by functional specialty:- Work is to be done by specialists, and people are organized into units based on the type of work they do or skills they have.
•      An up-focused or in- focused mission:- If the mission is described as ‘up focused’ then the organization’s purpose is to serve the stockholders, the board, or whatever agency empowered it, if the mission is to serve the organization itself, and those within it. E.g. to produce high profits to gain market share, or to produce a cash stream, then them mission is described as ‘in focused’.
•      Purposely impersonal:- the idea is to treat all employees equally and not be influenced by individual differences.
•      Employment based on technical qualifications:- the employment is done on the basis of technical qualification.

Merits of Bureaucracy

•      Bureaucracy is not only characterized by rational authority but is also endowed with technical superiority and is therefore conducive to efficiency.
•      In bureaucracy there is greater emphasis on objectivity and impartiality. Bureaucratic decisions are based not as personal considerations but as formal rules.
•     In a context of political instability and even immaturity in developing countries bureaucracy may provide stability and efficiency in administration transcending the changing character and composition of political elements.

Criticism

•      Too much emphasis on rules and regulations. The rules and regulations are rigid and inflexible.
•      No importance is given to informal groups. Nowadays, informal groups play an important role in all business organization.
•      Bureaucracy involves a lot of paper work, this result in lot of wastage of time, effort and money.
•      There will be unnecessary delay in decision making due to formalities and rules.
•      Bureaucratic model may be suitable for government organizations. But it is not suitable for business organizations because business organizations believe in quick decision making and flexibility in procedures.
•      Too much importance is given to the technical qualifications of the employees for promotion and transfers. Dedication and commitment of the employee is not considered.
•      There is difficulty in co-ordination and communication.
•      There is limited scope for human resource.

Notion of legitimacy and authority

Another major contribution of Weber is his notion of legitimacy and authority. He classified legitimacy into three different kinds

·        Traditional authority

·        Charismatic authority

·        Legal rational authority

Conclusion

Traditionally, bureaucracy was conceived as politically, a neutral organization. Weber himself emphasized the need for rationality and objectivity bureaucracy. However, scholars are of the view that bureaucracy cannot be neutral and it tends to develop its own group identity and interests more and more bureaucracy is conceived as a social class with group solidarity of its own.

In the words of Weber bureaucracy represents expertise and rationality and as result has become an indispensable part of modern government. It is also equally true that bureaucracy is likely to develop some dysfunctional characteristics and has to be constantly pulled up by political leadership.

INTELLECTUAL FORCES AND THE RISE OF SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY

Although social factors are important, the primary focus of this chapter is the intellectual forces that played a central role in shaping sociological theory. In real world, of course, intellectual factors cannot be separated from social factors. The many intellectual forces that shaped the development of social theories are discussed within the national context where their influence was primarily felt, we begin with the enlightenment and its influences on the development of sociological theory in France.

THE ENLIGHTENMENT

In the view of many observers that the enlightenment constitutes a critical development in terms of the later revolution of sociology. The enlightenment was a period of remarkable intellectual development  and change in philosophical thought. A member of long standing ideas and beliefs many of which related to social life were overthrown and replaced during the enlightenment. The most prominent thinkers associated with the enlightenment were the French philosophers Charles Montesquieu and Jean Jacques Rousseau. The influence of the enlightenment on sociological theory, however, was more indirect and negative than it was direct and positive. As Irving Zeitlin put it, "Early sociology developed as a reaction to the Enlightenment".The thinkers associated with the Enlightenment were influenced, above all, by two intellectual currents- seventeenth century philosophy and science. Overall, the enlightenment was characterized by the belief that people could comprehend and control the universe by means of reason and empirical research (field research). The theorists who were most directly and positively influenced by enlightenment thinking were Alexis De Tocqueville and Karl Marx, although the latter formed his early theoretical ideas in Germany.

THE CONSERVATIVE REACTION TO THE ENLIGHTENMENT

The most extreme form of opposition to enlightenment ideas was French Catholic Counterrevolutionary philosophy, as represented by the ideas of Louis De Bonald, Josepho De Maistre. Louis De Bonald was disturbed by the revolutionary change  and yearned for a return to the peace and harmony of the middle ages. In this view, God was the source of society, therefore reason, which was so important to the enlightenment philosophers, was seen as inferior to traditional religious beliefs, furthermore, it was believed that because God had created society, people should not temper with it and should not try to change a holy creation. 

Bonald opposed anything that undermined such traditional institutions as patriarchy, the monogamous family the monarchy and the catholic church. He represented a rather extreme form of the conservative reaction, his work constitute a useful introduction to its general premises. The conservatives turned away from what they considered the "naive" rationalism of the enlightenment. They not only recognized the irrational aspects of social life but also assigned them positive value.

Zeitlin outlined ten propositions that he sees as emerging from the conservative reaction and providing the basis for the development of classical French sociological theory. 

1. Emphasis on individual (enlightenment thinkers)
2. Society is the most important unit of analysis
3. Individual was not even considered as the most basic element within society
4. The part of society are seen as interrelated and interdependent.
5. Change was seen as a threat to the society
6. To the see large-scale components of society as useful to society and the individual.
7. Small units such as the family, religious, neighborhood as essential to the society and the individual.
8. To see various modern social changes- industrialization, urbanization, and bureaucratization -disorganizing effects.
9. Social changes were leading to rational society- conservative reaction leads to non rational factors (ritual, ceremony, worship) in social life.
10. Conservatives supported the existence of a hierarchical system in society.

The ten proposition, derived from the conservative reaction to enlightenment, should be seen as the immediate intellectual basis of the development of sociological theory in France.

SOCIAL FORCES IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF SOCIOLOGICAL THEORY

An intellectual fields are profoundly shaped by their social settings. This is particularly true of sociology, which not only is derived from that setting as its subject matter. It was the utmost significance in 19th and early 20th centuries in the development of sociology.

POLITICAL REVOLUTION (FRENCH REVOLUTION)  

The French revolution in 1789 which carried over through the 19th century was the most immediate factor in the rise of sociological theorizing. The impact of this revolutions on many society was enormous and many positive changes resulted. However, what attracted the attentions of many early theorists was not the positive consequences but the negative effects of such changes, These writers were particularly disturbed especially in France. They were united in a desire to restore order to society. Some extreme thinkers and sophisticated thinkers wanted to return to the peaceful and relatively orderly days of the middle ages and recognized that social change had made such a return impossible. Thus they sought instead to find new bases of order in societies that had been overturned by the political revolutions of the 18th and 19th centuries. This interest in the issue of social order was one of the major concerns of classical sociological theories especially Comte, Durkheim and Parsons.

THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION AND THE RISE OF CAPITALISM

The industrial revolution mainly happened in the nineteenth  centuries. The industrial revolution was not a single event but many interrelated developments that culminated in the transformation of the western world from a largely agricultural to an overwhelmingly industrial system. Due to industrial revolution large number of people left the farms and agricultural land and work for the industrial occupations offered in the burgeoning factories. The factories themselves were transformed by a long series  of technological improvements. Large economic bureaucracies arose to provide the many services needed by industry and emerging capitalist economic system. In this economy, the ideal was a free marketplace where the many products of an industrial system could be exchanged. within this system, a few profited greatly while the majority worked long hours for low wages. A reaction against the industrial system and capitalism in general followed and led to the labour movement as well as to various radical movements aimed at overthrowing the capitalist system. The industrial revolution, capitalism and reaction against them all involved an enormous upheaval in western society, as upheaval that affected sociologists greatly. Four major figures in the early history of sociological theory Karl Marx, Max Weber, Emile Durkheim and George Simmel were preoccupied.

THE RISE OF SOCIALISM

One set of changes aimed at coping with the excesses of the industrial system and capitalism can be combined under the heading "Socialism". Although some sociologists favored socialism as a solution to industrial problems, most were personally and intellectually opposed to it. On one side, Karl Marx was an active supporter of the overthrown of the capitalist system and its replacement by a socialist system. Marx did not develop a theory of socialism but he spent a great deal of time criticizing various aspects of capitalist society. In addition, he engaged in a variety of political activities that he hoped would help bring about the rise of socialist societies. Max Weber and Emile Durkheim were opposed to socialism- although they recognized the problems within capitalist society, They sought social reform within capitalism rather than the social revolution argued for by Marx. They feared socialism more than they did capitalism. This fear played a greater role in shaping sociological theory than did Marx's support of the socialist alternative to capitalism.

FEMINISM

In one sense there has always been a feminist perspective, wherever women are subordinated and they have been subordinated almost always and everywhere- they seem to have recognized and protested that situation in some form. While precursors can be traced to the 1630's high points of feminist activity and writing occurred in the liberationist  movements of modern western history- a first flurry of productivity in the 1780's and 1790's with the debates surrounding the American and French revolutions- a far more organised, focused effort in the 1850's as part of the mobilization against for women's suffrage (rights to vote in election) and for industrial and civic reform legislation in the progressive Era in the united states. All of this had an impact on the development of sociology, in particular on the work of a number of women in or associated with the field. Feminist concerns filtered into sociology only on the margins, in the work of marginal male theorists or of the increasingly marginalized female theorists- The men who assumed centrality (Critical role position in middle) in the profession from Spencer, through Weber and Durkheim made basically conservative responses to the feminist arguments going on around them, making issues of gender on inconsequential topic to which they responded conventionally rather than critically in what they identified and publicly promoted as sociology. They responded in this way even as women were writing a significant body of sociological theory. The history of this gender politics in the profession, which is also part of the history of male response to feminist claims, is only now being written.

URBANIZATION

Partly as a result of the industrial revolution, large members of people in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries were uprooted from their rural homes and moved to urban settings. This massive migration was caused, in large part, by the jobs, created by the industrial system in the urban areas. But it presented many difficulties for those people who had to adjust to urban life. In addition, the expansion of the cities produced a seemingly endless list of urban problems, over crowding, pollution, noise, traffic and so fourth. The nature of urban life and its early sociologists, especially Max Weber and George Simmel. In fact, the first major school of American sociology, the Chicago school, was in large part defined by its concern for the city and its interest in using Chicago as a laboratory in which to study urbanization and its problems. 

RELIGIOUS CHANGE

Social changes brought on by political revolution the industrial revolution and urbanization had a profound effect on religiosity, many early sociologists came from religious backgrounds and were actively and in some cases professionally involved in religion. They brought to sociology the objectives they wished to improve people's lives, sociology was transformed into a religion. For others, their sociological theories bore an unmistakable religious imprint. Durkheim wrote one of his major works on religion, morality played a key role not only in Durkheim's sociology but also in the work of Talcott Parsons. A large portion of Weber's work also was devoted to the religions of the world. Marx too, had an interest in religiosity, but his orientation was for more critical.

THE GROWTH OF SCIENCE

As sociological theory was being developed there was an increasing emphasis on science, not only in colleges and universities but in society as a whole. The technological products of science were permeating (spread though) every sector of life, and science was acquiring enormous prestige. Those associated with the most successful sciences (Physics, biology, chemistry) were accorded honored places in society. Sociologists (Comte, Durkheim, Spencer and Mead) from the beginning were preoccupied with science, and many wanted to model sociology after the successful physical and biological sciences. However, a debate soon developed between those who wholeheartedly accepted the scientific model and those who thought that distinctive characteristics of social life made a wholesale adoption of a scientific model difficult and unwise. The issue of the relationship between sociology and science is debated to this day, although even a glace at the major journals in the field, at least in the united states, indicates the predominance of those who favor sociology as a science.

INFLUENCE, POWER AND AUTHORITY

Meaning and types, characteristic of power, distribution of power, various theories of political elites,  and authority- different ways acquiring legitimacy.

INFLUENCE

Ability to change the course, somebody’s thinking, behaving even in decision making are the one kind of influence. Influence has impact on the other and it is a interpersonal between the individual, groups, organization, association etc. The influence cannot be a personal to one and can be intentional or unintentional. Influence of other intention assumed.

Factor affects influence

•          Amount of recourses of your disposal
•          The manner in which you use your resources.
•          The level of motivation to use resources.

Types of influences

•          Spontaneous
•          Coercive force

POWER

Power is to possess a capacity to influence the other. It can be positive or negative. It is a capacity to control. It is a capacity to direct the course action. All form of relationship use power. In politics the ‘power’ is legitimate and authoritarian and its institutionalize defined by Niccollo Machieavalli.

The concept of power and politics are entwined interdependent in the sense that are interconnected with each other.

Meaning of Power

• The term ‘power’ may be defined as a capacity to exert an influence over others ‘power is define as the ability to influence and control anything that is of value to others. According to P.Robbins “power is the probability that one actor within the relationship will be in a position to carry out his own will despite resistance.”
• According to T.B Bottomore “Ability of an individual or a social group to pursue a course of action to make and implement decisions and more broadly to determine the agenda for decision making, if necessary against the interests and even  against the opposition of other individuals and groups.”

Definition of Power

• Giddens defines “By power is meant the ability of individual 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 action of the powerful.
• Max Weber defines “ 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 resist.’

With Power You Can..

•          Intercede favourably on behalf of someone in trouble.
•          Get a desirable project done and obtain favour.
•          Get items on and off agendas.
•          Maintains regular, frequent contact with decision makers.
•          Acquire early information about decisions and policy shift.

Characteristics of Power

There are following characteristics

•          Power is relational- power is exercised only in relation to others. Political power is essentially relational. It is over something.
•          Power is behavioural- consists in the behavioural of the two actors towards one another. Actor manifest behavior affects another actor’s manifest behavior.
•          Power is situational- it is always related to a specific situation. Power is exercised in a specific context, out of context, it become ineffective.

Types of Power

1. Political power: control of or influence on, the state ability to make or influence political decision.    
2. Economic power: control of economic assets
3. Military power: ability to wage a war

In other types of Power are

1. Coercive power: this kind of power involves the usage of threat to make people do what one desires.
2.  Reward power: as the name suggests, this type of power uses rewards, perks, new projects or training opportunities, better roles and monetary benefits to influence people.   
3.  Legislative power: this power emanate from an official position held by someone, be it in an organization, bureaucracy or government etc. The duration of this power is short lived as a person can use it only till the time he/she holds that position as well as the scope of the power is small as it was strictly defined by the position held.

POWER, AUTHORITY AND LEGITIMACY

In the words of Robert A Dahak “power influence and authority are common place words that ordinary people share with political practioners and political theorist. One hears of power to govern, the power of purse, political power, spiritual power, economic power, national power, judicial power, presidential power, black power, student power and state power.

Power is central to the study of politics. Politics is nothing but struggle for power. We cannot separate power from the study of politics. All states possess power which is the most important and essential element of the state. No state system can work in the absence of power. Political power is not evenly distributed. It is usually concentrated in the hands of a few who may be called “the power elites”.

Meaning of power

According to Herbert Goldhamer and Edward Shills “ Power is ability to influence the behavior of others in accordance with one’s own ends”. By power we mean the power of man over the minds and actions of other man.

Characteristics of Power

There are certain characteristics of power are the capacity to influence the behavior of others. An individual or a nation wields power to the extent he is capable of changing others behavior according to his with power is the capacity of an individual to get things done from others according to his desires.

According to Frederick “power is a certain kind of human relationship, for the use of power the presence of actor. There are different kinds of relationship.

Power is situational: it depends on situation, circumstances and position. A teacher may exercise power on his student which he is in college but not after he has left the college.

Power depends on its use: the president of India has powers but he doesn’t use them as he is merely a constitutional head.

Power must be backed by sanction: if the capacity of a person to get work done from others is devoid of coercion, that capacity or ability cannot be called power.

SOURCES OF POWER

There are many sources of power. The major source of power is knowledge which helps us to move from darkness to light. It helps us in investigation, learning, thinking and development of mind and soul. The capacity for leadership comes through knowledge. Hence, knowledge is an important source of power.

Another source of power is organization. It is a great power in itself. When people work together, their power and strength increases. Then a person enjoys the support of the leader of an organization his power increases, political parties are organized to capture power and exercise the same.

Power is the status of an individual: economic status helps a person to attain power. A rich man can put pressure even on the highest officials and individual with better resources will capture more power than other. The status of a person in the religious field is also a source of power as the followers of that religious support him.

Power is the skill if an individual: A tactful person can get more powers than others.

Power is faith or belief: power cannot be based on repression or brute force. It is necessary to win over the faith of the people also a government enjoying public faith in  more powerful than others.

Power is authority: authority means legitimate power. When a person occupies a political or legal post legitimately his power increases automatically. Authority not only adds to power but also makes it effective. When a person becomes a minister and gets the authority of a minister, he becomes more powerful than others.

Power is the mass media: like newspaper, radio and television. The owners and editors of newspapers can easily influence others and are effectively powerful.

Power is the responsibility of a person: that personality may be due to the wisdom, courage, oratory, organizational ability and capacity to take quick and proper decisions. A leader who possesses a charismatic personality is more powerful than others.

KIND OF POWER

·         Power may be legitimate or illegitimate: Legitimate power is that which is used according to the laws, constitution or the accepted traditions of the people. It may be constitutional, traditional, or charismatic, constitutional power is derived from the constitution of the country. Charismatic power is based on the personal qualities of an individual.

·         Illegitimate power is that which is exercised not according to laws, constitutions, or the accepted traditions or customs of the people. It is based on force or repression.

·         Power may be direct or indirect: when a person himself used his power, it is called direct power. When he gets it used by others or by subordinates, it is called indirect power.

·         Power which is exercised openly or explicitly: is called manifest power the police and the army are example of manifest power.

·         The power which can’t be exercised openly or clearly is called latent power such as the power of the people.

·         When a person uses his power or others who don’t have any power on him, it is called unilateral power.

·         When both sides use power for each other, it is called bilateral power.

·         When it is divided at different places, it is called decentralized power.

·         Power is decentralized in a federation. It is centralized in a unitary government. National power is always exercised by the state. It is be psychological power, economy power, or military power.

FORM OF POWER/ DISTRIBUTION OF POWER

Crespigny classifies power relationship into six categories.

1.      Coercive- A coercive relationship exists between A and B when A gets B to do what he wants by threating to make things unpleasant for B if he doesn’t comply. Basically coercive relationship implies conflict and deprivation. Over a period of time, it may come to generate voluntary behavior.

2.      Inductive- An inductive power relationship exists when A gets B to do what he wants by providing him something attractive, by offering a kind of award. By granting additional release of news print, the government may induce a newspaper not to publish a critical review.

3.      Relational- In a relational power relationship. A experts power over B or B does what A wants, not because of inducement or constraint but because B hopes or expects that A will help him if he complies or will harm him if he does not comply. The power relationship between superiors and there is usually relational because subordinates believe that they may prosper or win promotion by complying with the wisdom of the superiors.

4.      Impedimental- In the case of impedimental power. A gets B to company with his wishes by putting impediments or obstacles in the attainment of his goal. A minister may prevent contractors from doing his building work by withdrawing the ‘no objection’ certification.

5.      Attachment- A power relational in which A exercises power over B because the latter loves or is impressed or attracted by his personality and desires to imitate or obey him is called attachment power. No conflict or tension is involved as power is willingly conceded by B do A the power of a charismatic leader is generally of this king.

6.      Persuasive power relationship- Persuading power is that power which may be exercised by A over B and which is based on rational or nor national arguments. There is no conflict or tension in this power relationship.

7.      Legitimate power relationship- There is a legitimate power relationship. When A affects the action of B because B regards him entitled to do so. Legitimate power must be exercised by a person authorized by a set of rules to do certain things or issue certain commands. A exercise legitimate power over B only when B feels that the action of A is just and he is authorized to act by a set or system of rules.

VARIOUS THEORIES OF POLITICAL ELITES.

Pluralist theories of Power

According to this theory, power is held by a variety of groups in society (some of which are more powerful than others) who tend to compete with each other. Here, no one group or class will be able to dominate all other groups because of checks and balances built into the system of government. A ‘plurality’ of competing interest groups political parties and so forth is seen to characterize democratic societies.

Diagrammatic representation of pluralist theories of power

CONFLICT THEORIES/ RULING THEORIES

Power is unevenly distributed between capitalist and labourer or between powerful people and powerless people. Power is concentrated in the hands of capitalist. Their economic power them political power.

Some of the important aspects of Karl Marx view on ruling class theory

According to Marx, the political structures are mere reflection of the economic structure. The political power is unequally distributed in a society and there is a polarization of the society based on the accessibility to, and ownership of the means of production. The ruling classes, who own the modes of production, do control the political power too. The Marxist view envisages a classless egalitarian future in which the ruled masses capture the power from the ruling class and form a communist state.

The theories of Pareto, Mosca and Mitchel challenged some of the important aspects of the Marxist position on the formation of political elites.

·         They rejected the Marxist position that political structures are mere reflections of the socio-economic relations. Although they agreed that the economic factors are important, they believed that economic factors are not the only source determining the power structure of a society. According to them the sources of the political elites are many and the political means at their disposals are extremely important with which they could control, accommodate and even counteract the economic force.

·         While they agreed with Marx that the political power is unevenly distributed in a society, they discard the Marxist idea of the inaccessibility of the ‘ruling class’ for the ‘ruled class’ leading to the polarization between them. Instead, they believed in the ‘continual circulation’ of elites. They argued that although the elites class remained distinct from others yet, it has to remain accessible to the influence of the non-elite class since the former has to recruit new personal from the later in order to retain its power position. Unlike Marx, they also reject the possibility of the formation of a stable and closed ruling class.

·         Thirdly they find no validity in the Marxist idea of the future ‘classes’ ‘egalitarian’ society. They accept the hierarchical structure of the society as the inevitable order of any social system.

ELITE THEORY

The word ‘elite’ originated in the 17^th century and was used to refer to commodities of excellence. Later it came to be used for superior groups of people. Elite are groups of people with the highest capacities in their branch of activity. Elites are the most important leaders who perform key roles in the governance of a society. A part from making decisions, they also influence the decision making at the national and international levels.

ARGUMENTS OF ELITE THEORY

•        All are not equally capable of participating in the affairs of the state.
•       Whatever be the form of government, it is run by a small number of people.
•        Political power tends to be concentrated in a c\small, distinct and powerful groups.
•       They exclude the masses from decision making.
•       They assume that the masses are politically apathetic, passive and ill-informed.
•        Their legitimacy in derived from their ability to lead, their outstanding qualities etc.

CLASSICAL ELITE THEORY

The basic arguments of elite theory is ‘power is always rests in the hands of few’. The grand theory of elites that have emerged in Italy could be classified into categories based upon their approaches. They are

1.      Organizational approach (Mosca, Michaels)

2.      Psychological approach (Pareto)

3.      Economic approach (Burnham)

4.      Institutional approach (C.W.Mills)

VILFREDO PARETO (psychological approach)

Pareto argued that all societies were divided into those who exhibited qualities of excellence in their given sphere of activities like

•          The elite (Foxes)
•          Non elites (Lion)

Elites were simply those people who occupied in any kind of human activity. So it is a aspect of government such as political parties, trade unions, commerce, the military etc. the top people constituted in ‘governing elite’.

Non elite- in areas of life non related to government, that is occupation, entertainment, sport and leisure the top people formed non governing elites. The governing elite was constituted by those with the best developed skills at ruling others, whether by the use of force or by cunning, manipulation and healing and dealing. The masses, by contrast were incompetent and ineffectively organized. In any case, mass and majority rule were held by Pareto a delusion. According to Pareto, the composition of elites obviously changes over time there is ‘circulation of elites’ but elite rule remains.

Circulation Of Elites (based on Residue)

Divided elites into two

Lion- Achieve power because of their ability to take direct incisive action and rule by force. They are endowed with the residues called persistence and aggregates. Lion are solid, conservative prefer to relay on force.

Foxes- Rules by cunningness, diplomatic manipulation and dealing, governed by residue of combinations. The elites are composed of either of these type of individuals. History reveals a constant alternation between lions and foxes.

Circulation of elites may take place between the elite and non-elite also. Either through a gradual process of infiltration or by a violent revolution, when elites don’t possess the residues necessary for keeping them in power their rule will face threats. At all same time at the lower strata of society the necessary residue may sufficiently be manifest. Declining elites recruits the new elements from lower strata or violently over thrown.

GAETANO MOSCA (Organizational approach)

He is born in April 1^st 1858 and died in November 8^th 1941. He is a Italian political scientist, journalist, and public servant. He talk about “the ruling class” theory.

Ruling Class

Elites are the political class or the ruling class. They are superior class due to certain attributes like economic, military or religious strength. They are less in number. They perform all political functions, monopolies power. They enjoys the benefits of power.

Class of the Ruled

They are in numerous in number. They are constantly controlled, directed by legal means and manipulated.

Political Formula

Elites are capable of high level of solidarity, conscious and cohesive actions, and superior internal organizational ability. Elites exercise their rule through a political formula. A part from physical force they also try to convince the ruled class of their necessity and importance. Provide a moral and legal basis for their power. Justify their rule through a universal moral principle which are at times mythical.

Fusion of the old and the New

Position of the political class is never permanent. Their will likely to be affected by the growth of new interests/problems/ideals etc. economic changes, emergence of new religious ideology will affect the influence of elites. In such situations elites will compromise, assimilate and adapt themselves to the new changes. Fusion of the old and the new will take place. The elite will accommodate the ablest from the new groups into its fold. Sub elites (civil servants, managers of industries) are vital elements in the governance of the society in stability depends.

ROBERT MICHELS (Organizational approach)

He is a German sociologist, born 1876 and died 1936. He formulated the famous “iron law of oligarchy”.

This states “who says organization, says oligarchy”. Oligarchy means the rule by few.

Michel’s’ View

In his view, very structure of modern organized societies gives birth to elite rule. In virtue of the size and the complexity requires power and supremacy be given to a few. Michels gives two explanations to the emergence of oligarchy.

•          Organizational
•          Psychological

Organization require technical expertise which the general masses are incapable  of providing because of this technical indispensability a circle of leaders with technical know-how assume leadership responsibilities- control the affairs and thus assumes power.

POTENTIAL OF ELITES

• Technical expertise used to perpetuates itself.
•  General use of ethical principle
• Their fidelity, dedication and financial independence
• Ability of the oligarchy to absorb and digest new individuals from the masses.
• They require freedom of action and vested interest in their position and then oligarchy is established.
•  Control of the affairs are passed onto these few elites

Psychological

Majority is apathetic, ignorant, lack self-regulation and is slavish. They have psychological need for guidance, too glad to be guided and allowed others to assume political responsibilities for them. Elite take full advantage of this and perpetuate themselves in power. They become stable and irreplaceable new elements will be accepted and amalgamated. Masses can revolt but the leaders the masses become the neo-elites.

C. WRIGHT MILLS (institutional approach)

Mills applied these findings in the national level in the United States and argued in his “the power elite” that the United States was governed by a set of interlocking and self-perpetuating elites, a “power elite”. He viewed it as a fairly recent development in the United States and explained elite rule in institutional rather than psychological terms. Example- some institutions are powerful like business, media, entertainment, economic, politics, religious etc. from this some occupy a commanding position.

Elites

Elites are those who controlled such institutions. They hold the balance of power in such a society as a whole. Their influence on politics naturally will be high. They can also dominate politically on the structural level of power. Thus power gets institutionalized. They can called power elites or political elites.

Elites in USA

 Mills sighed out three main institutions. Government, business corporations and military and contended that the occupants of the top positions in these areas form the ‘power elite’. The three major elites in American society economic elite, are in a position to take fundamental and far reaching decisions on American social, economic and political policy.

Power elites in USA

Mills considered those three major elites to be the most powerful like economic elites, political elites and military elites. They are the ultimate decision making body on the highest position. It influence the American on social, political and economic life.

Dynamics of power elites

Leader of these groups are cohesive because of their similarity of social origin as well as their close interconnections. There is a degree of necessary co-operation between elites within these power blocks. May have different specific interests but these are subjected to the wider interest of maintaining elite states, power and role.

Characteristics of elite’s theories

•    Political power is invariably concentrated in the hands of a few.
•   All societies are ruled by a majority who are the political elites.
•   They are powerful because of their organizing capacities.
•  Elites rule always as self-conscious, cohesive and conspirational group.
•  Power brings more power and thus elites are in a highly advantageous position.

Criticisms of Elite Theories

•  Elite theorists confuse between potential controls with actual control, group having weak unity.
•  Political power is unevenly distributed but this doesn’t mean elite rule.
• There may be different scopes of power. A group having influence in one scope of power may not have similar degree of influence in another scope.

AUTHORITY

·   The term ‘authority’ refers to an abstract concept with both sociological and psychological components.

·         Power is the ability, whether personal or social, to get things done- either to enforce one’s 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.

AUTHORITY AND COERCION

·         The starting point for Weber’s political analysis was the important distinction.

·         Between power as authority and power as coercion.

·         For Weber, authority is the legitimate use of power, individuals accept and act upon orders that are given to them because they believe that to do so is right.

·         In coercion, on the other hand, other force people into an action, often by the threat of violence, and this are always regarded as illegitimate.

LEGITIMATE AND POWER

·         Legitimacy means the willing to obey a system of rule or commands.

·         A person can have legitimacy but no actual power. (ex the legitimate king might reside in exile, destitute and forgotten)

·         A person can have  actual power but not legitimacy ( a dictator who exiled the king and appropriates the symbols of office)

AUTHORITY

According to Max Weber there are distinguished three main types of authority.

• 1    Traditional authority
• 2    Rational or legal authority
• 3    Charismatic authority

TRADITIONAL AUTHORITY

Of all the legitimating of authority the appeal to tradition is certainly the most common powers is legitimized by ancient customs. The authority of the ruler is generally founded on unwritten laws and it has almost a sacred quality, tribal leaders and monarchs have always relied on traditional authority. People obey traditional authority because they have always been that way; they know that doing so in past generations has given their society order and continuity. Thus it is not tradition alone here that is at issue, rather the stability of the social order is being accepted for its own sake. Authority is inherited or simply from past tradition. Leaders are leaders because they are divine right of kings.

Characteristics of authority

•          Authority is diffuse and unbounded
•          Relationships are whole person
•          Relationships are reciprocal but asymmetrical

Advantage of authority

•          Stable and orderly
•          Flexibility, not bound by excessive rules
•          Generates strong positive associations
•          Right doesn’t get blocked by process or rules

Disadvantage of authority

•          Right seem only from leader perspective
•          Fickle
•          No ways to remove incompetent leaders
•          No room for exemplary talent to rise
•          Unlimited or unrestrained power leaves potential for abuse wide open
•          Little room for the individual

RATIONAL/ LEGAL AUTHORITY

Power is legitimized by explicit rule and procedures that define the rights and obligations of the leaders. Such rules and procedures are commonly found in a written constitution and set of laws. Authority rests on a belief in the legality of enacted rules and the right of that elevated to authority under such rules to issue commands. Authority established through a process of procedural authority, elections and government hiring processes.

Advantage of rational authority

Predictable, orderly, transparent and all are equal, relatively little chance for abuse. Protects subordinates rights.

Disadvantages of rational authority

Slow, rigid and inflexible. Impersonal, processes may overwhelm goals.

CHARISMATIC AUTHORITY

Power is legitimized by the unusual, expectational or even supernatural qualities that people attribute to particular political, religious or military leaders. Weber called this extraordinary quality ‘charisma’. Often such leaders will be seen as having supernatural powers on qualities. The leader is uniquely able to resolve grand problems. The charismatic leader is the solution. Legitimacy rests with devotion to the exceptional sanctity, heroism or exemplary character of individual persons. Followers believe leader to be infallible. Leader can command anything and follower follow the leader. Leader is superman. Leader is the answer to major problem.

Advantage of charismatic authority

·         Rapid change is possible

·         Old, corrupt systems can be overthrown

·         A new world is possible

·         May really solve major problems.

Disadvantage of charismatic authority

•          If leader is an idiot and everything crashes
•          Leader abuses authority, then followers are victimized
•          Leader usually very jealous of subordinate leaders
•          Leader resist routinisation
•          Collapse at leaders demise or dead

CONCLUSION

These diverse types of authority interact differently in the process of social change. According to weber, the only kind of authority that can instigate social change is charismatic. Traditional and rational legal authority brings social stability. They are each designed to maintain the system. Charismatic individual come to bring social change, yet charismatic authority is also inherently precarious. Because charisma is based on belief in the special abilities of the individuals every instance of charismatic authority will fail within that person.