Power: Interpersonal, Organizational, and Global Dimensions Wednesday, 12 October 2005 TOPIC: Explaining Power Differentials, from classical theory.  Why do power differentials arise? Two fundamental answers: a) human nature b) society is organized  How are differences maintained/changed over time? In the first set of authors we will discuss, each theorist will give different accounts of human nature but each will claim that human nature will inevitably produce differences in power. (Excursis: Why it is important to attach time frame and social location for each writer? Ideas and people do not float free of their social worlds, fosters historical illiteracy, undermines resources for interpretation of the texts.) NICOLO MACHIAVELLI – (1469-1927) Italian (Florence), general renaissance man • not intimate with State power, not close associate with his prince • 15th century Italy was fragmented into city-states and was not unified until 19th century • Machiavelli neither served nor conceived of a strong unified state • was spurned by the state in which he resided • did not attempt to produce a unified model or picture of all power residing in the state • does not provide blueprint like Hobbes or Marx – Machiavelli instead interprets strategies of power rather than offering some way to institutionalize power • he was cast adrift from state service by the changing nature of political adventurism and division in Medici Florence and he was not inside with these power brokers • characteristics of his works derive from his sense of his own political world – a world of flux, discontinuity, intrigue, illusion • thought that knowledge could not contain power, power was separate from knowledge but power and knowledge could enable each other through strategic understanding of how to deploy one another • aim was to “be a mastery of a situation,” to develop the knowledge of strategies and techniques of politics Machiavelli observed – he wanted to uncover what was secret and to avoid being misled by performance. He studied strategies rather than sticking to a priori mechanical, causal conceptions of power. His works: The Prince and The Discourses, descriptive ethnography of Florence, especially political culture and, in particular, power, but power conceived of as strategic action, planned action. In his work, Machiavelli makes no moral evaluation of whether power is good or bad – and this distinguished him from other authors who made such judgments. His only purpose was to discover effectiveness of certain power strategies. His refusal to evaluate set his work apart and to this day the term Machiavellian describes someone who is preoccupied with strategies of power. It often also means a “schemer," with a negative connotation because until recently, 10/12/05, page 1 of 8power was generally loaded with negative connotations. Thus, treating power as a phenomena without necessarily negative value brought to Machiavelli the negative valuation, e.g. schemer. Power did not necessarily flow from the sovereign, justice, or right. He does not try to rationalize or justify power, but only to specify. He describes strategies as he sees them at work. Power does not belong to any one or any place – isn’t something that princes necessarily have. Power is the effectiveness of their strategies for achieving a greater scope of action for one’s self. Again, it is not inherent in any one – but tenuously produced and reproduced depending on strategic competence and the skills of actors who would be powerful. (Not unlike our sociological understanding.) Machiavelli stressed description/interpretation rather than moral evaluation – and this marks his place in history, his insistence not to judge, just to describe. This contrasts with others, e.g. Hobbes, Machiavelli focused on power in particular situations, specific arenas, how it works. At the center of Machiavelli’s concern was the primordial fact that the core of power is violence, the willingness and ability to use violence – this was the boundary for Machiavelli. To exercise power is to bring violence to bear on someone’s persons or possessions, knowledge of when to be cruel and when to withdraw. • The prince must use an economy of violence sparingly which requires careful consideration of military capacity, knowledge of opponents’ means, how to translate armed bodies into disciplined organized threat. • But one should exercise power sparingly, wrecking violence as political strategy led to structural weakness – not only did it make you weak, it demonstrated your weakness. You demonstrated your weakness if you used too much because then you would simply use up resources and without having built up alternative reserves. • An alternative reserve could be to secure consent – a more effective way of transmitting power than being violent. On some occasions violence may be more effective – so that you can threaten it in future. • Where consent can be secured it cannot be generalized or universal nor could you base rule on it always or across all types of spheres of action – consent is always in particular circumstances. Machiavelli Summary He was not interested in designing some ideal but instead examined in a detached, rational way without judgment, asking how is power acquired and maintained? He used case studies asking what acts are beneficial/detrimental to exercising power? We go back to one of our original questions...  Where do power differentials come from? This was of crucial importance to Machiavelli who argued that human nature is changeless but malleable. (We can’t make comparisons across time and space.) 10/12/05, page 2 of 8 What is the essentially changeless nature of humans? We’re essentially evil, according to Machiavelli: “men are ungrateful, fickle, lying, hypocritical, fearful, and grasping creatures” but this does not preclude social cooperation – but how do you get social cooperation if we’re so bad? Humans have insatiable desires. Our limitless ambition is our impetus for self-preservation. Can manipulate humans by using the goal of self-preservation. Humans are also short-sighted so we focus on immediate rewards, but it takes a longer strategy to outwit us. We’re also imitative – inclined to follow the example of authority figures or be molded by leadership.