To study politics is to study the distribution of power in society. Discuss.

1351 Words6 Pages
‘To study politics is to study the distribution of power in society.’ Discuss. Politics has been defined by some as essentially being about power. That is, having the ability to achieve results regardless of means. This is often expressed using a phrase from Robert Dahl, who spent many years studying politics as power in America; 'A' [where A is a group or individual] has power over 'B' [Where B is a group or individual] to the extent that A can get B to do something they wouldn't ordinarily do. However, like any political concept worth its salt, the definition of power is highly contested, as is its influence within politics. For example, Barbara Goodwin, in the book Using Political Ideas, Identifies no less than six different archetypes of power, although focuses primarily on Authority. However, the second archetype of power she identifies conforms to the definition from Dahl above. That archetype is: Power as “The general ability to influence others which a politician, office-holder or other politically active person has, to cause them to do what he/she wants.” Clearly, to claim that ‘to study politics is to study the distribution of power in society’, is also to claim that politics and the distribution of power are intrinsically connected, to the point where politics becomes nothing more than a reflection of the power distribution, and more often than not, division, in society. This view of politics and power, as mentioned in Andrew Heywood’s Politics, is a view heavily supported by Marxists and some Feminists. For Marxists, it can be argued that to study politics is to study the distribution of power in society, because the fundamental social relationship for Marxists is the power disparity between the bourgeoisie, those who own the means of production, and the proletariat, who do not and so must sell their labour to the bourgeoisie. Karl Marx,
Open Document