{"id":49,"date":"2018-07-16T08:52:35","date_gmt":"2018-07-16T08:52:35","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/soc15.epgpbooks.inflibnet.ac.in\/?post_type=chapter&p=49"},"modified":"2018-08-02T05:07:39","modified_gmt":"2018-08-02T05:07:39","slug":"webers-perspective-on-three-dimensions-of-power-class-status-and-party","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/ebooks.inflibnet.ac.in\/soc15\/chapter\/webers-perspective-on-three-dimensions-of-power-class-status-and-party\/","title":{"rendered":"Weber\u2019s Perspective on Three Dimensions of Power: Class, Status and Party"},"content":{"raw":"
\r\n\r\nPower in a Sociological Perspective<\/strong>\r\n\r\n \r\n

We may understand different things when one invokes the word \u2018power\u2019. To be sure, we certainly do not refer here to the notion of power in physics which is derived through calculating the amount of work done per unit of time. In sociology, power is a concept that is intimately linked with politics and the way a society is organized, stratified and structured.<\/p>\r\n \r\n

While many sociologists and social thinkers have put forth elaborate theories of power, it was the German sociologist Max Weber (1864-1920) who first provided a general definition of power. In one of his most famous essays from the collection Economy and Society<\/em> (1978: 926), Weber defined power as \u201cthe chance of a man or a number of men to realize their own will in a social action even against the resistance of others who are participating in the action\u201d. That means, \u201cto Weber, power is about getting your own way, even against the opposition of others\u201d (Giddens 2009, 989)!<\/p>\r\n \r\n

It should be understood in today\u2019s reading that Weber\u2019s reference to \u201cman\u201d or \u201ca number of men\u201d in his definition must also include women. In line with the history of western social thought until the advent of feminist critiques, most writers used the word man (leaving out the women) to refer to all human behaviour and action. Now coming back to the discussion, we can see how broad Weber\u2019s definition of power is, since you can realize your will and thus be powerful in more ways than one, sometimes through violence and coercion, but many a time, through acquiring a legitimate authority over others. According to Weber, there are three types of authority through which one can enjoy power - traditional, charismatic and rational-legal (See Weber 1978).<\/p>\r\n \r\n

But our discussion is not really on the types of authority. We are interested in how Weber saw power was distributed in the society, or what he called \u2018the political community\u2019. But before going directly to Weber\u2019s text, let us first try to understand briefly what we mean by social stratitification and why all sections of the society do not have the same \u2018power\u2019. In other words, why do we live in an unequal society?<\/p>\r\n \r\n\r\nSocial Stratification: Hierarchy and Difference<\/strong>\r\n\r\n \r\n

\u201cBy social stratification\u201d, says Indian sociologist Dipankar Gupta (1991: ix), \u201cwe mean not just the differences that separate fellow human beings in society, whether on the grounds of culture, economy or biology, but we also include within its scope hierarchical rankings which ordain positions of superiority and inferiority within society\u201d. That is society can be understood to be differentiated into multiple horizontal and vertical layers.Horizontal layers would mean separation among groups and people purely on the basis of differences, say the stratification of India into different language-speaking communities is an example of horizontal differentiation. It will be ridiculous to argue that the Tamil-speaking community is superior to or above the Khasi-speaking community, or vice versa. Such claims do not make any sociological sense.<\/span><\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

\r\n\r\n \r\n

On the other hand, society is also vertically differentiated which means separation among groups and people on the basis of hierarchy. A group of businessmen might be above a group of school teachers, but only on the criterion of income. It is possible that on a different criterion, say for example that of education, the group of businessman might be below the group of school of teachers. Similarly, the Tamil-speaking community is different from the Khasi-speaking community only on the criterion of language. On another criterion, say that of nationality, they\u2019ll be in the same group of Indians and will be in turn different from a different nationality, say the Japanese.<\/p>\r\n \r\n

This brings us to the most important aspect of social stratification. That is, as Gupta (1991: 6) puts it, \u201cthe differentiation is always on the basis of a criterion, or a set of criteria. Stratification therefore implies a common axis (or axes) that straddles the differences. \u201d Now as we move on to discuss Weber\u2019s concepts, we have to keep the importance of the criterion<\/em> in mind, else social stratification would make no sense.<\/p>\r\n \r\n\r\nMarx\u2019s Model of Social Stratification as a Background<\/strong>\r\n\r\n \r\n

Max Weber\u2019s works can be read both as a critique of Karl Marx\u2019s theories and also as an improvised formulation of certain incomplete ideas. However, his primary objective was to attack the dogmas of \u2018orthodox Marxism\u2019, which according to Anthony Giddens (1981) is like \u201cthe blind man who insists that he has not lost sight, even while blundering into the furniture and unable to make sense of his surroundings\u201d. At this stage,it is very important to briefly revise Marx\u2019s sociology as a background to Weber\u2019s development of alternate theory of power.<\/p>\r\n \r\n

To put it simply, Karl Marx understood inequalities in society purely through the domain of economy and saw its effects in the formation of \u201cclass\u201d. When we study the both Marxian and Weberian theories of social stratification, it is important to keep in mind the historical context in which they sought to understand society. The advent of industrial capitalism of in the nineteenth century western-Europe; the creation of an enormous amount of wealth, but the consequent disparities in sharing it; the workers\u2019 protests and movements are decisive\u00a0 \u00a0factors\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0in\u00a0 \u00a0locating\u00a0 both\u00a0 \u00a0of\u00a0 their\u00a0 \u00a0works.<\/p>\r\n \r\n

However, Marx never concretely defined what constitutes a \u2018class\u20191 and hence the term was rather freely employed. But clearly he says in the beginning line of The Manifesto of the Communist Party,<\/em> that \u201cthe historyof all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles\u201d (Marx and Engels 1848). The basic idea is this, in all <\/span>societies there are two major social groups: a ruling class and a subject class. The ruling class owns and controls the means of production, that is, they own the land, the factory, the mill, the mines etc, whereas the subject class provides their labor to make their ends meet. However the most primitive of human societies were no class societies because there was a very low division of labor and property was owned communally.\u00a0<\/span>When the division of labor expands, it generates increased level of wealth, which in turn leads to the growth of private property. According to Marx, this involves the creation of a surplus product, which is appropriated by a minority of non-producers, who in turn stand in an exploitative relation vis-<\/span>a<\/em>-vis the majority of producers. Thus the non-producers, throughout history, dominate the majority producers, in each and every epoch. The classes are therefore founded upon a relation of mutual dependence and conflict, hence that of reciprocity; but it is an \u2018asymmetrical reciprocity\u2019 since it rests upon the extraction of surplus value by one class from the other (Giddens 1981: 29). With this notion, power is intrinsically related. Therefore to Marx, \u2018the class which is ruling the material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force\u2019-thereby the ruling political force\u2019 (Marx and Engels 1846: 61). Therefore, there is an inherent opposition of interests, between these two groups or classes that can be called \u2018class conflict\u2019.<\/span><\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

\r\n\r\n \r\n

Since property relations constitute the primary axis of this dichotomous class system, \u2018class\u2019 can be defined in terms of the relationship of groupings of individuals to the means of production, which is in turn connected with the division of labor. In the modern capitalist system, we have thus two classes- (1) the bourgeoisie who own the means of production and (2) the proletariat who provide the labor and produce stuff but do not own the mean of production. However Marx insists that class in no way can be identified with source of income in the division of labor, since modes of consumption are primarily determined by relations of production. He emphasizes that such a grouping of individuals becomes an important social agency such as \u2018class\u2019, only when it assumes a directly political character under a communal consciousness, with a focus for communal action. Under such circumstances, a class \u2018in itself\u2019 becomes a \u2018class for itself\u2019 (Giddens 1981).<\/p>\r\n \r\n\r\nWeber\u2019s Theory of Power and Differences with Marx<\/strong>\r\n\r\n \r\n

The most important thing for Weber was to put social stratification or social inequality in the sphere of power. So his starting point was obviously different from that of Marx and the emphasis on power became a legacy of Weber that continued to influence various later scholars in different ways, including the famous French thinker Michel Foucault. In his essay, \u201cThe Distribution of Power within the Political Community: Class, Status, Party\u201d (1978), about which we\u2019ve already heard in the first section, Weber provides us with two basic aspects through which he differed from Marx. First, Weber argues that there are two other dimensions, apart from class, by which society is differentiated- \u2018status\u2019 and \u2018party\u2019. Second, he greatly emphasizes on a pluralistic conception of classes, in some contrast to Marx\u2019s dichotomous model. Let us try to understand Weber\u2019s theory of power by looking at each of these three dimensions separately.<\/p>\r\n \r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

\r\n\r\nClass and Power<\/strong>\r\n\r\n \r\n

To make a distinctive move from Marx, Weber asserts at the outset of his discussion that \u201ceconomically conditioned\u201d power is not at all identical with \u201cpower\u201d as such. This he says, while noting that power \u201cmay be valued for its own sake\u201d and that there is also a complex relation between power and social honour. While power may lead to social honour, \u201cnot all power, however, entails social honour\u2026mere \u2018economic power\u2019, and especially \u2018naked\u2019 money power, is by no means a basis of social honor. Nor is power the only basis of social honor\u201d (Weber, 1978: 926). We\u2019ll come back to the question of social honor and status in the next section. Now let us stay with economic power.<\/p>\r\n \r\n

First of all, according to Weber, \u201cclasses are not communities; they merely represent possible and frequent bases for social action\u201d. Therefore Weber first defines what he calls a \u201cclass situation\u201d and then defines \u201cclass\u201d as any group of people who are found in the same \u201cclass situation\u201d. Now let us pay close attention to the three factors that he identified as constituents of the class situation. Weber writes (Ibid: 927), \u201cwe may speak of a \u2018class\u2019 when<\/p>\r\n \r\n\r\n1.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u201cA number of people have in common a specific causal component of their life chances, insofar as\u201d\r\n\r\n2.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u201cThis component is represented exclusively by economic interests in the possession of goods and opportunities for income\u201d,\r\n\r\n3.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 \u201cAnd, is represented under conditions of the commodity or labor markets\u201d.\r\n\r\n \r\n

Let us try to understand what Weber means by this. First of all, a number of people would belong to the same class situation only when their life chances are likely to be affected by a common component. Say for example, in a politically volatile region, the common component that would affect the life-chances of the people of that place would be political. A bomb blast, a terrorist attack or counter-insurgency operations by the armed forces will more or less equally affect the life-chances of the people of that region. However, if the common causal component of life chances of a group is a political one, then that group, cannot be seen to belong to the same class situation\u2019\u00a0 \u00a0and\u00a0 hence\u00a0 cannot\u00a0 be\u00a0 called\u00a0 \u00a0a\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u2018class\u2019.<\/p>\r\n \r\n

Thus we come to the second important point. The common causal component has to be an economic one and it has to be connected either to the ownership of property or goods, or to having (or lacking) opportunities to obtain specific types of income on the market (e. g. lawyers, entertainers). As Weber himself put it, \u201cproperty or lack of property are, therefore the basic categories of the class situation\u201d (Ibid: 927). There is a further point to be noted here. Unlike a rigid dichotomous model like Marx\u2019s, Weber develops a pluralistic conception of the classes. He distinguishes between \u2018ownership classes\u2019and \u2018acquisition classes\u2019. The distinction is based upon two criteria: (a) the kind of property that is usable for returns and (b) the kind of services that can be offered on the market (Ibid: 928). He further shows how wide ranging the class situations can be for both the propertied and the property less. We must remember that Weber defined class strictly according to market\u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0interests, which exist independently of whether men are aware of them. Hence class is thus an objective characteristic influencing the life-chances of men, which is distinct from status as the latter acquires a <\/span>subjective\u00a0 \u00a0 character\u00a0 (<\/span>which\u00a0 \u00a0we\u2019ll\u00a0 \u00a0discuss\u00a0 \u00a0later).<\/span><\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

\r\n

Now we can come to the third point, that of the market. To be part of the same class situation, the common causal component of life chances of a group should not only be economic in nature, it also has to be with respect to the market. According to Weber, \u2018it is the most elemental economic fact that the way in which the disposition over material property is distributed among a plurality of people, meeting competitively in the market for the purpose of exchange, in itself creates specific life chances\u201d. Now to give you an example, we can identify Weberian class situations by referring to professionals (lawyers, doctors, accountants), technicians with different specialties (carpenters, computer programmers), entertainers, or professionals in sports. While individuals in each of these may have different backgrounds, in conducting their profession and selling their expertise, each has a common relationship to a market. Talking about the concept of class in its most generic sense, Weber wrote, \u201cthe kind of chance in the market is the decisive moment which presents a common condition for the individual\u2019s fate. Class situation is, in this sense, ultimately market situation (Ibid). \u201d<\/p>\r\n \r\n

While we discuss about the Weberian idea of class, there is an important point to be made, which distinguishes his approach with that of Marx. This has got to do with the question of \u201cclass consciousness\u201d or \u201cclass interest\u201d. While the Marxian theory assumes the link between class and class consciousness as direct and immediate, to Weber, only under certain conditions, do those sharing a common class situation become conscious of and thus act upon their mutual economic interests. Hence there is a distinction to be made between \u2018class in itself\u2019 and \u2018class for itself\u2019. It is particularly important to note that Weber particularly attributed the idea of consciousness, rather to the status groups, which expresses the relationships involved in consumption. Class, on the other hand, like Marx said, is founded upon the relationships involved in production.<\/p>\r\n \r\n

Let us find out what Weber has to say about this. Weber of course considers classes to be important, especially for life chances, but as we noted earlier, he argues that the common class situation, despite having the potential, does not necessarily, or even usually, form the basis for social action. About the working class, Weber notes that \u201cthe direction in which the individual worker, for instance, is likely to pursue his interests may vary widely, according to whether he is constitutionally qualified for the task at hand to a high, to an average, or to a low degree. \u2026 The rise of societal or even of communal action from a common class situation is by no means a universal phenomenon. (Ibid: 929).<\/p>\r\n \r\n

The concept of class-interest, therefore according to Weber, is an \u201cambiguous\u201d one. However, in the essay we are discussing, he is careful to note that rapid technological and economic changes \u201cpushes the class situation into the foreground\u201d (Ibid: 938) and \u201ctoday the central issues is the determination of the price of labour\u201d (Ibid: 931). Weber argues that the latter may not be a demonstration of class struggle in that they do not indicate any attempt to change social structures but are merely disputes over distribution.\u00a0\u00a0We must remember that Weber\u2019s ideas about class are very different from those of <\/span>Marx, because the former had a different understanding of capitalism. Reading other sections of his <\/span>momumental text <\/span>Economy and<\/em> Society <\/em>(1978) closely, we can infer that Max Weber took a very keen interest in understanding the origin of capitalism and thereby developed a distinct notion of social stratification. In two fundamental aspects, Weber\u2019s theory of modern capitalism <\/span>differ decisively from the one developed by Marx- (1) in his analysis of \u2018expropriation\u2019 and (2) in his treatment of rationality (Giddens 1981).<\/span><\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

\r\n\r\n \r\n

To Weber, the \u2018expropriation\u2019 of the worker is not confined to the industrial sphere alone. The expropriation from control of his means of production is paralleled in the state by the separation of the official from control of the \u2018means of administration\u2019 and in the army by the separation of the soldier from control of the \u2018instruments of war. \u2019 The second aspect is of rather profound importance and in sharp contrast to Marx. To Weber, and this we must always keep in mind, the most essential character of capitalism is not its class character. Therefore capitalism according to Weber is not defined by what Marx would call its contradictory aspect of \u2018class conflict\u2019. What separates capitalism from the preceding traditional order is the \u2018rationalized character\u2019 of the capitalist mode of production and the associated bureaucratization. This aspect will remain integral even in a socialist society, thus foreclosing the possibility of any radical reorganization of social structure after a revolution.<\/p>\r\n \r\n

The other important departure in Weber\u2019s formulation, from that of Marx, is his clear conceptualization of the middle classes. While to Marx, middle classes were mostly transitional classes which would eventually \u2018sink into the proletariat\u2019; Weber greatly rejected his emiseration and pauperization theses. Laying great emphasis on the market position of individuals, Weber went on to classify four categories of social classes- (1) the manual working class, (2) the petty bourgeoisie, (3) propertyless white collar workers and (4) those privileged through property and education. He suggested that the \u2018middle class\u2019, unlike Marx\u2019s proposition, greatly expands with the advance of capitalism. Thus the immediate future of the working was rather bound to that of the bourgeoisie, their progress being directly dependent upon a bourgeoisie order (Weber 1978, Giddens 1981).<\/p>\r\n \r\n\r\nStatus Groups and Power<\/strong>\r\n\r\n \r\n

We have already noted at the outset that for Weber power is not merely economic. He took up a very different and broad definition of power that included two more dimensions to its distribution apart from the economic one. Accordingly, power in the Weberian model is distributed alone three dimensions and in turn the society is stratified into them, namely, (i) class, (ii) status, and (iii) party.<\/p>\r\n \r\n

Weber argued that classes in themselves are not \u2018groups\u2019, although a class situation emerges out of a social action among members of different classes. According to him, groups are more likely to be formed on the basis of status or status honour than from class situation or class.\u00a0\u201cIn contrast to classes, <\/span>status groups<\/em> are normally groups. They are, however, often of an amorphous kind. In contrast to the purely economically determined \u2018class <\/span>situation\u2019 we wish to designate as <\/span>status<\/em> situation <\/em>every typical component of the life of men that is determined by a specific, positive or negative, social estimation of <\/span>honor<\/em>. This honor may be connected with any quality shared by a plurality, and, of course, it can be knit to a class situation: class distinctions are linked in the most varied ways with status distinctions\u201d (Weber 1978: 932).<\/span><\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

\r\n\r\n \r\n

We can understand by the term \u201chonour\u201da sense of distinction, respect, or esteem that is generally accorded to an individual by others. We can find the expression of social honor in social relationships, in how we interact with each other. What we need to keep in mind is that social esteem may be both positive and negative, which means that the social esteem enjoyed by or accorded to an individual may be of a higher level or may also be associated with prejudice, discrimination, or separation. Status groups are thus associated with positive, neutral, or negative aspects of honour \u2013 those favoured and those less favoured or excluded.<\/p>\r\n \r\n

In the Weberian model, honour is primarily social in nature and it would be incorrect to assume that honor automatically results from a market or property relationship in the economic sphere. To give you an example, outstanding achievement in academics, sports, music and theater draw very high honor in our society and it will be foolish to suggest that such achievements are solely due to the economic \u2018class\u2019-background of the individual. Therefore we can say that status honour is linked to how society evaluates a group, whereas class is related to the economic or market situation. That is why Weber considers status honour to be a more important basis for people forming themselves into groups or communities. In his essay on ethnic groups, for example, Weber notes that different customs may be caused \u201cby the diverse economic and political conditions of various social groups\u201d (1978: 392), by geographic separation, or \u201cpolitical action can give rise to the belief in blood relationship\u201d (Ibid: 393).<\/p>\r\n \r\n

In fact, Weber says that \u201cboth propertied and property less can belong to the same status group, and frequently they do with very tangible consequences\u201d (Ibid: 932). Let us discuss three bases of status groups that we can outline through Weber\u2019s text.<\/p>\r\n \r\n

1)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/strong>Property: <\/strong>Property is of course a crucial basis for a status group, especially when markets prevail. This is not difficult to understand. It is obvious that those with considerable property or wealth have the means to acquire power in more ways than one. Weber writes, \u201cclass distinctions are linked in the most varied ways with status distinctions\u201d. This is an important point to make and to which we\u2019ll come back again. Weber is careful to note that \u201cproperty as such is not always recognized as a status qualification,\u201d, but,<\/em> \u201cin the long run it is,<\/em> and with extraordinary regularity\u201d (Italics added, 1978: 932). To give you an example from Weber himself, we can see how \u201cin the subsistence economy of neighborhood associations, it is often simply the richest who is the \u2018chieftain\u2019\u201d (Ibid). However that\u2019s not the whole story. While property can form an important basis for status, property alone is not the key to status, and status\u00a0 \u00a0\u201cnormally stands in sharp opposition to the pretensions of sheer property\u201d (Ibid). Those who acquire property may not be accorded the same status privileges as those who originally held property. One example of this is the distinction between established society and the nouveau riche. Also, according to Weber, status groups may hinder \u201cthe free development of the market\u201d (Ibid: 937) Alternatively, market privileges may be extended only to those with the proper status levels. In India, we can think of how regional, linguistic and caste identities often come in the way of doing business and act as both enabling and disabling factors.<\/span><\/p>\r\n \r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

\r\n

2)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/strong>Styles of life: <\/strong>Unlike Marx, Weber however was cautious in drawing a simplistic connection between property and power. Therefore he said, \u201cboth propertied and property less people can belong to the same status group, and frequently they do with very tangible consequences\u201d. This is because, \u201cstatus honor is normally expressed by the fact that above all else, a specific style of<\/em> life <\/em>is expected from all those who wish to belong to the circle\u201d (Italics original; Ibid: 932). That is why we said that during our discussion on the concept of \u2018class\u2019, that Weberian \u2018status\u2019 groups express relations involved in consumption, whereas Marxian \u2018classes\u2019 express relations involved in production. While property and income can well the source of funds required for consumption, it is not so much the source of the income that forms the status group. According to Weber, it is rather the set of objects and services consumed which leads to the social honor associated with group interaction. Groups may form around residential neighborhoods, professions, and educational levels (community associations, professional associations, restrictions based on educational qualifications) (Ibid: 932-33). Now, if you\u2019re wondering how the propertied and the property less can belong to the same status group, let us think through an example. The owner of a corporation might earn as much as a practicing cardiac surgeon, although the latter doesn\u2019t own a property (in the sense of it being a factor of production). But their property and skills respectively earn them the same chances in the market place and hence they can be said to belong to the same status group, if other social conditions of honor and esteem are met with.<\/p>\r\n\u00a0<\/strong>\r\n

3)\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/strong>Group formation without the basis of property: <\/strong>Such groups could be ethnic groups (see the essay on ethnic groups), religious groups, groups around sexual orientation, and the various urban communities and groups which form around common sets of interests. In each of these cases, there is some amount of positive and negative honor accorded to each group and we can see therefore a differential distribution of power. Where religion or ethnicity is an important feature of social organization, belonging to a particular group may involve having identical life chances. We can think about such groups through the institution of caste in India. For an elaborate discussion of how power works through such group formations at the level of status, we can certainly read the works of Dr. B R Ambedkar (1948), M N Srinivas (1962) and Andre Beteille (1966).<\/p>\r\n \r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

\r\n

\u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 \u00a0 We can repeat here what we stated earlier. For Weber, it is not a \u2018class\u2019 group in itself which can arouse a consciousness for social action. In order for such social action to take place, there have to be proper cultural and intellectual conditions. And that is why, the status group is much more instrumental in forging a sense of community than class. But commenting on the social conditions of his time, that is of late nineteenth and earl twentieth century Europe, he notes \u201ctoday the class situation is by far the predominant factor\u201d (Weber 1978:935) in formation of status groups. That he doesn\u2019t completely dismiss the possibility that life chances for the members of a status group are conditioned economically.<\/p>\r\n \r\n\r\nParty and Power<\/strong>\r\n\r\n \r\n

In the three dimensional schematic of power that Weber develops, \u2018parties\u2019 constitute the third leg. So according to Weber, \u2018parties\u2019 are another mode of distribution of power and of social stratification. Parties can be generally defined as organizations, rather than communities or groups, and they often strive for a goal in a planned manner. People form such associations to influence social action. Since they are concerned with achieving some goal, they \u201creside in the sphere of power\u201d (Weber 1978: 938). In Weber\u2019s words,<\/p>\r\n \r\n

Whereas the genuine place of classes is within the economic order, the place of status groups is within the social order, that is, within the sphere of the distribution of honor. From within these spheres, classes and status groups influence one another and they influence the legal order and are in turn influenced by it. \u201cPartie<\/em>s\u201d reside in the sphere of power. Their action is oriented toward the acquisition of social power, that is to say, toward influencing social action no matter what its content may be (1978: 938).<\/p>\r\n \r\n

That is, classes are in the economic order, status groups in the social order, and parties in the sphere of power. However we must keep in mind that power is not a separate order, in that classes and status groups are concerned with power too. What Weber means by this is that power is distributed along three dimensions-class in the economic dimension, status in the social dimension and party in the political dimension. Parties are organizations, whereas classes and status groups can be considered groupings of people. It may well happen that if status groups or classes become well organized, they may form parties, or their parties may become the organizational wing of the class or status group. Trade unions, professional associations, ethnic organizations, and religious institutions are examples. So when Weber says that parites reside in \u2018the sphere of power\u2019, he means that parties are the most visible dimension of social organization involved with power. Class and status groups are also two other modes of distribution of power- society is stratified along these two axes- but the action of the members of a class or a status group is never explicitly oriented towards acquisition of power. On the other hand, parties are visibly related to power, they are formed to create new alignments of power in the society, to acquire power- to maximize the chances of the members of the party to realize their own will in a social action even against the resistance of others who are participating in the action (Remember Weber\u2019s definition of power in the first section!)\u00a0Parties are also different from classes or status groups in that they \u201calways involve association\u201d (Weber 1978:<\/span>938), not only social interaction. Weber makes it clear when he says that\u00a0<\/span>Parties may represent interests determined through <\/span>class situation or status situation, and they may recruit their following respectively from one or the other. But they need be neither purely class nor purely status parties; in fact, they are more likely to be mixed types, and sometimes they are neither. They may represent ephemeral or enduring structures. Their means of attaining power may be quite varied, ranging from naked violence of any sort to canvassing for votes with coarse or subtle means: money, social influence, the force of speech, suggestion, clumsy hoax, and so on to the rougher or more artful tactics of obstruction in parliamentary bodies (Ibid).<\/span><\/p>\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n

\r\n

Weber stressed that parties, political or otherwise are primarily aim to influence the existing polity, but they may also aim at (not necessarily) the establishment of a new territorial domination. But it will be a mistake to assume that parties are products of only of modern forms of domination. \u201cWe shall also designate as parties the ancient and the medieval ones, despite the fact that they differ basically from modern parties\u201d; and since a party always struggles for political control, we must remember that its organization too is fundamentally strict and \u201cauthoritarian\u201d (Weber 1978: 939).<\/p>\r\n \r\n\r\nConclusion<\/strong>\r\n\r\n \r\n

Through this discussion we have tried to understand the German sociologist Max Weber\u2019s understanding of power. It was Weber who first propounded in sociology an idea of power that was beyond the realm of economy. Power is multi dimensional and we have seen how it is distributed along various axes of social, political and economic dimensions. As the British sociologist Anthony Giddens puts it,<\/p>\r\n \r\n

Many sociologists have followed Weber in making a distinction between forms of power that are coercive and those that authority. Sceptics about the 2003 war in Iraq, for example, often criticized the American-led invasion because it did not have explicit authority from the United Nations, so they viewed the war as illegitimate- a coercive use of power. Most forms of powerareot based solely on force, but are legitimated by some form of authority (2009:989).<\/p>\r\n \r\n\r\nAs we have said earlier, Weber\u2019s discussion of authority is beyond the scope of this chapter. What Weber tries to elucidate is how authority is not solely drawn from one\u2019s economic power like Marx. The social world is a complex whole and power is diffused in it.\r\n\r\n \r\n\r\nYet, as a study in sociology, it would be a wise exercise for us to conclude the chapter on a comparative note. Despite differences, it is important to stress there are certain interesting similarities between Marx and Weber\u2019s work. These can be located in the broad theoretical framework within which they formulated their theories.\r\n\r\n<\/div>\r\n \r\n

Both of them laid great emphasis on understanding of capitalism as essential to conceptualization of class. In fact, very much like Marx, Weber himself accepted that it is the \u2018class situation\u2019 which is by far the predominant factor in the system of relationships generated by capitalism. Thereby both of the thinkers more or less identified the mode of production as an essential sphere of class relationship. Importantly, although in different orientations, both Marx and Weber also envisaged a progressive future of the working classes.<\/p>\r\n \r\n

However, there is a basic philosophical difference, scholars have argued, between Marx and Weber\u2019s conceptualizations. That can be simply put as this- Marx\u2019s abstract model of class and capitalist development presupposes the \u2018economic\u2019 as the basis for the \u2018political\u2019. On the other hand, Weber sought to propose that the \u2018economic\u2019 is actually derived from the \u2018political\u2019. Much of the later sociology of class, status and party is a translation of either of the ideas (Giddens 1981).<\/p>\r\n \r\n\r\n \r\n

\r\n\r\nFURTHER READING<\/strong>\r\n\r\n \r\n