POLS 374 Foundations of Global Politics People and Power Lecture Week Two: October 4, 2005

POLS 374 Foundations of POLS 374 Foundations of Global PoliticsGlobal Politics

People and Power Lecture

Week Two: October 4, 2005

People and PowerPeople and PowerKey QuestionsKey Questions

• What is power?What is power?

• Who or what has power?Who or what has power?

• What is the primary or most What is the primary or most importance source of power?importance source of power?

People and PowerPeople and PowerOne more question …One more question …

• Why is the authors’ discussion of power critical Why is the authors’ discussion of power critical to their overall argument?to their overall argument?

• Answer:Answer: It is critical because you have to It is critical because you have to establish that ordinary people actually have establish that ordinary people actually have power; if they don’t then the premise that power; if they don’t then the premise that “people matter” in global politics would be “people matter” in global politics would be unsupportable, even absurd.unsupportable, even absurd.

People and PowerPeople and PowerTraditional ConceptionsTraditional Conceptions

• When most people think about power, they When most people think about power, they think in terms of power-over.think in terms of power-over.

• This is reflected in Robert Dahl’s famous This is reflected in Robert Dahl’s famous definition: definition: Power is the “ability of A to make B Power is the “ability of A to make B do what A wants when B would prefer to do do what A wants when B would prefer to do something else.”something else.”


• Power-over suggests that the only power that matters is force--Power-over suggests that the only power that matters is force--e.g., violence or the threat of violence.e.g., violence or the threat of violence.

This cartoon suggests that, without force, Saddam Hussein could thumb his nose at the the U.S. and the rest of the world. The application of force, however, changed everything. Now Hussein would have

to listen!


• Power-over tells us that the United States is the most powerful Power-over tells us that the United States is the most powerful country on earth. It is the most powerful because it has the country on earth. It is the most powerful because it has the largest economy and the strongest, best trained, best equipped, largest economy and the strongest, best trained, best equipped, and most deadly military force. Right?and most deadly military force. Right?

The United States: Power on The United States: Power on SteroidsSteroids

The Rest of the World: The Rest of the World: A “99-pound weakling”A “99-pound weakling”

People and PowerPeople and PowerPower as Military StrengthPower as Military Strength

Russia*

United Kingdom

France

Saudi Arabia

Italy

Australia

Israel*

Spain*

Netherlands

Greece*

Sweden

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450

United States

China*

Japan

Germany

India

South Korea

Turkey*

Canada

Brazil

Taiwan

Indonesia*

North Korea*

World Military Spending

People and PowerPeople and PowerAlternative ConceptionsAlternative Conceptions

• Hannah Arendt argued that Hannah Arendt argued that violence and power are not violence and power are not the same things; indeed, she the same things; indeed, she argued that “violence erases argued that “violence erases power.”power.”

• As she put it: As she put it: ”Power and violence are opposites; where the one rules absolutely, the other is absent. Violence appears where power is in jeopardy, but left to its own course it ends in power's disappearance.”


• To understand this perspective, we need to recognize that there are many dimensions of power. We all know about power-over, but there is also power-with: that is, the ability to join forces to achieve a common goal.


• Power-with implies that power is not primarily an attribute of individuals per se, but instead grows out of an ensemble of persons who empower one another when they decide to act.


• Power-with implies that power is not just a function of having a lot of “stuff.” Stuff may be important, but without power-with, it may be useless. To see this consider …

… … the recent hurricanes, especially the recent hurricanes, especially Katrina. No doubt, the United Katrina. No doubt, the United States has a lot of stuff--massive States has a lot of stuff--massive amounts of stuff--but all the stuff in amounts of stuff--but all the stuff in the world is useless if people don’t the world is useless if people don’t get together and decide how to best get together and decide how to best use it. It’s useless if people don’t use it. It’s useless if people don’t communicate and don’t cooperate.communicate and don’t cooperate.


• Also consider how cooperation, even when you don’t have a lot of stuff, can give certain groups tremendous power. The best, although not admirable, example of this is al Qaeda. This organization doesn’t really have much stuff, but when the leadership gets together to decide how to use what little stuff they have, they have proven to be extraordinarily effective and powerful. (At the same time, the use of violence by al Qaeda may condemn the organization to powerlessness.)


• Another Example:Another Example:

• If we consider the war in Iraq, it is clear that If we consider the war in Iraq, it is clear that all the “stuff” the US has--it’s overwhelming all the “stuff” the US has--it’s overwhelming military force--still isn’t enough. The US military force--still isn’t enough. The US military, so far, has been unable to defeat a military, so far, has been unable to defeat a ragtag, under-equipped, under-trained ragtag, under-equipped, under-trained group of insurgents, whose most deadly group of insurgents, whose most deadly weapon is the AK-47, the rocket-propelled weapon is the AK-47, the rocket-propelled grenade, and the improvised explosive grenade, and the improvised explosive device. No tanks, no aircraft, no missiles, no device. No tanks, no aircraft, no missiles, no satellites, not much of anything. satellites, not much of anything.

• Killing all Iraqis to “save” Iraq, moreover, Killing all Iraqis to “save” Iraq, moreover, isn’t an option. Such massive violence isn’t an option. Such massive violence would “erase” American power.would “erase” American power.


• The authors, however, are not content to define power as only power-with; there is also The authors, however, are not content to define power as only power-with; there is also power that derives from formal and informal rulespower that derives from formal and informal rules -- that is, the ability of agents to -- that is, the ability of agents to

createcreate and and enforceenforce rules, rules, not through coercion per se, but through consent.not through coercion per se, but through consent.

• The authors use the word “hegemony” to describe this type of power. The authors use the word “hegemony” to describe this type of power.

• So, what is …So, what is …

H E G E M O N Y ?H E G E M O N Y ?


• Hegemony (as it is used in the chapter) derives from the work of Antonio Gramsci, who was one of the founding members of the Italian communist party in the early 1900s. Gramsci was jailed in 1926 and spent most of his adult life in prison, where he did a lot of his writing.

Antonio Gramsci (1891 - 1937) was a leading Italian Marxist. He was an intellectual, a journalist and a major theorist who spent his last eleven years in Mussolini’s prisons. During this time, he completed 32 notebooks containing almost 3,000 pages. These notebooks were smuggled out from his prison and published in Italian after the war but did not find an English-language publisher until the 1970s. The central and guiding theme of the Notebooks was the development of a new Marxist theory applicable to the conditions of advanced capitalism.


• One of the key questions that motivated Gramsci’s work was this: One of the key questions that motivated Gramsci’s work was this: Why had it proven so difficult to promote revolution in Western Why had it proven so difficult to promote revolution in Western Europe, where the ills of capitalism were so clearly damaging to Europe, where the ills of capitalism were so clearly damaging to the ordinary worker? In other words, why was the working class the ordinary worker? In other words, why was the working class seemingly so passive, even accepting of capitalism?seemingly so passive, even accepting of capitalism?

??


• To Gramsci, this question seemed even more perplexing since, according To Gramsci, this question seemed even more perplexing since, according to classical Marxist theory, revolution was supposed to start in the most to classical Marxist theory, revolution was supposed to start in the most advanced capitalist societies. Yet, in his lifetime, it was the advanced capitalist societies. Yet, in his lifetime, it was the comparatively backward Russia that had made the first “breakthrough.” comparatively backward Russia that had made the first “breakthrough.”

• Gramsci’s answer revolved around the idea of hegemony.Gramsci’s answer revolved around the idea of hegemony.


• Hegemony had a very specific meaning. On the one hand, he understood it like many other Hegemony had a very specific meaning. On the one hand, he understood it like many other thinkers of the time did--i.e., hegemony referred to the most dominant military, economic, actor thinkers of the time did--i.e., hegemony referred to the most dominant military, economic, actor in the world. This version of hegemony, however, understood power as being based primarily in the world. This version of hegemony, however, understood power as being based primarily on coercion (power-over).on coercion (power-over).

• But to Gramsci, this was only half the equation. For, certainly, in many of the more advanced But to Gramsci, this was only half the equation. For, certainly, in many of the more advanced

capitalist societies, it wasn’t only fear that kept workers from challenging the system, but it was capitalist societies, it wasn’t only fear that kept workers from challenging the system, but it was also their also their willing acquiescencewilling acquiescence..


• More simply, it was consent that kept the system together. Indeed, in Gramsci’s view, one of the key tasks for the More simply, it was consent that kept the system together. Indeed, in Gramsci’s view, one of the key tasks for the ruling stratum in any society is to inculcate a moral, political, and cultural system that naturalizes or legitimizes their ruling stratum in any society is to inculcate a moral, political, and cultural system that naturalizes or legitimizes their continued rule.continued rule.

• This moral, political, and cultural system must not only reflect the values of the dominant group, but must also be This moral, political, and cultural system must not only reflect the values of the dominant group, but must also be accepted by subordinate groups and classes as their own.accepted by subordinate groups and classes as their own.

• Once this is done, all of the injustices, inequality, oppression, and exploitation of the system is simply accepted as the Once this is done, all of the injustices, inequality, oppression, and exploitation of the system is simply accepted as the way things are “supposed to be,” and even the way things “have to be.” In short, the victims of the system become its way things are “supposed to be,” and even the way things “have to be.” In short, the victims of the system become its greatest advocates and supporters.greatest advocates and supporters.


• But this is the big question: How is consent achieved?But this is the big question: How is consent achieved?

• Answer:Answer: According to Gramsci, it is an unremitting and pervasive process, which According to Gramsci, it is an unremitting and pervasive process, which takes place through the institutions of civil society: the media, the educational takes place through the institutions of civil society: the media, the educational system, churches, voluntary organizations, even in the workplace itself. This is a system, churches, voluntary organizations, even in the workplace itself. This is a process of “socialization,” a process that shapes our consciousness.process of “socialization,” a process that shapes our consciousness.


• There are two key implications of this argument:There are two key implications of this argument:

• First, unlike traditional Marxists, Gramsci’s analysis tells us that the system we live in today is First, unlike traditional Marxists, Gramsci’s analysis tells us that the system we live in today is held together as much by ideological/non-material forces as it is by material/economic forces.held together as much by ideological/non-material forces as it is by material/economic forces.

• Second, it tells us that challenges to the current system must take place in the ideological realm; in Second, it tells us that challenges to the current system must take place in the ideological realm; in other words, society can only be transformed if the consensual element of hegemony is other words, society can only be transformed if the consensual element of hegemony is successfully undermined.successfully undermined.


• Sovereign Rights and WrongsSovereign Rights and Wrongs

• Some of the most important “rules” at the international Some of the most important “rules” at the international level have to do with questions of level have to do with questions of sovereignty.sovereignty.


• Defining SovereigntyDefining Sovereignty

• Sovereignty, though its meanings have varied across history, also Sovereignty, though its meanings have varied across history, also has a core meaning, has a core meaning, supreme authority within a territorysupreme authority within a territory. It is a . It is a modern notion of political authority.modern notion of political authority. (Source: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sovereignty/)

• To put it more simply, sovereignty a state or government’s right to do as it To put it more simply, sovereignty a state or government’s right to do as it pleases within its home territory.pleases within its home territory.


• Sovereignty is a rule governing world politics. Historically, it is Sovereignty is a rule governing world politics. Historically, it is considered a legitimate, even sacrosanct rule. In this regard, the considered a legitimate, even sacrosanct rule. In this regard, the concept of sovereignty has had great power, both to spur action concept of sovereignty has had great power, both to spur action (that is, in times when sovereignty is challenged) and to justify (that is, in times when sovereignty is challenged) and to justify inaction. Even when sovereignty is ignored by great powers, the inaction. Even when sovereignty is ignored by great powers, the concept itself is respected. concept itself is respected.


• The “respect” for sovereignty was used a basis (an The “respect” for sovereignty was used a basis (an excuse?) to prevent intervention by the international excuse?) to prevent intervention by the international community in the genocides that occurred in Cambodia community in the genocides that occurred in Cambodia (1975), Bosnia (1991), Rwanda (1994), and many other (1975), Bosnia (1991), Rwanda (1994), and many other cases.cases.


• An Important Aside:An Important Aside: It is critical to understand that “sovereignty” is It is critical to understand that “sovereignty” is merely an idea--something that, at base, exists inside our heads. We merely an idea--something that, at base, exists inside our heads. We make it “real” because we believe it is real. In the same way, make it “real” because we believe it is real. In the same way, democracy, justice, human rights, nationalism, racism, and so on are democracy, justice, human rights, nationalism, racism, and so on are merely thoughts that exist within our (collective) minds. Yet all merely thoughts that exist within our (collective) minds. Yet all these thoughts have power, indeed, they have great power …these thoughts have power, indeed, they have great power …


• … … they have the power to mobilize whole societies, to get they have the power to mobilize whole societies, to get people to willingly--often enthusiastically--kill others, and people to willingly--often enthusiastically--kill others, and to even convince people to give up their own lives for the to even convince people to give up their own lives for the sake of a “greater good.”sake of a “greater good.”

People and PowerPeople and PowerStructures of Power in the International SystemStructures of Power in the International System

• When most people look at the international system, it is When most people look at the international system, it is difficult not to conceive of it as a system dominated by one difficult not to conceive of it as a system dominated by one kind of power, power-over. This is certainly the position kind of power, power-over. This is certainly the position found in realism, the dominant theory of IRfound in realism, the dominant theory of IR


• We think this way, in part, because we have been taught to see the We think this way, in part, because we have been taught to see the world as a dog-eat-dog, everyone for himself environment where only world as a dog-eat-dog, everyone for himself environment where only the strongest survive – it’s Darwin’s survival of the fittest the strongest survive – it’s Darwin’s survival of the fittest writ largewrit large (which, it is important to note, reflects the concept of anarchy the (which, it is important to note, reflects the concept of anarchy the authors talk about)authors talk about)


• At the same time, war At the same time, war isis relatively rare at the international level—at any given relatively rare at the international level—at any given time, the vast majority of states are not fighting one another. Most time, the vast majority of states are not fighting one another. Most it seemsit seems prefer to engage in peaceful, rule-governed relationships, for everyone prefer to engage in peaceful, rule-governed relationships, for everyone understands that constant warfare is ultimately self-defeating understands that constant warfare is ultimately self-defeating

• Thus, even at the international level, states appear to understand the Thus, even at the international level, states appear to understand the importance of power-with; that is, they understand that they can accomplish importance of power-with; that is, they understand that they can accomplish more—and have better, more prosperous societies—if they cooperate and work more—and have better, more prosperous societies—if they cooperate and work together.together.


• Key point: the traditional view of international politics as a strict example of power-over is, on close inspection, a little problematic. We can see this, in part, by looking at the United States today.

• It is clear, for example, that the US is a hegemonic power. But …


• … What if the rest of the world were to reject U.S. leadership and authority? What if the rest of the world decided to resist--even or especially non-violently-- the United States at every turn, in every forum, on every policy? Where would U.S. power and might be?

Documents

POLS 374 Foundations of Global Politics People and Power Lecture Week Two: October 4, 2005