SOC101: Introduction to Sociology

Figure 17.1 In 2018, Florida voters made a decision regarding the voting rights of people convicted of a felony. The referendum directly measured the people's will rather than navigating through a representative process. However, passing a referendum and enacting the laws to carry it out are two different processes, which Floridians came to understand when the state government attached further obligations and restrictions to voting rights.

On November 6, 2018, Florida residents voted overwhelmingly to restore voting rights to people convicted of most felonies after they had completed their sentences. Rather than undergoing the complex process of passing a law through legislative representatives, the people voted directly on the matter as part of their ballot; a process typically referred to as a referendum. The two-thirds majority in favor of the referendum seemed to clarify the voters' intentions, but their intentions would not be carried as directly as they thought.

Many believe that voting is a privilege to be granted to "upstanding" citizens. The 14th Amendment allows the government to restrict voting for those who have "participated in rebellion or other crime." As of 2021, 48 states had some type of restrictions for people with felony convictions, though the vast majority of those permit people to vote upon completion of their sentence. At the time of the 2018 referendum, Florida had almost 1.7 million people unable to vote due to felony convictions, which was roughly ten percent of its total population; to put it another way, Florida had more disenfranchised people than any other state. Only a few percentage points decide many statewide Florida elections. For example, the last three elections for governor were decided by less than two percent of the vote.

Disenfranchisement laws affect people of certain races, ethnicities, and socioeconomic statuses more significantly than others. For example, in Florida, 23 percent of Black people were unable to vote because of felony convictions.

Despite the overwhelming majority of citizens who supported the change, the Florida governor and legislature effectively blocked the referendum's implementation. In early 2019, less than two weeks after the resolution went into effect, the government passed a law indicating that voting would only be allowed for convicted felons who had served their sentences and had also paid all fines and penalties owed to the state. The effect was significant: Fines associated with sentences can be quite large, and people with felony convictions have major issues with employment. The law severely diminished the referendum's effect. By the time of the 2020 Presidential election, about 700,000 people with felony convictions who had served their sentences still could not vote.

Many in Florida felt that their referendum clearly indicated the people's choice and their power had been taken. On the other hand, the legislators indicated that they were obtaining money owed to the state and that the brief, 140-word referendum didn't specify the method of implementation. Florida is going through a conflict that has faced the nation from its earliest days: Who has the right to make decisions? Who has the power?

Power and Authority

Figure 17.2 Government buildings are built to symbolize authority but also represent a specific perspective or message. The Capitol Complex in Bangladesh, Sher-e-Bangla Nagar, was designed to capture the essence of an entirely new country. Rather than the fortress-like, Greek- and Roman-inspired structures of many government buildings, architect Louis Kahn set the rounded, asymmetrical, modern complex within an artificial lake, with many open spaces exposed to the elements.

The world has almost 200 countries. Many of those countries have states or provinces with their own governments. In some countries such as the United States and Canada, Native Americans and First Nations have their own systems of government in some relationship with the federal government. Just considering those thousands of different entities, it's easy to see what differentiates governments. What about what they have in common? Do all of them serve the people? Protect the people? Increase prosperity?

The answer to those questions might be a matter of opinion, perspective, and circumstance. However, one reality seems clear: Something all governments have in common is that they exert control over the people they govern. The nature of that control – what we will define as power and authority – is an important feature of society.

Sociologists have a distinctive approach to studying governmental power and authority that differs from the perspective of political scientists. For the most part, political scientists focus on studying how power is distributed in different types of political systems. They would observe, for example, that the United States political system is divided into three distinct branches (legislative, executive, and judicial) and explore how public opinion affects political parties, elections, and the political process in general. Sociologists, however, tend to be more interested in the influences of governmental power on society and how social conflicts arise from power distribution. Sociologists also examine how the use of power affects local, state, national, and global agendas, which in turn affect people differently based on status, class, and socioeconomic standing.

What Is Power?

Figure 17.3 Nazi leader Adolf Hitler was one of modern history's most powerful and destructive dictators. He is pictured here with fascist Benito Mussolini of Italy.

For centuries, philosophers, politicians, and social scientists have explored and commented on the nature of power. Pittacus (c. 640–568 B.C.E.) opined, "The measure of a man is what he does with power," and Lord Acton perhaps more famously asserted, "Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely" (1887). Indeed, the concept of power can have decidedly negative connotations, and the term itself is difficult to define.

Many scholars adopt the definition developed by German sociologist Max Weber, who said that power is the ability to exercise your will over others. Power affects more than personal relationships; it shapes larger dynamics like social groups, professional organizations, and governments. Similarly, a government's power is not necessarily limited to control of its own citizens. A dominant nation, for instance, will often use its clout to influence or support other governments or to seize control of other nation-states. Efforts by the U.S. government to wield power in other countries have included joining with other nations to form the Allied forces during World War II, entering Iraq in 2002 to topple Saddam Hussein's regime, and imposing sanctions on the government of North Korea in the hopes of constraining its development of nuclear weapons.

Endeavors to gain power and influence do not necessarily lead to violence, exploitation, or abuse. For example, leaders such as Martin Luther King Jr. and Mohandas Gandhi commanded powerful movements that effected positive change without military force. Both men organized nonviolent protests to combat corruption and injustice and succeeded in inspiring major reform. They relied on a variety of nonviolent protest strategies, such as rallies, sit-ins, marches, petitions, and boycotts.

Modern technology has made such forms of nonviolent reform easier to implement. Often, protesters can use cell phones and the Internet to disseminate information and plans to masses of protesters in a rapid and efficient manner. Some governments like Myanmar, China, and Russia tamp down communication and protest through platform bans or Internet blocks (see the Media and Technology chapter for more information).

But in the Arab Spring uprisings of 2010-11, for example, Twitter feeds and other social media helped protesters coordinate their movements, share ideas, bolster morale, and gain global support for their causes. Social media was also important in getting accurate accounts of the demonstrations out to the world, in contrast to many earlier situations in which government control of the media censored news reports. Notice that in these examples, the users of power were the citizens rather than the governments. They found they had power because they were able to exercise their will over their own leaders. Thus, government power does not necessarily equate to absolute power.

Figure 17.4 Young people and students were among the most ardent supporters of democratic reform in the recent Arab Spring. Social media also played an important role in rallying grassroots support.

Types of Authority

The protesters in Tunisia and the civil rights protesters of Martin Luther King, Jr.'s day had influence apart from their position in the government. Their influence came partly from their ability to advocate for what many people held as important values. Government leaders might also have this kind of influence, but they also have the advantage of wielding power associated with their position in the government. As this example indicates, a community has more than one type of authority.

Authority refers to accepted power – power that people agree to follow. People listen to authority figures because they feel that these individuals are worthy of respect. Generally speaking, people perceive the objectives and demands of an authority figure as reasonable and beneficial or true.

Not all authority figures are police officers, elected officials, or government authorities. Besides formal offices, authority can arise from tradition and personal qualities. Economist and sociologist Max Weber realized this when he examined individual action as it relates to authority and large-scale structures of authority and how they relate to a society's economy. Based on this work, Weber developed a classification system for authority. His three types of authority are traditional authority, charismatic authority, and legal-rational authority.

Table 17.1 Weber's Three Types of Authority Max Weber identified and explained three distinct types of authority:

Traditional Authority

According to Weber, the power of traditional authority is accepted because that has traditionally been the case; its legitimacy exists because it has been accepted for a long time. Britain's Queen Elizabeth, for instance, occupies a position that she inherited based on the traditional rules of succession for the monarchy. People adhere to traditional authority because they are invested in the past and feel obligated to perpetuate it. In this type of authority, a ruler typically has no real force to carry out his will or maintain his position but depends primarily on a group's respect.

A more modern form of traditional authority is patrimonialism, which is traditional domination facilitated by an administration and military that are purely personal instruments of the master. In this form of authority, all officials are personal favorites appointed by the ruler. These officials have no rights, and their privileges can be increased or withdrawn based on the caprices of the leader. The political organization of ancient Egypt typified such a system: when the royal household decreed that a pyramid be built, every Egyptian was forced to work toward its construction.

Traditional authority can be intertwined with race, class, and gender. In most societies, for instance, men are more likely to be privileged than women and, thus, more likely to hold roles of authority. Similarly, members of dominant racial groups or upper-class families also win respect more readily. In the United States, the Kennedy family, which has produced many prominent politicians, exemplifies this model.

Charismatic Authority

Followers accept the power of charismatic authority because they are drawn to the leader's personal qualities. The appeal of a charismatic leader can be extraordinary and can inspire followers to make unusual sacrifices or to persevere in the midst of great hardship and persecution. Charismatic leaders usually emerge in times of crisis and offer innovative or radical solutions. They may even offer a vision of a new world order. Hitler's rise to power in the postwar economic depression of Germany is an example.

Charismatic leaders tend to hold power for short durations, and according to Weber, they are just as likely to be tyrannical as they are heroic. Diverse male leaders such as Hitler, Napoleon, Jesus Christ, César Chávez, Malcolm X, and Winston Churchill are all considered charismatic leaders. Because so few women have held dynamic positions of leadership throughout history, the list of charismatic female leaders is comparatively short. Many historians consider figures such as Joan of Arc, Margaret Thatcher, and Mother Teresa to be charismatic leaders.

Rational-Legal Authority

According to Weber, rational-legal authority is power made legitimate by laws, written rules, and regulations. In this type of authority, power is vested in a particular rationale, system, or ideology and not necessarily in the person who implements the specifics of that doctrine. A nation that follows a constitution applies this type of authority. On a smaller scale, you might encounter rational-legal authority in the workplace via the standards set forth in the employee handbook, which provides a different type of authority than that of your boss.

Of course, ideals are seldom replicated in the real world. Few governments or leaders can be neatly categorized. For instance, some leaders, like Mohandas Gandhi, can be considered charismatic and legal-rational authority figures. Similarly, a leader or government can start out exemplifying one type of authority and gradually evolve or change into another type.

Source: Tonja R. Conerly, Kathleen Holmes, Asha Lal Tamang; OpenStax, https://openstax.org/books/introduction-sociology-3e/pages/17-1-power-and-authority
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.