Book Review: Power (Key Concepts) , by John Scott . Polity Press, 2001. Cambridge, UK. 184 pages, 8.5 x 5.4 in. Paperback, ISBN 0745624170
Reviewed 2006 by Sue McPherson, MA. Analyst and researcher on sexuality and gender issues, life cycle development and aging, and social inequality.
This book’s sociological approach to explaining the concept of power begins with the idea that power is the production of causal effects. The chapters cover a broad spectrum, from elementary forms of power to more complex forms, from domination to counteraction, and from global power relations to the interpersonal.
In Chapter 1, Patterns of Power, John Scott, draws on the idea of social power, using the terms ‘principal’ and the ‘subaltern,’ to indicate the status of the agents he sees as occupying the main positions in the power relation. He distinguishes between the idea of exercising power and holding it and expands on the concept, including ideas such as power over, capacity, agency, manipulative power, and persuasive power, the structures of domination, and forms of social resistance. Briefly, to finish, he brings in the idea of interpersonal power, a form of power that is not limited only to personal and family relations but is a vital aspect of the wider economic and political spheres.
In the ensuing chapters, the topics and concepts introduced in Chapter 1 are dwelt on in more depth, beginning with Chapter 2, Command and Sovereign Power. While the elite – those in command – often occupy specific positions of power in business, organised religion, government, universities, and the military, the interconnections between positions can be multiple, and the overlap from one generation to recruits from the next guarantees a future elite which will have internalised the norms of the governing class. The elite, in this case, refers to those not simply of high social class, thus, the privileged, but those who have demonstrated superiority in the boardroom, so to speak, thus legitimating their access to power.
Chapter 3, Pressure and Policy Formation, deals with power relations in political communities, in areas such as economic, foreign, and welfare policy, with an emphasis on exploring the strengths and limitations of pluralist perspectives. Counteraction to the decision-making responsibilities of those in positions of authority by pressure groups using whatever power at their disposal can influence the outcome of policies under consideration, and may even prevent policies from entering the process. This chapter analyses the processes of pressure, both those visible to the public and those occurring behind closed doors.
In Chapter 4, Constraint and Hegemony, Scott analyses the methods by which mechanisms of persuasion and coercion constrain alternatives and ideology disguises the workings of powerful forces within society. Corporate and state military power are just two of the structures mentioned, their global influence, technology and material resources seen as a symbol of great power. That may have changed since 9/11, however.
The fifth chapter, Discipline and Expertise, suggests that what used to be seen as the expert power behind the disciplinary controls of society may have altered to some extent. Scott seems to accept the rationality of the standard framework of such a system, but although knowledge as a source of power is generally accepted to be a reasonable assumption, in an elitist class system this may become manifest in ways that others might question.
The aim of the sixth chapter, Protest and Collective Mobilisation, is to explore the dynamics of the politics of protest. Solidarity seems to be a prerequisite if success is to be attained in achieving the collective goal, and while similar values and ideals may underlie such action, the idea that subjectively recognised interests are always the products of processes of cultural construction is one I question, if that was what was meant.
The subject and title of Chapter 7 is Interpersonal Power, a dynamic the origins of which Scott claims are the characteristics and attributes of the actors. Using concepts such as ‘supply and demand,’ and once again the principal/subaltern relationship, and charismatic authority, Scott explains the patterns of interpersonal power and various problems such as dependence, resistance, and motivation. Although interpersonal power relationships occur among individuals, they are not separate altogether from the social or work environment, he makes clear, operating as they do at all levels of society, influencing outcomes.
In the conclusion, Coda (Chapter 8), Scott summarises the main points of the book, acknowledging that the topic is complex and his work only scratches the surface. He maintains that there is a core idea to the concept of power, and that this work builds on that idea, setting out the forms and serving to develop his arguments.
This book covers several areas within sociology, and to have them drawn together into one piece of work, so that one is able to see the intersections among the different parts, allows us a well-rounded overview of the topic, power. I wasn’t always in agreement with Scott’s approach, as I read his work, nor the framework he used in analysing particular themes or areas, but as a piece of theoretical instructional text for readers of sociology and other disciplines no doubt it would be informative and very useful.
I was uncertain about the distinction Scott made between ‘principal’ and ‘subaltern,’ as though these were clearly defined positions of social status as well as being about the holding of expertise. I thought it likely that persons such as secretaries, for instance, might occupy both at the same time, being subalterns in one situation but also being able to shift and become principals, thus aiming not only to protect and serve but also being gatekeepers with the power to guide and set limits for their superiors. Subalterns may not always have the knowledge, as Scott says, but they do sometimes have power over resources and decision-making.
While it is not possible to go in depth into all possible circumstances, it seemed sometimes there was a glossing over of what could have been important revelations in some areas. In exploring this concept of the principal and the subaltern it may have been incomplete in that it didn’t make the nuances of the relationship and social roles explicit. Power is a topic one could write about at length from one’s own perspective, and Scott’s may well be from a position higher in the hierarchy than many of the readers, and although he does what he sets out to do, it could be seen as lacking in some ways.
Thinking still of principals and subalterns, I see the sexual power of women as one form of power worth mentioning specifically. It becomes clear, on reading the chapter on interpersonal power, that the embodiment of the individual means more of a cultural embodiment to Scott than a biological or physical embodiment. This is an old debate, and one for which there is no clear answer, but whether the natural gendered, sexual, or other physical aspects of a person’s embodied presence are also recognised as sources of power, as indeed the symbolic meanings of such culturally constructed embodiment may well be, is a question that reminds one of the nature/nurture controversy.
Men and women, in general, are different, biologically. The reflexes, and needs and desires, of the male body are not the same as women’s. For women, the denial of one’s physical embodiment in order to gain security, status, or fulfilment in other areas of one’s life might be a high price for some to pay, a minor inconvenience for others, or even a welcome distraction.
Patriarchal power relations are not biologically determined, but there is a strong biological component to them. Scott’s acknowledgement of the biological seems limited to blood lines, as mentioned in Chapter 7, and his description of the feminist emphasis on the body is not entirely accurate. While the need for positive evaluation of mothering and care-giving would benefit society, the reason given need not be because these attributes come ‘naturally’ to women, any more than working towards the ‘glass ceiling’ is a natural endeavour. Which is the more ‘patriarchal’ ambition is hard to say.
If Scott can’t be said to have ignored biology altogether, he has at the very least downplayed its significance. Any emphasis on women’s bodies by feminists does not have to be seen due to some unreasonable idea that women are shaped by their bodies and emotions, as he implies, any more than men are. If a writer wants to focus only on the cultural discourses of masculinity and femininity, disregarding biological difference, then that is his prerogative, but to claim that there are no male-female differences, or that the female physique is no different to men’s, does not make sense and is a denial of biological, hormonal, and actual physical difference. Where do desires come from – hopefully not from men in positions of dominance, as principals, with women as subalterns, relying on the beliefs and values of those who may have little understanding of what it is like to be a woman. Eroticism for men may be based on relations of dominance and submission, but there’s no indication that this is the way it has to be, unless men and the women who benefit from relationships with them continue to support their views and their embodied needs and desires.
About the author: John Scott is Professor of Sociology at the University of Essex, UK.
This book review is being made available on the website page: Essays and Other Writing:
estead.com/EssaysandOtherWriting.html
Posted 31 Aug 2006
USE BACK BROWSER BUTTON TO RETURN TO PREVIOUS PAGE