Power in things: Webers footnotes from the centre

ch. 1
In Allen, John (2003) Lost Geographies of Power, Malden, MA: Blackwell.

etiope@gmail.com
@africanstates

Power in Things

POWER AS SOME THING THAT MOVES

In the views of Hindess (1996), Isaac (1987) or Weber (1978), power is a capacity with a dispositional quality (can be exercised or not) and inscribed in things, people or organisations

For Hindess, power is conceived as effectiveness: the more powerful an agent, the more effective in doing its will. Power has therefore a quantitative nature, and the power someone holds can easily be measured through the extent of his effectiveness

For Isaac, power is an inscribed capacity(in a person, organisation, etc.), which stems from the durable social relations in which that agent is involved

In both cases, power is understood solely as domination, as power over, and as a zero-sum game

etiope@gmail.com
@africanstates

Power in Things

POWER AS DOMINATION
Power

as domination is the most frequent interpretation of Webers understanding of power:

domination will thus mean the situation in which the manifested will (command) of the ruler or rulers is meant to influence the conduct of one or more others (the ruled) and actually does influence it in such a way that their conduct to a socially relevant degree occurs as if the ruled had made the content of the command the maxim of their conduct for its very own sake. Looked upon from the other end, this situation will be called obedience (1978: 946)

But Webers conception of power is richer, and includes for instance influence (i.e. relation of the City with political parties is not of domination, but involves degrees of freedom)

etiope@gmail.com
@africanstates

Power in Things

POWER AS DOMINATION
There

are even different modes of domination, of which command and obedience is only one of them. Weber considers the latter extensively because is the most common form in bureaucratic organisations set up along chains of command and delegation of authority
However Weber also distinguishes between domination and authority, the latter conceded on the basis of legitimacy, and necessary to enforce compliance for long periods of time and across space

etiope@gmail.com
@africanstates

Power in Things

THE SPATIAL THINKING IN INSCRIBED UNDERSTANDINGS OF POWER

Albeit

the new emphasis in multi-scalar and multi-node governance (Rosenau, 1997; Newman, 1999; Jessop, 2000), power still seems to be inscribed in organisations, though now it is not only the state which projects power, but a multitude of nodes along different scales Such a view has been criticised in international relations by Agnew (1994, 1998, 1999) and Agnew and Cordbridge (1995)

Power in Weber, Isaac and Hindess seems to stem from the centre and be distributed as if unitary, and intact, the whole of the organisation putting its weight into it, and causing an effect depending on the resistance met along the way

etiope@gmail.com
@africanstates