INTRODUCTION

Overtime, the term power has never found a distinct definition and this has led to it being

described according to the situation at hand. Talcott Parsons agrees with this fact but he

then settles on the concept that ‘power is the ability of people or collectivities to get
things done especially in the presence of resistance (Parsons, 1963). In contemporary

living, people have used power as a tool to maneuver in the societal hierarchy and it is

known that those with great power rule over the minority in society so as to quote Harold

Laswell, ‘politics is the study of influence and the influential’ (Laswell, 1936). The use of

power is the practice of politics. A Talcott talk about power from a societal point of view
whereby he compares the utilization of money in an economic setup to the use of power
in a political setup to bring out the different dynamics of power and the different types of
societies are; a country, city, school classroom etc.

SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES BETWEEN POWER AND THE MONEY

ECONOMY

According to Talcott, both political theory and economics are analytical and abstract in

nature. That is to say, both can be statistically evaluated. However, the difference comes

about in the aspect that, the value reference of power is to effectiveness while the value

reference to money is its utility. In addition to that, in a political setup, power is the
means of acquiring control of the factors of effectiveness while economically; money is a
factor of production.

When comparing the two, a paradigm of inputs and outputs should be used to juxtapose

the two relations. That is to say, there should be a set of political categories strictly
parallel to those of the factors of production (inputs) on one hand and shares of income
(outputs) on the other.
 PROBLEM AREAS IN THE DEFINITION OF POWER

Power as earlier put, has no concrete definition and Talcott gives three main reason as to

why such a problem exists

i. Conceptual diffuseness
In many situations, power has been described from the Hobbesian point of view
(traditional lenses) as the generalized capacity to attain goals in social relations,
independent of the media employed or of the status of ‘authorization’ to make
decisions or impose obligations (Hobbes, 1986). However, Talcott says that this
should not be the case. Instead, power should be understood as a specific
mechanism operating to bring about changes in the action of other units,
individual or collective in the process of social interaction.

ii. Coercive and conceptual nature of power

Theorists are either marrying the two aspects or insisting the one aspect is salient
than the other .However, it should be noted that the two attributes are essential to
political power concept and should not be viewed as separate entities. Talcott
gives an example of people responding to power voluntarily rather than through
coercion (though a threat of coercion can certainly impend in the background).

iii. The zero-sum

It states that power is a zero sum occurrence.i.e, there is a fixed ‘quantity’ of
power in any rational system hence any gain of power on one side (A) leads to
lose of power on other sides (B, C and D). However, he argues that the outcome is
possible and often occurs but it’s not always the case.

THE CONCEPT OF POWER

I. Behavior

Power influences behavior of individuals as well as collectivities within a society. Due to

hierarchies created by power, collectivities tend to react to these hierarchies either in positive or
negative ways. Positive in a sense that they agree with the action taken by those in authority of
negative when a negative impact is created. This is what brings about chaos and they can be in
form of revolutions or wars. This is what Talcott refers to as the genralization amd legitimization
of power. In generalization, he says that compliance should be generally a particular sanctioning
act which the user is in a position to impose. The medium used for imposing should be 'symbolic'
in nature.

When talking about legitimization, power should be 'symbolic' i.e it should be exchange for
something valuable for general effectiveness i.e compliance should leave the recipient and
performer (the one in power) with 'nothing of value' i.e they only remain with a set of
expectations.

Questioning the legitimacy of posseaion and use of powe leads progressively more secure means
of compliance.

POWER AND AUTHORITY

Power is necessitated by the effectiveness of which is required for the political function while
authority comprises of the general rules which govern the making of specific binding decisions.
That is to say that, authority is the voice of reason and depends on the reasoned elaboration
capacity. Behavior is regulated by authority mainly by speech and words and not force.

MECHANISMS CONTROLLING RESOURCE PROCCESS

There are two main mechanisms controlling resource processes and these are power and money.
Money is simultaneously both a facility and a reward while power is a step above money in the
hierarchy of control mechanism since power can be used to control money.

According to Hobbes, people are guided by passions where they only aim to attain the ‘good’.
However, in order for the desires to be reached, many limitations are put in place.

WAYS OF GETTING RESULTS IN INTERRACTION

According to Talcott, this can be in the form of inducement as in the case of a situational positive
sanction which involves offering someone something that they will comply with. Secondly
coercion in the case of a situational negative sanction, thirdly persuasion in the case of an
intentional positive sanction and lastly activation of commitment in the case of an intentional
negative sanction which involves suggesting to the person why it would be good for him to
comply, independent of situational advantage.

CONCLUSION

Regarding the relationship between power and authority, it is sufficient to say that when power is
accepted by the people over whom it is applied, it transforms to authority. However, absence of
power makes authority an empty cask.

On the coercive and conceptual nature of power, the two should be considered as both important
and the tendency of theorists putting an either-or tag to them should be avoided.

REFERENCES

Hobbes, T. (1986). The leviathan . princeton: princeton university press.

Laswell, H. (1936). The politics of who gets what when how. New York: Whitlessey House.

Parsons, T. (1963). On the concept of political power. Colorado: Havard university press.