Liberal and Functionalist Perspectives on Distribution of Power

We have noted that in the liberal perspective, power distribution is assigned the role of conflict resolution and resource allocation. The state is viewed as neutral agency and working for the betterment of all. Power is used for the purpose of redistribution and welfare, peace, law and order, and mediation amongst variety of interested groups.

Both Hobbes and Locke treated power as though the Leviathan or the government would apply it for common protection, security and order. For them power becomes a source of social order, maintenance of right to life for Hobbes and right to life, liberty and property for Locke. For both of them, power is neutral and not in favour of any class because after social contract, it is imperative that power applies equally well for all who are part of the contract. Locke considers people as the repository of all power and government as trustee of that power. However, Locke’s formulation on creation, transfer and possession of property fails him in his initial bravado of declaring power as available to all. His formulation gives a clear statement that power in a liberal order is power in favour of those who are propertied. Macpherson has rightly termed Locke’s theory (along with that of Hobbes) as a theory of ‘possessive individualism’.

It is pertinent to mention here that in the classical democratic theory, power of consent is considered as being held by a majority of the people. John Locke, Alex de Tocqueville and J. S. Mill talked about majority as the repository of power in democratic set-up. Though Locke gave approval to majority as the arbiter of final decisions in democracy, Tocqueville and Mill were apprehensive of the majority as inimical to liberty of the individual. Nevertheless, political majority as the final arbiter in electoral democracy becomes the wielder of power. Lincoln’s government of the people, by the people and for the people, in fact, is government of the majority, by the majority, may be for the people. Democratic polity is characterized by distribution of democratic and electoral power in the hands of the political majority. This is the classical notion of power distribution in a democratic polity. Power distribution in terms of political majority is one-dimensional notion.

The Liberal view holds that within the society, power is distributed in such a manner that some hold political power, some economic power, some religious power, some others, educational, intellectual and other aspects of power. It means there is neither a single source of power nor any single class or group as the sole repository of power. German sociologist, Max Weber provided significant inputs on this aspect in his analysis, class, status and party, where he identified at least three aspects of power. For him, class represents the economic base of power, status as social and party a reflection of political power. For Weber, power in a capitalist society is distributed on a three-dimensional spectrum. Pluralism puts power on a multidimensional spectrum. Dahl coins the term polyarchy to denote the nature of power distribution. Under this approach, power become diffused amongst various interests and functional groups—religious, professional and vocational, social and cultural, economic, political, educational, etc. Accordingly, the pluralist approach seeks to make power distribution group-based. Another approach within the liberal perspective is that of elites as holders of powers. Pareto, Mosca, Michels, Schumpeter, Sartori, Dahl, Wright Mills, and others have argued that power in a capitalist society is distributed amongst various elites who hold and apply power in the political process and decision-making. Though the elitist approach identifies elites as one combination, it seeks a variety of fields from which elites emerge and wield power. The Elite theory is multidimensional view of power distribution as elites come from a variety of sources. There is the corporatist approach, which is a variant of the pluralist view. It holds that there should be co-ordination between the state and other groups such as industrialists and trade unions and supports their participation in the decision-making process.³¹ The corporatist approach is a demand for resolving disputes and issues of industrial relations at the level of state. According to one sociologist, ‘corporatism refers to the widespread tendency across the advanced capitalist countries for industrial relations between employers and trade union organizations to be resolved and institutionalised at the level of the State itself’.³² Arguably, corporatism, like pluralism and the broad liberal approach, treats the state as a mediator and negotiator between interest groups.

While the classical democratic theory enshrines political majority as the holder and neutral arbiter of power, the pluralist approach wants variety of groups and associations as wielders of power mediated by the state. Though the pluralist approach seeks more diffusion of power, it remains committed to the idea that state could be a neutral arbiter. The elitist approach demolishes the democratic presumption of power being shared by the people or at least the majority of them. It gives select groups of elites sitting at the helms of various fields in society as the sole proprietary right to wield power, negotiate, mediate and allocate resources. The electoral process as the pinnacle of democratic citadel, argue elitist theorists, is nothing but competition amongst the elites for selection of a group of elites to rule until the next election. Within the liberal perspective itself, we have a shift in the view as to who holds power. In the classical democratic view, people, being supreme, hold power, then we have majority as the operating power-holder, subsequently overridden by groups as the power base and further refuted by the elitists where only elites wield power. (see Table 13.2)

Table 13.2 Different Views on Power Distribution

By the very fact that power is distributed in a particular way and wielded by a particular group or section, it implies that power is exclusive. This means, power held by some excludes others from the same. For example, if political majority is the power-holder, it means political minority is not and similarly, if one group holds power it is at the expense of others. This can be termed as zero-sum power game. German sociologist, Max Weber holds that power in a society is constant and to that extent, some holds it at the cost of others. According to Haralambos, this is known as ‘constant-sum concept of power’.³³ He further opines that, for Weber, power in a society is not only constant, but also those who hold tends to use it for their self-interests. It suggests that power can be used only for the benefit of those who hold it. Many sociologists tend to hold this view of power distribution and measurement.

American sociologist, Talcott Parsons, adopts the functionalist perspective to explain social relations and distribution of power. He rejects Weber’s explanation of power as zero-sum or constant -sum game. Parsons holds that power is held by the society as a whole and it is variable. Its variability depends on the capacity to mobilize the resources of the society to achieve set goals. Set goals are values that society seeks to achieve, e.g. material comfort and a high living standard sought by the Western society or successful hunting by a tribal society. Thus, while the Western society would marshal all its power to seek set a goal of comfort and high living standard, a tribal society would organize and marshal its power to achieve successful hunting. He further argues that to achieve goals successfully, organization and differential power distribution is required—some to direct, some to obey and perform different functions. Parsons justifies power differential in a society based on ‘furtherance of collective goals’.³⁴

The functionalist perspective provides an important liberal sociological explanation of power differential in society. It assumes that power distribution in society is in proportion to the functions being performed. These functions are important for the maintenance and continuity of society. The functionalist perspective calls them ‘functional prerequisites’. For example, family as an institution is important for emotional and psychological stability, reproduction and biological continuity; various skills are graded as per functional necessity, etc. An example may be illustrative in this regard. Let us ask the question: why a doctor should be paid more than a nurse? Alternatively, why a manager should be valued more than a worker? Functional explanation would be that a doctor or a manager has more skill than a nurse or a worker. It implies that a thing which a doctor or manager can do, a nurse or a worker cannot do. However, the vice-versa is not true. This results in functional priority to one who has more skill, hence deserving differential treatment in terms of respect and rewards in society.

The functionalist explanation of power differential is functionally related and does not at all explain the background that results in the differential skills or functional priority. Its explanation does not take into account the power differential that already exists in society and which further aggravates the skill and functional differentials.