Short Essay on Political Anthropology

Power:

Political anthropology is comparatively less developed. But wherever social anthropologists have studied primitive political organizations, power has been their central theme of discussion.

There cannot be any state or even statelessness without power. Despite many discussions and discourses on power, the definition of power as given by Max We­ber continues to remain valid. Weber is the architect of political sociology.

According to him, every man has power. He says that “it is the ability to enforce one’s own will on others’ behaviour. It is the ability to make someone do something they would otherwise not have done”. Thus, according to Weber, people have power over each other.

Image Source:
image.slidesharecdn.com

If we simplify the definition of power as given by Weber, it would appear that it is the imposition of the will of actor (A) upon an actor (B), even against B’s resistance, so that ‘B’ is dominated by ‘A’.

An­other implication of the definition of power is that it is a source at the disposal of collectivities and used for their benefits, allowing them to attain their objectives: Power, in this view, is conceptualized as a col­lective facility.

Towney, who has interpreted Weber’s definition of power, considers it as “the capacity of an individual or group of indi­viduals, to modify the conduct of other individual or groups in the manner in which he desires, and to prevent his conduct being modi­fied in the manner in which he does not”.

Yet another approach to the definition of power is by Karl Marx. The Marxists look at power as a structural phenomenon. According to them, power is found in the division of labour.

Maurice Godlier, who has developed Marxian perspective on power, argues that power can be seen in the mode of production-the employer and the em­ployee. According to him, power relations constitute the legislative system and other structural features of society.

Eriksen categorizes the definition of power with reference to per­spectives in systemic and structural terms. He says:

It immediately seems to make sense to talk of ‘systemic’ or ‘struc­tural’ power in many contexts: abeyance of norms and implicit rules may easily be seen as a form of structural power-it is not easy to tell who it is that forces me to hold the fork in my left hand and the knife in my right.

However, if we include any action dictated by cultural convention in our definition, power risks becoming diluted and syn­onymous with conventions, norms and ultimately culture.

Eriksen further says that systemic or structural power ceases to in­fluence people and, therefore, he follows the definition of power given by Weber. Weber’s power is political. It is differentiated from author­ity. Authority has power but its resource is state, or some institution like family, caste or village.

Powerlessness:

This is a situation where people do not have any power. Among such people there is absence of the ability to exert power. For instance, in Indian society, there are Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, women and other weaker sections who have a negligible power. Even their voting power is decided by the offer of incentives and threat of annihi­lation.

These groups are marginal groups; they are subalterns; they live in a culture of silence. Such groups are powerless groups. When we discuss power in the primitive society, we must always keep in mind the tribals who are lesser tribals and do not get the benefits of development.

Ideology:

There is always some ideology in our comprehension of power. There was the divine right theory. And not in the remote past, the princely rulers of India considered themselves to be the kings of their territory. Those who were born of kings, ruled as kings. This is precisely, ideol­ogy.

There are social anthropologists who have further divided the political system in terms of ascription and achievement. Dumont dif­ferentiates Indian caste stratification from European class stratification, the former being characterized by hierarchy. In caste hi­erarchy, there is ascription.

When we compare the primitive political system with the modern political system, the ideology of ascription and achievement, and the role of ideology assume importance.

It is difficult indeed to define ideology in precise terms. It appears that ideology is that aspect of culture which concerns how society ought to be organized; in other words, it concerns politics, rules and the distinction between right and wrong. Actually ideology is a nor­mative kind of knowledge; it may be implicit or explicit, and it may be challenged.

In the Indian context, our ideology about the nature of Indian so­ciety has always been changing. It is a democratic, secular society. At a later stage we put the ideology of socialism in defining Indian society. The best way to define Indian society ideologically is to refer to Indian Constitution.

There are also some groups in the country who look at society from the ideological perspective of Gandhism and Marxism. What we want to argue is that in any discussion on primitive political system and for that matter on modern political system, the role of ide­ology can hardly be neglected.

What we call political anthropology is basically enriched by the study of African tribals groups. The studies made by Evans-Pritchard, Fortes, Shapera and others have made a breakthrough in the analysis of power. Traditionally, political scientists have been looking for power in the state institutions of legislature, judiciary and executive.

According to modern political science, politics studies power in the state institutions. The African studies have redefined the concept of power.

Accordingly, power does not lie only in political institutions, it is also found, for instance, in the family, clan, kin and other tradi­tional institutions. In other words, the African studies have brought a new conceptual framework in stateless societies and those both with territory and government.