Introduction
Politics is arguably the most renowned and constantly debated issue across the world due to an exceptionally diverse history coupled with endless controversies. The concept of politics and its theory has existed in almost throughout all the documented political science literature. As simple as it looks, the concept of politics can prove significantly challenging especially when individuals are struggling to understand its actual meaning, as different pieces of literature and theories posit different intuitions about the meaning of politics, thus resulting in a mixture of understandings.
In proletarian terms, politics principally refers the art or science involved in governing especially that consist political entity such as administration techniques over a nation and its citizens. Different perceptions over the concept of politics have existed and are augmenting in the political science literature. Based on such conceptions, this essay seeks to examine the concept of politics as articulated in Weber’s ‘politics as a vocation’ and in Lane’s ‘Pitkin’s dilemma: the wider shores of political theory and political science’.
Meaning of politics
The concept of politics, just as postulated by Weber (77), is actually a diverse discipline that comprises any form of sovereign leadership engaged in actions. An elaborative meaning from my personal understanding, politics can principally refer to actions or activities of governing or form of leadership that artily or technically entail managing citizens, a nation, and its resources. A considerably key issue in the concept of politics as assumed by Lane is that the “idea of strategic interactive behavior is the central phenomenon of politics” (460).
To concur with this conception created by Lane from a wider pool of reasoning, politics generally involves activities of a government designed by and for people living within certain social structures including small regions to global spectrum (Weber 79). However, politics is just akin to an organization where laws and regulations imposed by top officials play a critical role in the management of capital and human resources.
Politics thus involves certain aspects of power and structures developed in hierarchical order, which are currently eminent in the prevailing world political order. As Weber discerns, in politics “there is the authority of the extraordinary and personal gift of grace (charisma), the absolutely personal devotion and personal confidence in revelation, heroism or other qualities of individual’s leadership” (79). In its broadest sense, politics is a form of governance that requires an inclusion of the aspects of power or supremacy.
Human relationships, as nature, spur development of the aspect of political growth as political experiences in the modern days are becoming more eminent in human relationships. From perceptions and conceptions revealed from Lane and Weber, a collective meaning of politics emerges. Politics can thus mean activities of strategically managing human beings and resources in a given nation through certain systems of governance that may also involve using power or authority in such administration.
Contrast between Weber and Lane’s conceptions of politics
A combination of conceptions protracting from Lane and Weber may draw an accurate meaning of the concept of politics if well understood. However, the two authors portray significant contrast in their general intuition about politics. Weber’s main perception about politics is the sense that politics are individuals’ power struggle to have control over the state or nation. Weber believes that nations or a state itself is a major source of violence and hence, “politics for us means striving to share power or striving to influence the distribution of power, either among states or among groups within a state”( 85).
Supremacy and charismatic leadership must dominate a nation for human beings to have proper governance in any social structure and that centrality of violence for the state is important. Similar to such perceptions developed, a similar intuition is inherent in the literature documented by Lane (461), where he suggests that whether in human relations, verbal communication, or economic relationship, power is present.
However, Lane’s work does not stipulate that governance must entail power utilization, but rather, as noted from literature, he contends that states of dominations are simply subset of relations to power, and does not use the term power to signify any political structure, or any form of governance (Lane 461). Violence is use of power or aggression to govern a nation and Weber argues, “Every state is founded on force and if no social institutions existed, which knew the use of violence” (80), the concept of state would never prevail. Therefore, violence in governance can be useful to certain extents.
To Lane’s perception, power is useful when used in strategic governance, and to expound the essence of coercion in leadership, Weber believes that nations are social structures with individuals possessing unique characteristics and presence of military organizations, judicial systems, and jails are important components of powerful governance that ensure rules and regulations have essence in nations (83). Contrary to Lane’s (467) conceptions, people form rules that they can follow without intimidation.
Another idea is how and why individuals join politics and systems of governance. The intent why politicians or simple individuals join national politics remains a quandary for many scholars across the world. This dilemma underscores the contrast point between Weber and Lane over the meaning of politics within the state paradigm. From their arguments, Weber sees politics as the matter of the state and Lane considers politics as merely individuals playing games.
According to Lane, “these power plays do not occur in abstract conceptual terms, but in empirical and sometimes unseemly political practice, where sharp strategy may prevail even in the most private game” (460). However, from Weber’s conception, “the leadership of a state or of a party by men who (in the economic sense of the word) live exclusively for politics and not off politics” (117), hence politics remains a state issue. Political parties arise with the primary aim of dominating governance of the nation.
Conclusion
Politics is a global concept that attracts substantial debates within the political science paradigm and its real meaning remains a quandary in many academic and societal quarters. Different conceptions have arisen from different researchers over the authentic meaning of the word ‘politics’. From my personal understanding using a combination of Lane and Weber’s literature, politics may principally refer to activities or practices of governance or administration artily or scientifically designed to control human beings (citizens), nations, and all the resources within a state.
Power in politics is and has been an evident characteristic in traditional and contemporary politics where leaders believe on coercion to manage human beings. From a different conception, power is present in governance though politics must entail strategic governance of human beings through human relations.
Works Cited
Lane, Ruth. “Pitkin’s Dilemma: The Wider Shores of Political Theory and Political Science.” Perspectives on Politics 2.3 (2004): 459-473. Print.
Weber, Max. Politics as a vocation, New York: Oxford University Press, 1946. Print.