Introduction
Social facts are complicated phenomena, and, in order to better explain and understand them, it might be fruitful to use a number of various methods at the same time. Some of the approaches that may be utilized so as to do this come from the theories created by Emile Durkheim and Ludwig Wittgenstein. In this paper, both of these approaches will be employed in order to scrutinize a certain social phenomenon, namely, the political power. Upon discussing it by using these two methods, a comparison of the obtained results will be carried out.
Political Power: The Social Phenomenon to Be Discussed
Political power is stated to be a specific form of social reality (Searle 80). The political power is an attribute shared by the representatives of different branches of the government (i.e., the President, the MPs, the senators, the local authorities, etc.) which, roughly speaking, gives them the influence on the representatives of the society who have a lower amount of the political power. It manifests through a number of various governmental institutions and mechanisms, such as the legal corpus or the force structures (e.g., the security and the military services, such as the police and the army), the executive organizations of the government, etc.
It is accepted by the majority of the representatives of the society and acknowledged virtually by everyone. But political power is a different kind of power than the power which, for instance, a wolf has over a hare; it is reliant upon a number of other social institutions and phenomena, as well as on the perceptions of the members of the society. Therefore, it might be fruitful to use a number of approaches so as to explain and/or understand the nature of the political power.
Using Durkheim’s Approach to Explain Political Power
According to Emile Durkheim, social facts cannot be explained completely by the states of individual consciousnesses; their causes ought to be sought among the social facts that precede them, whereas their functions should be looked for in relation to some social goals (qtd. in Hollis 101-102). In addition, social structures need to be understood as systems in which concrete actions of agents should be “explained as responses to the functional demands of the system” (qtd. in Hollis 163).
Therefore, in order to explain a social phenomenon in accordance with the Durkheim’s approach, it is needed to consider the social facts that precede this phenomenon, and show how these facts allow for or cause the existence of the given phenomenon, as well as to find the social goals of the given phenomenon so as to explain its functions.
The phenomenon of political power can be explained by referring to the history of the society. For instance, it may be possible to assert that the political power in the contemporary state might have emerged as a result of the struggle for power inside the society or between different societies, and from the desire of certain individuals to dominate over others. The individuals who were able to get to the top of the social hierarchy looked for various means that would allow them to maintain this position, thus creating institutions which would enforce their rule, for instance, the guards, individual armies, or some analogs of the contemporary police.
Because not every member of the society had the resources and was ready or willing to resist this rule, the political power with time became an institutionalized phenomenon. On the other hand, the persons who were not at the top of the social hierarchy also fought for their rights, which gradually led to concessions and/or sops, which is why the institutions of political power are less repressive today than they were, for example, during the Middle Ages in Europe or in the 19th century in the U.S.
Speaking about the aim of the political power involves discussing controversial questions. For instance, the adherents of the social contract theory (which might be associated with the liberal political agenda) would state that the political power exists because individuals sacrifice a part of their freedoms in exchange for the protection of the rest of their rights and for the order in the society (even though not many people witnessed such a sacrifice to be made explicitly); so, the aim is keeping the order.
On the other hand, the political left would argue that the political power is the instrument of the domination which the upper social class uses to control the rest of the social classes; so, the aim is domination. Therefore, discussing the goal of the social phenomenon of political power appears to be unlikely to yield an unequivocal answer.
Using Wittgenstein’s Approach to Understand Political Power
According to Ludwig Wittgenstein, people engage in games with particular rules, simultaneously constructing the new rules in the course of interpreting and using the old ones (qtd. in Hollis 152, 196). Thus, it might be possible to state that every social phenomenon is dependent upon how individuals expect other people to act (Hollis 200). At the same time, Wittgenstein suggests that “particular actions belong to particular practices, which are embedded within the wider practices which go to make up a culture” (qtd. in Hollis 154-155).
It is also important to stress that, according to Wittgenstein, there are two main types of rules: constitutive and regulative; the former create the game by defining it, whereas the latter offer a range of legitimate choices of actions (qtd. in Hollis 152-153). Therefore, to understand the phenomenon of political power using the Wittgenstein’s approach, it is needed to articulate which rules people follow and interpret, and how they expect the others to act while dealing with political power.
It is possible to state that people are (always) born into a society which already has some pre-defined rules. Individuals are taught to follow these rules from their very childhood, or else there might be adverse consequences. In this respect, following or disobeying the rules pertaining to the political power have more serious effects on a person than many other types of rules; for instance, hitting a policeman (a representative of a governmental structure) is likely to lead to more severe consequences that hitting an individual who does not represent the government.
An individual that realizes this expects the other people to act in respective ways, and is less likely to engage in actions that openly defy those who have the political power, thus also supporting their power by their very compliance and the refusal to defy.
Also, interestingly, John Searle points out that political power requires collective acceptance (Searle 100); thus, if, for instance, the whole planet suddenly disbelieved that the current President of the U.S. is indeed the President of the U.S., this individual would lose the status immediately. This also corroborates the statement of Peter Winch, according to which reality is not independent of thought (qtd. in Hollis 155).
Therefore, it might also be difficult to tell whether the need to comply with the political power is a constitutive or regulative rule in the society. While the defiance of this rule in isolated cases, apparently, does not often lead to significant results, the mass denial of political power in principle might lead to major changes in the structure of the society.
Comparing the Two Approaches
It might be difficult to compare the discussions of the phenomenon of the political power according to the Durkheimean and Wittgensteinian approaches, for these two discussions cover different aspects of this phenomenon. On the whole, it appears that while the Durkheimean approach focuses on how the social phenomena (for instance, the political power) are caused by the preceding social phenomena, therefore taking more social-historical stance, the Wittgensteinian approach concentrates on how persons understand the phenomena on the individual level and engage in practices that reproduce these phenomena.
Thus, it may be possible to state that the two approaches view the social phenomena from different sides. It might be recommended to use both approaches simultaneously in order to create a more comprehensive picture of a social phenomenon; clearly, other approaches may also be utilized to further enrich this picture.
Conclusion
To sum up, it should be stressed that the Durkheimean approach yields the picture of the political power as a result of the struggle for influence inside the society, whereas the analysis conducted according to the theory of Wittgenstein shows that individuals comply with the rules according to which there is political power, simultaneously reproducing and preserving this political power. Because the two approaches consider the social phenomenon from different sides, it might be recommended to use them simultaneously in order to obtain a better, more comprehensive picture of the phenomenon in question.
Works Cited
Hollis, Martin. The Philosophy of Social Science: An Introduction. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Print.
Searle, John R. Freedom and Neurobiology: Reflections on Free Will, Language, and Political Power. New York, NY: Columbia University Press, 2007. Print.