發新話題
打印

Power Vs Authority

本主題由 后太禧慈 於 2018-11-20 14:18 移動

Power Vs Authority

Power Vs Authority
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4TpUmaZFeE


10 Difference Between Authority And Power
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8W7VLKU4_MU


10 Difference Between Authority And Power
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r8F5Tj49aY8


Authority Vs. Power -- The Magic is in the Difference
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrXoDfOLFWc


[ 本帖最後由 ChairmanMao 於 2018-11-19 12:58 編輯 ]

TOP

Power and Authority
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/sociology/chapter/power-and-authority/

Despite the differences between government systems in the Middle East and the United States, their governments play the same fundamental role: in some fashion, they exert control over the people they govern. The nature of that control—what we will define as power and authority—is an important feature of society.

Sociologists have a distinctive approach to studying governmental power and authority that differs from the perspective of political scientists. For the most part, political scientists focus on studying how power is distributed in different types of political systems. They would observe, for example, that the United States’ political system is divided into three distinct branches (legislative, executive, and judicial), and they would explore how public opinion affects political parties, elections, and the political process in general. Sociologists, however, tend to be more interested in the influences of governmental power on society and in how social conflicts arise from the distribution of power. Sociologists also examine how the use of power affects local, state, national, and global agendas, which in turn affect people differently based on status, class, and socioeconomic standing.

What Is Power?

For centuries, philosophers, politicians, and social scientists have explored and commented on the nature of power. Pittacus (c. 640–568 B.C.E.) opined, “The measure of a man is what he does with power,” and Lord Acton perhaps more famously asserted, “Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely” (1887). Indeed, the concept of power can have decidedly negative connotations, and the term itself is difficult to define.

Many scholars adopt the definition developed by German sociologist Max Weber, who said that power is the ability to exercise one’s will over others (Weber 1922). Power affects more than personal relationships; it shapes larger dynamics like social groups, professional organizations, and governments. Similarly, a government’s power is not necessarily limited to control of its own citizens. A dominant nation, for instance, will often use its clout to influence or support other governments or to seize control of other nation states. Efforts by the U.S. government to wield power in other countries have included joining with other nations to form the Allied forces during World War II, entering Iraq in 2002 to topple Saddam Hussein’s regime, and imposing sanctions on the government of North Korea in the hopes of constraining its development of nuclear weapons.

Endeavors to gain power and influence do not necessarily lead to violence, exploitation, or abuse. Leaders such as Martin Luther King Jr. and Mohandas Gandhi, for example, commanded powerful movements that effected positive change without military force. Both men organized nonviolent protests to combat corruption and injustice and succeeded in inspiring major reform. They relied on a variety of nonviolent protest strategies such as rallies, sit-ins, marches, petitions, and boycotts.

Modern technology has made such forms of nonviolent reform easier to implement. Today, protesters can use cell phones and the Internet to disseminate information and plans to masses of protesters in a rapid and efficient manner. In the Arab Spring uprisings, for example, Twitter feeds and other social media helped protesters coordinate their movements, share ideas, and bolster morale, as well as gain global support for their causes. Social media was also important in getting accurate accounts of the demonstrations out to the world, in contrast to many earlier situations in which government control of the media censored news reports. Notice that in these examples, the users of power were the citizens rather than the governments. They found they had power because they were able to exercise their will over their own leaders. Thus, government power does not necessarily equate to absolute power.

Types of Authority

The protesters in Tunisia and the civil rights protesters of Martin Luther King, Jr.’s day had influence apart from their position in a government. Their influence came, in part, from their ability to advocate for what many people held as important values. Government leaders might have this kind of influence as well, but they also have the advantage of wielding power associated with their position in the government. As this example indicates, there is more than one type of authority in a community.

Authority refers to accepted power—that is, power that people agree to follow. People listen to authority figures because they feel that these individuals are worthy of respect. Generally speaking, people perceive the objectives and demands of an authority figure as reasonable and beneficial, or true.

A citizen’s interaction with a police officer is a good example of how people react to authority in everyday life. For instance, a person who sees the flashing red and blue lights of a police car in his rearview mirror usually pulls to the side of the road without hesitation. Such a driver most likely assumes that the police officer behind him serves as a legitimate source of authority and has the right to pull him over. As part of her official duties, the police officer then has the power to issue a speeding ticket if the driver was driving too fast. If the same officer, however, were to command the driver to follow her home and mow her lawn, the driver would likely protest that the officer does not have the authority to make such a request.

Not all authority figures are police officers, elected officials or government authorities. Besides formal offices, authority can arise from tradition and personal qualities. Economist and sociologist Max Weber realized this when he examined individual action as it relates to authority, as well as large-scale structures of authority and how they relate to a society’s economy. Based on this work, Weber developed a classification system for authority. His three types of authority are traditional authority, charismatic authority and legal-rational authority (Weber 1922).

Traditional Authority

According to Weber, the power of traditional authority is accepted because that has traditionally been the case; its legitimacy exists because it has been accepted for a long time. Britain’s Queen Elizabeth, for instance, occupies a position that she inherited based on the traditional rules of succession for the monarchy. People adhere to traditional authority because they are invested in the past and feel obligated to perpetuate it. In this type of authority, a ruler typically has no real force to carry out his will or maintain his position but depends primarily on a group’s respect.

A more modern form of traditional authority is patrimonialism, which is traditional domination facilitated by an administration and military that are purely personal instruments of the master (Eisenberg 1998). In this form of authority, all officials are personal favorites appointed by the ruler. These officials have no rights, and their privileges can be increased or withdrawn based on the caprices of the leader. The political organization of ancient Egypt typified such a system: when the royal household decreed that a pyramid be built, every Egyptian was forced to work toward its construction.

Traditional authority can be intertwined with race, class, and gender. In most societies, for instance, men are more likely to be privileged than women and thus are more likely to hold roles of authority. Similarly, members of dominant racial groups or upper-class families also win respect more readily. In the United States, the Kennedy family, which has produced many prominent politicians, exemplifies this model.

Charismatic Authority

Followers accept the power of charismatic authority because they are drawn to the leader’s personal qualities. The appeal of a charismatic leader can be extraordinary, and can inspire followers to make unusual sacrifices or to persevere in the midst of great hardship and persecution. Charismatic leaders usually emerge in times of crisis and offer innovative or radical solutions. They may even offer a vision of a new world order. Hitler’s rise to power in the postwar economic depression of Germany is an example.

Charismatic leaders tend to hold power for short durations, and according to Weber, they are just as likely to be tyrannical as they are heroic. Diverse male leaders such as Hitler, Napoleon, Jesus Christ, César Chávez, Malcolm X, and Winston Churchill are all considered charismatic leaders. Because so few women have held dynamic positions of leadership throughout history, the list of charismatic female leaders is comparatively short. Many historians consider figures such as Joan of Arc, Margaret Thatcher, and Mother Teresa to be charismatic leaders.

Rational-Legal Authority

According to Weber, power made legitimate by laws, written rules, and regulations is termed rational-legal authority. In this type of authority, power is vested in a particular rationale, system, or ideology and not necessarily in the person who implements the specifics of that doctrine. A nation that follows a constitution applies this type of authority. On a smaller scale, you might encounter rational-legal authority in the workplace via the standards set forth in the employee handbook, which provides a different type of authority than that of your boss.

Of course, ideals are seldom replicated in the real world. Few governments or leaders can be neatly categorized. Some leaders, like Mohandas Gandhi for instance, can be considered charismatic and legal-rational authority figures. Similarly, a leader or government can start out exemplifying one type of authority and gradually evolve or change into another type.

[ 本帖最後由 ChairmanMao 於 2018-11-19 13:07 編輯 ]

TOP

執政70年帶來太多災難 北大教授促中共體面退場
http://trad.cn.rfi.fr/%E4%B8%AD%E5%9C%8B/20190105-%E5%9F%B7%E6%94%BF70%E5%B9%B4%E5%B8%B6%E4%BE%86%E5%A4%AA%E5%A4%9A%E7%81%BD%E9%9B%A3-%E5%8C%97%E5%A4%A7%E6%95%99%E6%8E%88%E4%BF%83%E4%B8%AD%E5%85%B1%E9%AB%94%E9%9D%A2%E9%80%80%E5%A0%B4

中國民間聲望很高的北大教授鄭也夫決定挺身而出,盡“匹夫之責! ” 他在剛剛公開的『政改難產之因』一文中分析政治改革為什麼在中國根本就沒有發生?他認為中共今天淡出歷史舞台,符合中國廣大人民和執政黨共同利益。但作者同時指出,如果大家不發出聲音,就不配看到專制政體的終結!


一個比較奇特的現象是,習近平執政以來對敢言者採取的高壓、封鎖、拘捕政策,產生的恐懼效應似乎已經封頂。在中國改革40周年之際,反而越來越多的中國知識分子公開發言表態。他們或者指出習近平當局根本不可能改革,一切對當局的指望都是天真的;或者仍寄希望於當局解放思想,放手改革;或者認為改革已死,憲政當立;近日公布的『中國百餘公共知識分子改革感言』就具有代表性。這一波中國知識分子的涌動中,鄭也夫2018年年底的發聲,極其尖銳!

政治體制改革為何不曾發生

鄭也夫文章開門見山,中共為何提出要政改?因為它意識到法治缺乏,權力濫用,社會經濟生活不可能走上正軌。但是中共為什麼沒有實施政改:因為中共“黨首”意識到,“政改的每一項內容都是在削弱他的政黨”:

黨政分離和政企分離,意味着黨的權力旁落,黨將失去對國家行政與社會經濟的操控;法制的健全將限制中共的行動範圍;真正的政治協商一旦開啟,中共的主張在爭論中有落入下風的可能;在與黨內外對手博弈中,決策者堅定地認為要抑制和應對社會多樣化、民主化、自由化的趨勢、統治集團內部也不能民主,必須權力集中。

自上而下的改革只有過一次,那就是1978年的改革,但是那次改革的原因是“不改革就亡黨”.作者指出常常把亡黨亡國放在一起說的謬誤,“殖民時代划上句號了,不再可能有亡國滅種的事情”,毛澤東造成的局面使得中共害怕亡黨,亡黨就意味着統治階級退出歷史舞台,“他們當然不願意發生這種事情,所以有了改革”。

中共和平結束專制符合中國廣大人民的利益

鄭也夫指出,中共在其執政的大多數時間中,其方針政策不代表中國廣大人民的利益。巧取豪奪,先將人民私有土地變為國有,然後大搞地皮財政,各地政府高價將地皮賣給地產商,無數公民成為房奴……

作者認為中國共產黨在其執政的70年歷史中,給中國人民帶來太多的災難。演化到今天,“它幾乎完全喪失了自我糾錯的機制,它的性質已經徹底蛻變….加入它是為了做官,捍衛它是為了維護既得利益…對不同政見的仇視與日俱增,對危機的恐懼令自己失態。”

在作者看來,有一項符合中國廣大人民和執政黨共同利益的事情,就是共產黨和平地、即以避免暴力的、最少社會動蕩的方式,淡出歷史舞台。“我以為,今後中國共產黨的領袖所能做出的唯一可望載入史冊的大事情,就是引領這個黨體面地淡出歷史舞台。”

但他認為,和平終結專制的歷史,依賴於共產黨的一位明智的領袖,不然難有非暴力的轉型。

如果我們不發出聲音,就不配看到專制政體的終結

台灣終結一黨專政,在作者看來,如果沒有台灣民主派多年打拚,蔣經國如果不是面對巨大的壓力和多元的局面,蔣經國不可能做出那樣的選擇。作者認為,有什麼樣的統治者,就有什麼樣的被統治者,二者相互塑造,惡性循環是雙方造就的。“得勢者為什麼要主動讓權,改變現狀呢?沒有外部的壓力,沒有強烈的開報禁、開黨禁的要求,執政黨的黨魁想這麼做,都沒法向同僚交代---同儕們會覺得老大有病了。”

作者接受“互動”的說法,作為黨魁,帶領中國走上結束專制之路實為不易,“難處不在於黨外有反對派,恰恰在於沒有反對派的存在” ,“讓我們互動起來,力爭踏上這唯一的、白駒過隙般稀罕的雙贏之路”。

如果書生都敢於講出自己的想法,中國不會是今天的樣子

作者最後談到為什麼要寫這樣一篇文章的目的,就是“天下興亡匹夫有責”,“還有一個卑微的動因,就是讓我還能看得起自己。,多年來我塗抹了上百萬字。如果我最終在這個我想了許久的、關乎民族大業的問題上不置一詞,我會看不起自己的。”

作者認為“今天的書生還沒有盡責”。“如果他們都忠實於自己的良知,都勇於講出自己的看法,中國不會是今天的樣子。”
成吉思汗 鐵木真(ᠴᠢᠩᠭᠢᠰ; ᠬᠠᠭᠠᠨ)

TOP

發新話題