chapter 6: “Why do we obey?” - Cal State LA

chapter 6: “Why do we obey?”
POLS
374 foundations of global politics
winter 2011
opening questions
  so, why do we obey?
… and, why is this a relevant or"
important question for this course?"
is it?
opening questions
the importance of obedience in global politics
  for good or bad, the tendency of people to “obey” creates order and
stability both domestically and globally—order is not necessarily a
positive outcome, but it is the product of obedience
  when people fail to “obey,” when a political order is challenged, the
prospects for significant change increase—these changes are not
predictable, but the effects often have implications that reverberate
throughout the world the importance of obedience in global politics
  of course, even obedience—one might say, especially obedience—
can have tremendous reverberations, as when ordinary German
citizens obeyed the Nazis, which led to the most "
destructive conflict in history
  in the US, Americans obeyed George Bush "
in his decision to launch a “pre-emptive” "
attack against Iraq, at the cost of thousands "
of US lives, hundreds of thousands of Iraqi "
lives, and almost $800 billion back to the key question: why do we obey
  there are, of course, many possible answers, which "
might include …
convenien
!
n
o
i
c
r
e
co
persuasion!
ce!
but, perhaps"
the most basic"
answer is derives"
from the concept of …
opening questions
back to the key question: why do we obey
authority!
in other words, we obey because"
we respect the notion of authority,"
that others—those who possess"
legitimacy—have the right to "
command obedience. thus, we obey even"
when we are required to do something we"
normally might not consider doing, such as harming or even"
killing another person: the power of authority was demonstrated in a
famous experiment by Stanley Milgram … opening questions
back to the key question: why do we obey
authority!
we will return to the issue of authority"
and legitimacy shortly, but first we"
will take a related detour by examining"
situations where a political order was"
challenged, that is, a situation in which"
ordinary people became disobedient and authority, at least
temporarily, collapsed … illustrative example: revolutions of 1989
questions to consider
  what happens when a number of people "
stand up and refuse to obey?
  why do people disobey?
first a background video …
insert 1989 revolutions video here
illustrative example: revolutions of 1989
quick points. the question, “what happens when a number of people "
stand up and refuse to obey?” has no definitive answer …
  in China, for example, it ultimately led to the re-imposition "
of “authority” by existing state leaders—the democracy"
movement was violently put down by hardliners in the "
Chinese Community Party   in Eastern Europe, however, the story was very different:
disobedience led to the breakdown of one regime after another …
illustrative example: revolutions of 1989
of course, the story is more complicated than a particular
outcome (such as a revolution)—we need to consider not only
revolutions as discrete events, but the underlying processes
that give rise to revolutionary movements … in this respect,
one answer to the second question (“why do people
disobey?”) is easy to pinpoint: a loss of legitimacy
responses: authority and legitimacy
the last point brings us back to where we started: we obey because we
accept the principles of authority and legitimacy
  these are two inter-related concepts: when legitimacy breaks down,
authority is weakened and vice versa
but what are the sources of authority?
responses: authority and legitimacy
“Two thinkers who have explored the question of why we generally seem
to obey sources of social and political authority, though in different
ways, are Max Weber and Emile Durkheim” Both noted that a traditional source"
of authority—religion—had begun to "
lose their hold, particularly with the rise"
of discourses of secularization in Europe;"
in place of religion, a new source of "
authority arose, on that was located …"
where? responses: authority and legitimacy
The new sources of authority, Weber and Durkheim argued, had moved
to the individual or to the social and political order to which
individuals subscribed
Weber identified three “types”* "
of authority:
*Weber used the concept of
“type” very specifically—there
were meant as aids to thinking,
and were not meant to depict
“real-life” historical situations
  legal-rational
  charismatic
  traditional responses: authority and legitimacy
types of authority
how did weber conceptualize the "
different types of authority?
responses: authority and legitimacy
legal-rational authority
“the legitimacy of the power-holder to give commands
rests upon rules that are rationally established by
enactment, by agreement, or by imposition. This rests in
turn on a constitution. Orders are based on impersonal
rules, not on the authority of the person giving the orders
as a person. A hierarchical organization of official who
wield power and the separation of public and private
spheres go along with this form of authority.”
responses: authority and legitimacy
charismatic authority
“… is legitimized through the heroic feats, victories,
miracles and the like, and disappears if thee magical
powers appear to vanish.”
responses: authority and legitimacy
traditional authority
traditional authority is based upon a belief in ‘what
actually, allegedly, or presumably has always existed.’”
The most familiar types of traditional authority are the
“rule of the father over the household, the lord over the
serf, the prince over officials, nobles and vassals, and the
sovereign prince over subjects”
responses: authority and legitimacy
key point
whatever the type of authority, Weber’s analysis tells us "
that power or authority is possessed by a specific"
and identifiable few in any society who can command"
the obedience of others: they are obeyed because their"
authority or power is deemed legitimate
but also note, in Weber’s view, authority is not a product"
of coercion, threats or violence
responses: authority and legitimacy
Durkheim had a slightly different view on authority and legitimacy … We obey rules not just because of any superior"
physical force that compels us to do so, but because"
of the moral authority that society has: “we defer to"
society’s orders not simply because it is equipped to"
overcome resistance, but, first and foremost, because"
it is the object of genuine respect”
*Durkheim, then, also agreed that coercion was not a"
source of authority and legitimacy
responses: authority and legitimacy
one additional thinker we need to consider is Thomas Hobbes Most simply, Hobbes argued that authority resides in "
individuals
sovereign ______________
importantly, however, sovereign individuals must"
combine together and enter into a social contract—"
power and authority derived from the “addition”"
of myriad individuals into something larger than"
all of them, a __________________
leviathan
broader issues: thinking about power
when considering the issues of authority/legitimacy, obedience/
disobedience, and revolution or stasis, questions about power are
never far away …   the traditional way of thinking about power is in oppositional "
and binary terms, for example, someone or something is "
either powerful or powerless
  as the author notes, we also tend to think of power in a simple,
quantitative way broader issues: thinking about power
either way of thinking about power, however, is problematic …
why?
hint: consider the sources of authority and "
legitimacy in the thinking of Weber and Durkheim
broader issues: thinking about power
traditional ways of thinking about power, to a large extent, foreclose on
the possibility of political, social or economic change—they tell us that
there is, one might say, an impenetrable wall between those with
power and those without it
in global politics, in particular, we "
need a concept of power that"
allows us understand how and"
why change occurs, how and"
why efforts to bring about change"
succeed and fail... broader issues: thinking about power
the author, Jenny Edkins, provides one avenue toward re-conceptualizing
power based on the writing of Michel Foucault
Foucault’s concept of power is admittedly "
abstruse, but it boils down to a fairly "
simply concept, encapsulated in the term …
power relations
broader issues: thinking about power
power relations
questions
what does the term mean? what doesn’t it mean?"
How does it help us better understand global"
politics, authority, legitimacy and obedience?
broader issues: thinking about power
  power exists in relations, and in all relationships there is reciprocity,
but also tension, interaction and negotiation
  power relations, moreover, need not be coercive:"
“what makes power hold good, what makes it"
accepted,” is simply the fact that it doesn’t only"
weigh on us as a force that says no, but that it"
traverses and produces things, it induces pleasure,"
forms of knowledge, produces discourse”—"
power is productive (think about authority and"
legitimacy)
broader issues: thinking about power
  power relations, moreover, are inherently voluntary as opposed to fixed
—indeed, as a relation, power is always in the process of
transformation, always being built and rebuilt
  seen in this light, it becomes easier to envision"
the possibility of change in politics/global"
politics …
how so?
broader issues: thinking about power
power relations
“The point I think is that we can take this talk too seriously—by which I
mean we can believe too much in the fiction of an authority that we
have to obey. It is useful to have such a fiction; as we have said before,
it simplifies daily life. It also gives us something to believe in …. [but] if we
follow Foucault’s suggestion and cut off the king’s head, then there are
other ways of thinking about politics” (Edkins)
summing up
 
it matters how we conceptualize power, but traditional
conceptualizations of power are problematic
  power (or power relations) is a fluid, complex, and reciprocal "
element of human society; when we understand this, it becomes easier to
understand the often fluid nature of politics, whether "
local, national or global
 
politics, in turn, becomes more open to contestation and negotiation
and therefore more open to change—this is a key "
lesson from the chapter