Tass Holmes Alexander Whittle 837305

The bases of power are fundamentally economic. Discuss.

Economics often plays a significant role in the concept of power. However, Weber

posits the bases of power are multi-faceted, whereby power is defined by its

components: social status, political influence and economic standing (Weber, 1970,

182). The nature of theory implies that Weber’s framework is not necessarily

steadfast. While Weber asserts that the elite wields power, Hannah Arendt purports

that power rests with the “sheer togetherness of people.” Further, she asserts that

Weber’s framework is derived from the outmoded notion of “absolute power”

(Arendt, 1970, 39). However, modern examples of abuse of power explored in this

essay demonstrate the subjugation of people at the hands of the elite and therefore

support Weber’s framework. As Michael Webber asserts, “people are not sometimes

or in some places acting economically and at other times acting socially or

politically; they are always acting in all of these ways” (Webber, 2008, 163). This

essay will discuss Weber’s understanding of power and assert that while power is

often exerted for economic advantage, it would be remiss to ignore the significance

of social status and political influence in the bases of power and can act

extraneously to economic gain. Examples of Weber’s components and their impact

on bases of power including the means of production, gender hierarchy and the

patriarchy and the media will be discussed using theory and examples to assert this

separation. Economics, social status and political influence are not bases of power,

though they define the behaviour of the power bases that will be discussed

throughout this essay.

Tass Holmes Alexander Whittle 837305

Under a Weber lens, Marxist theory reveals subjugation and exploitation of the

proletariat as an example of economic gain as an influence of power. This is

particularly prevalent in Marx’s Communist Manifesto, wherein authority is held by

the bourgeoisie through their control of the means of production. Willis’ “Learning

to Labour” presents a veritable study of the impacts of economic standing as almost

hereditary, wherein working class begets working class (Willis, 59, 1983). In

corroboration with Marx’s theory, the modern worker, “instead of rising with the

process of industry, sinks deeper and deeper below the conditions of existence of

his own class” (Marx, 1848, 13). Oppressed by the bourgeoisie that controls its

industry, the proletariat as exemplified by the working class boys studied in

“Learning to Labour” are conditioned to complacency in their economic standing

and exploited for the economic advancement of the upper class. Indeed they have

become “dependent and [have] no individuality”; they are subjugated by the power

afforded to their superiors through economic success (Marx, 1848, 17). Conversely,

those who control the means of production, and thereby wield power, achieve

“independence and individuality” and further economic gain (Marx, 1848, 17).

Abuses of the body, such as gender inequality and wartime rape are bases of power

that represent an attempt to enforce the docility of bodies and exert power through

a constructed hierarchy of gendered social status. The body is both regressive and

productive and as Foucault notes both an “object and target of power”. When made

docile the body becomes malleable - “subjected, used, transformed and improved”

(Foucault, 1984, 186; McLaren, 2002, 87). However, the body comprises its own
Tass Holmes Alexander Whittle 837305

power in its ability to resist. McLaren’s explication of Foucault’s theory asserts

control of the body as a base of power lies in control of small aspects: movements,

actions and gestures. McLaren (2002, 88) also notes Foucault’s notion of

distribution of space and of individuals in relation to other individuals. Foucault’s

analysis can be applied to the feminist perspective and the socially constructed

gender hierarchy, evidenced by Judith Butler’s (6, 1990) discussion of gendered

power. Butler corroborates with Foucault and McLaren’s theses, which point to the

establishment of a sexual dimorphism through control of the minute: the patriarchy

asserts power over the feminine by perpetuating feminine affectations that are not

necessarily correct, but are always inferior. Affectations that demand adherence to

current fashions, exercise and diet routines, positions within the family and

household and submission to lower pay grades. They have dictated women’s

position in society and consequently the relation of individual women to men has

become one of subservience. The patriarchal society thus dictates the two forms of

human are woman and man; the former acquiescent to the latter and therefore

social status as a base of power is gendered. Indeed, this has perpetuated an

economy now somewhat reliant on gendered products and therefore a base of

power that is economic, but its core is inherently tied to social status and the

suppression of the female body.

Wartime rape in Kosovo and historic Balkan attitudes toward women represent an

attempt to not only “train” the bodies of victims into subservience and docility but

to assert a social and gender hierarchy through control of the body. While the
Tass Holmes Alexander Whittle 837305

intention of the Kosovan rape by Albania was an “attack on the Serbian nation”, its

direct victims were majority female (Bracewell, 2002, 565). Historic Balkan

sentimentality toward women has not aided this example of abuse of the body as a

base of power. Indeed, Mostov (1995, 517) notes attitudes toward abortion, which

purported women that were childless or did not have enough children as enemies of

the state. Systemic abuse of the body as discussed by Foucault, McLaren and Butler

and evidenced by the Balkan examples is a base of power that is influenced by

desire for social status extraneous from economic gain.

Although lessened by the advent of individual agency through social media, big

corporations use their chokehold on the distribution of media as a base of power in

order to retain political influence. As Chomsky (Sherman, 2000, 102) notes, the

media’s position is often defined by its “elite information sources.” Indeed, the

dominant media - owned by wealthy people or corporations - draws its information

from elite sources such as the government and other large businesses. For instance,

Australia’s own Murdoch media oligopoly holds 57.5% of market share of

newspaper ownership and thus it can be asserted that 57.5% of newspaper media

will often be aligned with this private corporation’s political views (Dyer, 2016).

Often a convergence of interests between the owners of media and its sources

means the news maintains “a certain degree of solidarity to prevail among the

media, government and corporate businesses” (Sherman, 2000, 102). “Knowledge is

power,” according to Foucault, and those who control the distribution of

‘knowledge’ acquire political influence and consequently, power.

Tass Holmes Alexander Whittle 837305

However, limitations occasionally undermine the dominant media as a proponent

and benefactor of political power. Permeating ideologies such as anti-communism

during the Cold War era dictated the media’s positions. Furthermore, the advent of

the Internet and then social media afforded individuals an unprecedented platform

for asserting their political views to large audiences (Noam, 2005, 58). However,

Noam (2005, 58) criticises the Internet and social media in their ability to give

individuals agency by noting its democratic nature: each individual given agency is

one among billions, and none necessarily of higher quality than any other . As Bailey

(Herman, 2000, 101) compounds, “the masses are short-sighted”. Collectively, the

writings of Noam, Chomsky, Sherman and the case of the Murdoch media oligopoly

demonstrate the value of media and its political influence as a base of power is just

as substantial as those geared at economic gain.

As discussed, economic gain, political influence and social status as components of

power are not exerted in equal proportion, but are comprised in every human action

(Webber, 2008, 163). Marx establishes the connection between economic and social

constructs in the bases of power when he writes, “To be a capitalist, is to have not

only a purely personal, but a social status in production.” (Marx, 1848, 17). Webber

supports Marx as he asserts, “All elements of daily life [involve] … the uses of power

and influence to gain ends; all are about ideology, culture, and social groupings”

(Webber, 2008, 161). It is therefore reasonable to assert that their nexus is

inherent; they inform each other.

Tass Holmes Alexander Whittle 837305

While economic gain tends to inform the exercise power, Weber posits it is one of

three components. Economic gain motivates the subjugation of workers as

exemplified by the youths in Willis’ “Learning to Labour”. The prevalence of another

component - social status - becomes evident when analysing the systemic abuse of

the body demonstrated by the patriarchy and historic sentiment in the Balkans

toward women. Finally, political influence as a component of power is evinced by

the collusion of dominant media corporations, big businesses and the government in

propagating political views and marginalising individual agency. While the three

components act in every exertion of power in varying degrees, they inherently

inform and influence each other. I therefore conclude that while economics may be

fundamental to bases of power, in this respect it is no more significant than social

status and political influence.

Word count: 1,466

Tass Holmes Alexander Whittle 837305

Bibliography

Arendt, H. 1970. On Violence, London: Harcourt.

Bracewell, W. 2000. “Rape in Kosovo: masculinity and Serbian nationalism.” Nations

and Nationalism, 6(4): 563-590.

Dyer, T. 2016. “FactCheck: is Australia’s level of media ownership concentration one

of the highest in the world?” Accessed June 7, 2017.
http://theconversation.com/factcheck-is-australias-level-of-media-ownership-
concentration-one-of-the-highest-in-the-world-68437.

Foucault, M. 1984. “Docile bodies.” In: The Foucault Reader. Edited by Paul Rabinow,
New York: Pantheon, 179-213.

Herman, Edward S. (2000) “The propaganda model: A retrospective.”,Journalism

Studies 1(1): 101-112.

Marx, K. and Engels, F. 1848. [2014 edn.] The Manifesto of the Communist Party.
London: Global Grey.

McLaren, M. A. 2002. Feminism, Foucault and Embodied Subjectivity. Albany: State

University of New York Press.

Mostov, J. 1995. ““Our women”/”their women”: symbolic boundaries, territorial

markers and violence in the Balkans.” Peace & Change 20(4): 515-529.

Noam, Eli. M. (2005), Why the Internet Is Bad for Democracy Communications of the
ACM October 2005/Vol. 48, No. 10: pp 57-58.

Webber, M. 2008. “The places of primitive accumulation in rural China.” Economic

Geography 84(4): 395-421.

Weber, M. 1970. “Class, Status, Party.” In: Max Weber: Essays in sociology. London:
Routledge.

Willis, P. 1983. Learning to Labour: How working class kids get working class jobs.
Hampshire: Gower.