Page 29 - Contemporary Political Sociology Globalization Politics and Power

Changing Definitions of Politics and Power 15

presupposes an already constituted social actor who is in possession of
power such that he or she is able to control the effects produced. As critics
of pluralism have pointed out, the emphasis on observable effects means
that they neglect ideas and the way in which the political agenda may be
shaped in such a way that direct manipulation of the outcome of the
political process is unnecessary (Lukes, 1974 ). Indeed, we must under-
stand the very formation of the identities, capacities, and concerns of
social groups as effects of power. The formation of identities and the
construction of political perspectives are much more fundamental ways
in which the politics of politics is structured than by decisions taken in a
centralized bureaucracy.
Although pluralists do not take the interests of the social groups they
study as given, their definitions of power and politics prevent them from

understanding the formation and contestation of political identities in the
social field and lead them to focus only on the way in which individuals

try to maximize their interests at the level of government. In this respect,
the pluralist perspective remains within the framework of traditional
political sociology. A theory of politics of this kind cannot begin to grasp
the asymmetries of power between groups in civil society that have been
politicized by the activities of new social movements since the 1960s;
pluralists were, in fact, extremely surprised by this development (Held,
1987 : 199 – 200).

1.3 The Durkheimian Tradition of Political Sociology

Durkheim ’ s work has not had the same degree of status and infl uence as
that of Marx and Weber in political sociology. For Durkheim, the state
was of relatively little significance in creating and maintaining social

order, which is for him the key problematic of sociology. Durkheim ’ s
interests lay rather in questions of social solidarity, and especially with
the possibility that the rise of individualism might give members of modern
societies a sense of belonging together rather than resulting in a war of
all against all. The state does have an important role to play in securing
social order, but it can only do so by means of a moral consciousness
shared by all members of society – even if the state must sometimes take
the lead in formulating it (Giddens, 1971 : 102; Lukes, 1973 : 668 – 74).
For Durkheim, the state is an outcome of the division of labor that creates
modern societies, whilst at the same time it contributes to the expansion
of individual freedom. Most importantly, it takes on the function of

reflecting on and refi ning society ’ s “ collective representations, ” the social