Report R4.7 The Modern Prince and the Modern Sage: Transforming Power and Freedom and a New Calling of Social Practice and Research Imagination Seminar Leader: Ananta Kumar Giri, Associate Professor, MIDS, Chennai, India ananta[at]mids.ac.in Power, as defined by Max Weber (Giri, 2006), is the ability to carry out one’s will against the will of others. In social practice, power is generally manifested as domination. This kind of power can be referred to as “power over.” On the other hand, power as defined by Hannah Arendt (Giri, 2006) is the human ability of acting in concert for a public-political purpose. This kind of power can be referred to as “power with.” Power over is entrenched authoritarianism, especially in the realm of politics. Democracy is no exception to this concept. Earlier, power was embodied in the "Prince” as an individual. In the course of history this locus of power has shifted to institutions and systems of society. Even now, power gets embodied in individual role-holders whom the seminar leader refers as the “Modern Prince.” In either case, power over can be interpreted as synonymous to domination. Politics is an important aspect of human experience, affecting our interactions with each other. In this context, most of us experience “power over.” This sort of power is entrenched so insidiously within our social fabric, that it seems inevitable, impenetrable, and institutionalised. This kind of power tends to limit the rights of people to unfold their nature; it destroys their potential. Power with, on the other hand, gives more freedom for people to participate in societal mechanisms, thus enabling them to realise their potential. There are many instances where people across the world have tried to break free from the shackles of bondage and succeeded at different levels. The French Revolution is considered to be a landmark in this liberation from the authoritarian structures. More recent instances in such a transformation of power can be found in Korea and Mexico. Han (2004) presents a model of social transformation in terms of "conflict-ridden sequential processes of democratisation." This involves the civil society bringing forth its resistant energy through social movements against an authoritarian rule. Once democracy is restored, civil society plays the role of “a 'sluice' through which the pressure of change is passed to the political system." The series of political developments in the modern history of Korea represent this sequential model of social transformation. Korea was under Japanese colonial rule until 1961. In 1961, there was military coup, giving rise to an authoritarian state, which consolidated itself into institutional frameworks in 1972. The authoritarian rule maintained a highly repressive system and strengthened the economy of the nation, boosted by exports. The general and presidential elections were disrupted and public opinion was distorted, consequently destroying procedural political democracy. Bureaucrats and economic planners played an important role in economic growth and thus had a significant influence on power politics. After 32 years of military regime, Kim Dae-Jung, a civilian president, came into power in 1992. Procedural democracy started stabilising with a series of political developments since then. President Kim was able to handle the economic crisis and started with socio-economic structural reforms in Korea. The structures of collaboration between the authoritarian government and business were dismantled. However, the state faced an intractable resistance from the formal circuits of power, i.e., the ruling class, while it attempted to reform the legal institutions. In the light of this scenario, the younger generation launched a massive campaign supporting the political reforms. They came up against the conservative media and society and utilised new technology for communication, i.e., the Internet. Rho Mu-Hyun, who represented a small minority, was made the president, with this support. Furthermore, when the president was impeached by conservative opposition parties, they unified again with solidarity against the power of Congress. Thus the younger generation of Korea, who captured the control of the civil society in Korea, not only brought about the change in the rule of the nation, but also changed its whole power equation. Another similar case of transforming the power structures comes from the Zapatista movement in Mexico. The seminar leader narrated his ethnographic study of this movement, based on his experiences in this small autonomous community. There were no leaders and everybody was considered a social servant and yet people of this community lived in harmony. There was no isolation. The people were well connected with the rest of the world through latest modes of communication technology. The cases of Korea and Mexico are clear evidences for an emergent power through which many other worlds are made possible to co-exist in this world. The harbingers of this emergent power, whom the seminar leader terms as “Modern Sage,” lead us to a new reality of conviviality, giving innovative solutions for many worldly problems. There was some discussion on power in academic and research communities. Research, sometimes, is used as an instrument of power, especially in case of politically motivated research. Often, the agenda for research is set by the authorities. This aspect of power can be identified with the concept of power over. Researchers, by virtue of their knowledge and authority, often exercise this kind of power over the participants in their studies. One such instance is keeping the participants unaware of the purpose of a study. Researchers can consider a more participatory form of interaction with the participants, exemplifying the concept of “power with.” References Giri, A. K. (2006). The modern prince and the modern sage: Transforming power and freedom. Unpublished manuscript. Reid, H., & Taylor, B. (2006). Globalization, democracy and the aesthetic ecology of emergent publics for a sustainable world: Working from John Dewey. Asian Journal of Social Science, 34(1), 22-46. Han, S.-J. (2004). Social transformation in contemporary Korea: Three prime-movers in the contested civil society. Unpublished manuscript. (Revised version of keynote speech, delivered at 36th IIS World Congress of Sociology, July 7-11, 2004, Beijing.) Nazaretyan, A. P. (2006). Power and Wisdom: Does world history have a moral dimension. Unpublished manuscript.
Xavier Institute of Management, Xavier Square, Bhubaneswar 751013, India Research World (ISSN 0974-2379) http://www1.ximb.ac.in/RW.nsf/pages/Home |
