POLITICAL SCIENCE II 22-23

Gandhian view on Anarchism

Introductory:
It is difficult to confine Gandhi’s political ideas within certain articulated
principles and this is chiefly due to the fact that he was not, in formal sense, a
political theorist. So far as his theory of state is concerned it can be assertively
said that he was against concentration of power, violence, traditional theory of
sovereignty etc.

His inordinate love for freedom and weakness for excessive individualism
have prompted many to bracket him with great anarchist thinkers of the
Western world. Before going into the details of the subject we intend to throw
light on the definition of anarchism.

Wood Cock (Anarchism) a noted interpreter of anarchism, defines it in the

following words:
“Historically anarchism is a doctrine which poses a criticism of existing
society, a view of desirable future society and a means of passing from one to
another”. It wants to emphasise that society can be and should be organised
without a coercive state. According to anarchism the primitive societies were
organised without state and this means that in the tribal social system there
was no trace of state or its supreme coercive power.

In sum, anarchist political philosophy is based on egalitarianism. In the

modern state system there is a clear distinction between ruler and the ruled.
The former imposes its will and decision upon the latter without giving any
cognizance of the fact that the latter might have an opinion different from that
of the former.

Elements of Anarchism in Gandhi’s Thought:

Gandhi is viewed by many as an anarchist thinker. This observation is not
without any reason. But this estimate is not final. On the contrary, many
critics of Gandhi’s political ideas believe that though there are some elements
of anarchism in his ideas of state he is not fully an anarchist. We shall make a
balanced analysis and in order to do that we first deal with why he is called an
anarchist!

And then we shall throw light on the opposite view:

1. Gandhi did not at all take western system of state along with sovereignty on
the ground that both state and sovereignty are closely linked with violence and
coercion. He was also under the impression that Western state system is so
structured that violence cannot be divorced from it and if forcibly done the
whole structure will crumble. Again, violence/coercion is against individual’s
liberty and exercise of right.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

Because of these reasons he did not accept the state system of the Western
world. This view of Gandhi about state has been interpreted by many as an
expression of anarchism.

2. Gandhi was extremely apprehensive about the power of the state, because
more power of the state means less freedom of the individuals. He once said:
“I look upon an increase in the power of the state with great fear because
although apparently doing good by minimising exploitation, it does the
greatest harm to mankind by destroying individuality which lies at the root of
all progress. State represents violence in a concentrated and organised form”.

It can be said that there were two alternatives before Gandhi—the Western
form of power exercised through state and liberty of the individuals. He gave
his verdict in favour of the second because it was, in all respect, more
important than the power of the state.

3. To Gandhi state was a soulless machine. This is Gandhi’s evaluation about

state. If so a soulless machine cannot have the power to dominate an
individual which has soul. A soulless machine cannot recognise the
importance and individuality of persons.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

Such a state which is also called political organisation should not be entrusted
with the task of protecting the freedom and enhancing the welfare of
individuals. It is better to leave these two “affairs” to the individuals.
Acceptance of Gandhi’s reason will lead to the emasculation of state authority.

4. His Ram Raj has been treated by many as a clear manifestation of anarchy.
Ram Raj is pure anarchy. Gandhi depicted Ram Raj as the abode of freedom,
justice, realisation of rights, equality and non-violence. It is viewed that such
an environment can be found only in a society which is out of the control of
state authority.
Ram Raj and perfect social order, in the opinion of Gandhi, are equivalent
terms and both indicate coercion-free and exploitation-free society. Gandhi
admitted that the state minimises exploitation, but still there is exploitation
(though in minimum form). Only the establishment of Ram Raj can augur
exploitation free and violence free society. Gandhi’s assertion may be
questioned, but he thought in these terms.

5. Once Gandhi said, “The ideal non-violent state will be an ordered anarchy”
(emphasis added). Gandhi was quite aware that the relationship between
violence and state is so deep that one cannot be separated from the other. That
is why he imagined of a society where there could be no trace of violence and
that society would be an anarchy. To Gandhi the ideal and well ordered society
based on non-violence and anarchy would be one and same.

6. Dr. Buddhadeb Bhattacharya, a noted interpreter of Gandhi’s political and

social philosophy, called him philosophical anarchist. “His advocacy of
decentralized political power has led a number of commentators to suggest
that the core of his political thought is philosophical anarchism”.

We have already mentioned that his political thought is an integral part of his
entire philosophy and naturally his conception about state is not an exception.
His inordinate love for people’s freedom and strong advocacy for- the
establishment of justice led him to argue for a stateless society whose main
characteristic would be popular or people’s sovereignty. He also thought of a
stateless democracy. All these combinedly establish that he supported
anarchical system of politics.

7. He advised people to oppose a law which violates morality, ethics and other
universal values. Like the people and rulers of the Middle Ages Gandhi also
believed in the existence of the law of God. If any man-made law violates the
law of God men shall have the right to defy such a law.

But people’s opposition to everything must be non-violent and peaceful. In

this way Gandhi reduced the importance of state to a minimum level. His call-
to individuals to violate law opposing morality, ethics and law of God—is a
manifestation of his anarchism because morality ethics etc. are not definable
terms and naturally many will be prone to violate order or law on a flimsy
ground of ethics and morality.

The Opposite View:

Though Gandhi has been depicted as an anarchist, it is not the final judgment.
There are large number of scholars and Gandhians who still believe that he
cannot be branded as anarchist in the traditional sense or even in strictest
sense he was not an anarchist.

Some arguments, in support of this view, can be placed here:

1. The anarchist, we know, wanted to destroy the state because in all ways the
state stood on the way of mental, intellectual and other types of development
of the individuals. But Gandhi, on the other hand, though realised the negative
role of the state did not seek its complete destruction.

He admitted, in various places, the importance of state. What he did not like
was the coercive measures of the state for getting allegiance from the citizens.
He wanted the restructuring of the state and not its destruction. Here lies the
fundamental difference between Gandhi and anarchists.

2. Gandhi strongly condemned the use of violence or coercive measures. His

disapproval of state structures practically is based on this argument. So he
imagined of a state which could refrain itself from using coercive measures. Its
implication is that he wanted state with minimum power so that it cannot get
any opportunity to use unlimited coercive measures.

His plan of state can be stated in the following words: He conceived of a state
with a minimum amount of power required for the maintenance of law and
order and to resist external aggression. For the fulfilment of this objective
unlimited power is unnecessary. Limited power will encourage freedom.

This scheme of Gandhi’s state is definitely not anarchical state. It is a state

where popular sovereignty will be the supreme feature. We do not call
Rousseau an anarchist who wanted to deliver full authority to the hands of the
people. Rousseau planned of an open general assembly where people will
participate for the purpose of making law and taking decisions.

3. The approach to the state of Western anarchists is primarily political

because they viewed state as a political organisation and the anarchist theory
is part of political science. But to Gandhi state earned a different dimension.
He thought that the state should never be an end but a means to an end and
this end is moral, ethical and idealistic development of the individuals.

The anarchist view of state does not find full relevance in Gandhian thought
system. We can compare his state with the ideal states of Plato, Aristotle and
Rousseau. Though Rousseau did not directly think about an ideal state but his
body politic was a moral person which is termed as ideal state.

4. The so-called anarchism of Gandhi can be traced to his days in South Africa.
There he had gathered very bitter experience about the functioning of modern
state and sovereign power. The South African government (representing the
modern sovereign state) released a reign of terror in almost all spheres of
social and political life. He has cited some examples in his Autobiography.

During those days in South Africa Gandhi practically formed the anti-state
and anti-sovereignty views. He was also profoundly impressed by Godwin
(1756-1836) and Tolstoy (1828-1910). Both denounced the activities of state.
When Gandhi came back to India in 1915 he was confirmed that there was
practically no difference between South African government and the British
Government of India.

He concluded that the oppressive activities of modern state are almost

identical everywhere. He, therefore, denounced the oppression of state. But if
a state could justify that it had not resorted to any violence or coercion then
that must be allowed to discharge its functions. The anarchists did not travel
along this line. Their first objective was to destroy the prevailing state
structure.

We conclude that though Gandhi was not an anarchist in the strictest sense of
the term it cannot be denied that there are enough seeds of anarchism in his
concept of state. He thought of people’s participation and decentralisation of
political power and many other schemes. But there is still a very important
point.

Who will be the final arbiter of disputes that will arise among the people?
Gandhi’s scheme of state fails to provide any satisfactory answer. At least for
this purpose there is the immense necessity of state. Only the anarchists say
that there is no utility of state but we do not accept this view. There shall be
state and we do not want stateless anarchy.

Assessment:
Gandhi’s theory of state suffers from certain shortcomings.

Some of them are:

1. There is a clear contradiction in his theory of state. In his opinion the state is
the embodiment of violence, injustice and coercion. It destroys individuals,
freedom and morality. So he wanted a state structure which would be free
from violence. But here our humble submission is in reality a state cannot
exist without coercive measurers.

It must settle disputes, must take steps to curb unsocial and violent activities
by the anti-social elements. Coercive measures are also used for many other
purposes which aim at ensuring general welfare. It is, again, the primary duty
of any state to maintain law and order and for that function the application of
coercion may be necessary. So, force or coercion cannot be absolutely
separated from the domain of state structure.

2. Gandhian concept of state is Utopian. In place of state he wanted to set up an

egalitarian society. It is easy to imagine of an egalitarian society based on the
principles of liberty, equality and justice in their maximum manifestation. But
in reality we cannot think that such a society is feasible. We can say Gandhi,
like Marx, was the victim of utopianism.

Marx also thought of a classless society after the demolition of capitalism.

Marx thought of a stateless society and Gandhi of an emasculated state. Both
are Utopian in character.

3. There are inconsistencies in his concept of state. Once he denounced the

British parliament and compared it with a sterile woman. Elsewhere he
admitted the utility of legislatures. If so we should say that this creates a lot of
confusion. It is true that in recent years the importance of legislatures has
declined everywhere.

ADVERTISEMENTS:

But in no sense it is useless or it can be compared with a sterile woman.

Legislature is still the most vital method of communication between the ruler
and the ruled. Through legislature people convey their grievances to the
government.

4. Gandhian theory of state is incomplete. We may not agree with the theories
of state propounded by Plato, Hegel, and Marx etc. But we must agree that
they have developed theories. The students of Western political thought still
read the ideal state of Plato because it is rich in ideas which kindle our
thoughts and imagination. The concept of justice or scheme of education
stated in the theory of Plato’s ideal state still hold good. On the other hand,
Gandhi’s theory of state disheartens us.

5. Gandhian theory of state does belong to any particular category. It is not an

anarchy though there are several elements in his theory. It is not an idealist
theory of state nor a liberal theory of state. Even it is not a class by itself.
Certain stray comments made by Gandhi have been collected by the
interpreters of Gandhian thought and these have been used for the purpose of
building up a theory of state. In political science, it is not an accepted way.

6. The concept of state propounded by Gandhi may suffer from a member of

inconsistencies but it must be admitted that it is an integral part of his whole
philosophy. The chief elements of his philosophy are: peace, non-violence,
decentralisation of political power, freedom, rights, equality, justice, morality,
and democracy.

In the context of these ideas he developed a concept of a political organisation

which we call state. He makes these elements as part of the theory of state and
because of this his theory of state has been a different one from the Western
concept.

Q- The Reformation theory of punishment

Meaning of Reformative Theory of Punishment

The reformative theory of punishment is a philosophy of criminal justice that emphasises the
rehabilitation and reform of offenders as the primary purpose of punishment, rather than
retribution or deterrence. It is also known as the rehabilitative theory of punishment.
According to the Reformative Theory of Punishment, offenders are not seen as inherently
evil or irredeemable, but rather as individuals who can be reformed and reintegrated into
society with appropriate interventions.

Purposes of Reformative Theory of Punishment

The reformative theory of punishment in India serves several key purposes.

Rehabilitation
The primary purpose of punishment is to rehabilitate offenders by addressing the underlying
causes of their criminal behaviour, such as social, psychological, and environmental factors.
Rehabilitation may involve providing education, vocational training, counselling, drug and
alcohol treatment, mental health services, and other interventions that aim to reform
offenders and equip them with the skills and resources necessary to reintegrate into society
as law-abiding citizens.

Prevention of Recidivism
By addressing the root causes of criminal behaviour, the reformative theory of punishment
aims to prevent recidivism, which refers to the relapse into criminal behaviour by offenders
after being released from prison or serving their sentence.
By providing opportunities for offenders to address and overcome the factors that
contributed to their criminal behaviour, rehabilitation can reduce the likelihood of repeat
offences and promote long-term public safety.
Reintegration
The reformative theory of punishment also emphasizes the reintegration of offenders back
into society as productive citizens. This may involve providing assistance with housing,
employment, education, and other resources that can help offenders successfully reintegrate
into their communities and reduce their risk of reoffending.
Reintegration is seen as an important aspect of punishment, as it helps offenders to become
responsible and law-abiding members of society, and also reduces the burden on the
criminal justice system.

Principles of Reformative Theory of Punishment

The reformative theory of punishment is based on several key principles that guide the
approach towards the rehabilitation and reform of offenders

Individualisation
Offenders are treated as individuals with unique needs and circumstances, and rehabilitation
programs are tailored to address their specific risks and needs. This may involve conducting
assessments to identify the factors contributing to their criminal behaviour and developing
individualized treatment plans accordingly.
The individualization principle recognizes that offenders may have different underlying
causes of criminal behaviour and require personalized interventions to address those causes
effectively.

Non-Punitive Approach
The reformative theory of punishment emphasizes a non-punitive approach that focuses on
addressing the root causes of criminal behaviour rather than inflicting suffering or retribution
on offenders. This may involve using positive reinforcement, rewards, and incentives to
encourage pro-social behaviour and discourage reoffending.
The non-punitive approach recognizes that punishment alone may not be effective in
addressing the underlying causes of criminal behaviour and that positive interventions can
be more effective in promoting long-term behaviour change.

Human Dignity and Rights

The reformative theory of punishment recognizes the inherent dignity and rights of
offenders, even though they have committed crimes. Offenders are treated with respect and
are afforded their fundamental human rights, including the right to fair treatment, privacy,
and due process.
Rehabilitation programs are designed to promote the well-being and dignity of offenders
and to help them develop a sense of self-worth and responsibility towards themselves and
society.

Voluntary Participation
Participation in rehabilitation programs under the reformative theory of punishment is
typically voluntary, and offenders are encouraged to actively engage in their own
rehabilitation process. Offenders are given the opportunity to take ownership of their
rehabilitation and make choices that align with their goals for positive change.
Examples of Reformative Theory of Punishment in India

The reformative theory of punishment is reflected in various provisions of the Indian Penal
Code (IPC) and has been upheld by landmark case laws in India. Some examples include
Probation
Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, provides for the release of certain
offenders on probation, which is a form of suspended sentence where the offender is allowed
to remain in the community under the supervision of a probation officer. This provision
reflects the rehabilitative approach by giving offenders the opportunity to reform and
reintegrate into society while being supervised and guided.
Juvenile Justice Act
The Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015, which deals with the
rehabilitation and reform of juvenile offenders, reflects the reformative theory of
punishment. The Act focuses on the rehabilitation and reintegration of juvenile offenders
into society through various measures, such as counselling, education, vocational training,
and aftercare support.

Restorative Justice
Practices In recent years, restorative justice practices, such as victim-offender mediation,
have gained recognition in India as a form of rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders.
These practices emphasize repairing the harm caused by the offence, promoting
accountability, and facilitating dialogue and reconciliation between victims and offenders,
with the aim of rehabilitating offenders and reintegrating them into the community.

Criticism of the Reformative Theory of Punishment

While the reformative theory of punishment has its proponents and is widely recognized for
its focus on rehabilitation and reintegration, it is not without criticisms. Some of the criticisms
of the reformative theory of punishment include:

Lack of Deterrence
One criticism of the reformative theory of punishment is that it may not effectively deter
offenders from committing future crimes. Critics argue that focusing solely on rehabilitation
and neglecting the element of deterrence may not effectively prevent offenders from
reoffending.

Inadequate Punishment
Some critics argue that the reformative theory of punishment may be perceived as too
lenient, especially in cases of serious or heinous crimes. They argue that offenders who have
committed serious crimes, such as murder or rape, may not be adequately punished under
the rehabilitative approach.
Critics argue that punishment is a necessary element of justice, and offenders should be held
accountable for their actions through proportionate and meaningful punishment.
Lack of Focus on Victims
Another criticism of the reformative theory of punishment is that it may not adequately
address the needs and rights of victims. Critics argue that the rehabilitative approach may
prioritize the rights and needs of offenders over those of the victims.
They argue that the impact of the crime on the victim, including the physical, emotional, and
psychological harm suffered, should be given greater consideration in the punishment
process.
Resource Constraints
Critics argue that the implementation of rehabilitation programs can be resource-intensive,
requiring significant financial and personnel resources. In many cases, the availability and
accessibility of rehabilitation programs may be limited, especially in developing countries or
in areas with limited resources.
Critics argue that the feasibility of implementing rehabilitation programs on a large scale
may be challenging, which may impact the effectiveness of the reformative theory of
punishment.

Long Question

Q- Define and explain the concept of political obligation.

Q- Discuss the meaning and different theories of power

Power: Meaning and Concept

• In political theory, power is the central issue, whether it is clothed in law that
qualifies it or whether authority that renders obedience to it voluntarily sustains it.
• Robert Dahl defined power as one actor’s ability to make another do something
that the latter ‘would not otherwise do’.
• Hannah Arendt argued that power is not the property of lone agents or actors,
but of groups or collectivities acting together.
• Mao Zedong thought of power as “flowing from the barrel of the gun”.
• Gandhi, an apostle of peace, regarded it as the power of love and truth. Power is
ascribed to different things on different grounds.
• Power cannot be merely encircled in a political or economic framework; it is
broadly a social phenomenon.
The Power Theories: Conventional View
State as symbol of power

• The power theory where state is a symbol of power, had its first brilliant
expression in the ‘Leviathan’ of Thomas Hobbes. After Hobbes, Hegel
absolutized sovereign power of the state to the extent of discarding all ethics of
international morality..
• The State power theory found its concrete manifestation, when the Italian
Dictator Benito Mussolini declared ‘nothing against the state, nothing above
it’ giving birth to the ideology of Fascism.

Different Perspectives On Power:

Class Perspective On Power

• Class perspective on power was developed by Marx and Engels during the mid
of the nineteenth century. According to this theory political power is the product
of economic power.

Elitist Perspective On Power

• Elite theory of power was advanced in early twentieth century by three famous
sociologists: Pareto, Mosca and Michels.
• Like class theory, elite theory accepts a broad division of society into dominant
and dependent groups. But unlike class theory, elite theory treats this division as
somewhat natural. It regards competence and aptitude (and not the emergence
of private property) to be responsible for this division. Again, while class theory
held that the division of society into dominant and dependent classes could be
set aside through a socialist revolution, elite theory sees little prospects of a
thoroughgoing change in this position.
• Within the elite Pareto distinguished between ‘governing
elite’ and ‘nongoverning elite’.
▪ ‘Governing elite’ is one that wields power for the time being while ‘non-
governing elite’ constantly endeavours to replace it by showing greater
ability and excellence.
▪ In short, behaviour of elite is characterized by a constant competition
between governing and nongoverning elites.
▪ This results in what is called ‘circulation of elites’. In any case, masses
have no chance of entering the ranks of elites.
• Apart from intelligence and talent, Pareto also recognizes courage and cunning
as the qualities of elite. He observes that ‘the lions’ (who are distinguished by
their courage) are more suited to the maintenance of status quo under stable
 conditions, while ‘the foxes’ (who are distinguished by their cunning) are
adaptive and innovative and cope better during periods of change.
• While Pareto regards intelligence and talent as the outstanding qualities of
elite, Mosca’s ruling class was distinguished by its capacity of organization.
▪ Of the two Italian elitists, Mosca is more democratic. He believed that
leadership could emerge at all levels including grass-root level.
▪ Each stratum of society has the potential of producing good organizers for
itself. They need not look for outsiders for their guidance and control.
• A significant contribution to elite theory was made by Robert Michels , a German
sociologist. In his famous work Political Parties: A Sociological Study of the
Oligarchical Tendencies of Modern Democracy Michel propounded his ‘Iron Law
of Oligarchy’. He proceeded to demonstrate that every organization—whatever
its original aims—is eventually reduced to ‘oligarchy’, that is the rule of the
chosen few.
• C. Wright Mills , an American sociologist, presented a new version of elite theory
in his famous work, The Power Elite . He preferred the term ‘power
elite’ to ‘ruling class’. While Marxian concept of ‘ruling class’ implied that an
economic class would exercise all political power in society, Mills’ concept of
‘power elite’ implied a combination of several groups who exercised all
power by virtue of their high status in all important spheres of social life. It
signified an inner circle of power holders in modern American society.

Group Perspective on Power

• Group perspective on power corresponds to pluralist theory, whereas class

perspective, elite perspective and gender perspective on power maintain that the
exercise of power divides the society into two broad categories dominant and
dependent groups, pluralist theory of power does not subscribe to this view.
According to this theory, power in society is not concentrated in a single
group, but it is dispersed amongst a wide variety of social groups.
• These groups are largely autonomous and almost independent centres of
decision. ex-Organizations of workers, peasants, traders, industrialists,
consumers, etc. could be cited as examples of such groups in the contemporary
society. These groups cannot be classified into dominant and dependent groups.
They have their share of power in their respective spheres of operation.
▪ Pluralist society is that society in which power and authority are not
concentrated in a particular group but they are spread to various
centres of decision-making. Dahl’s model of democracy, described
as ‘polyarchy’, postulated that society is controlled by a set of competing
interest groups, with the government as little more than an honest broker in
the middle.
The Foucauldian Concept of Power

• Michel Foucault, one of the most important figures in critical theory has been the
centre of attraction on the concepts of power, knowledge and discourse. His
influence is perceptible in post-structuralist, post-modernist, post-feminist, post-
Marxist and post-colonial theories.
• The thought provoking nature of Foucault’s theoretical works has been the
reason for very productive debates from the nineteen sixties to the present.
• During Foucault’s collegiate period Marxism and phenomenology were the
predominant theories in French intellectual life. Foucault became familiar with
Marxism and phenomenology because they were the most influential bodies of
theory during the postwar years. According to phenomenology, meaning has to
be found in a person’s perception of the universal essence of an object. Foucault
is influenced by the historicising work of Martin Heidegger and Georges
Canguilhem.
• Canguilhem was interested in the way in which scientific rationality and reason is
always changing. Although Heidegger was a phenomenologist, he emphasized
the centrality of the social and cultural contexts in which truth and meaning were
produced. For Heidegger, people’s ideas and activities were largely determined
by the background in which they lived. But people tend to think that they are
acting freely and independently on their context.
▪ According to structuralists/post-structuralists meaning is relational.
Events, ideas and activities do not mean anything in themselves but they
only make sense when they are related to other events, ideas and
activities.
▪ Structuralism celebrates the death of the subject. Structuralism extends
Heidegger’s insight that people are not really free to think and act. Their
ideas and activities are produced by the structures (social, political,
cultural) in which they live.
▪ According to this perspective, people do not think or create meanings. On
the contrary, structures think and speak through people.
• Psychoanalytical theory, especially as developed through the works of Sigmund
Freud and, later, Jacques Lacan, continued this critique of the free subject.
According to Freud and Lacan, the subject is a kind of myth which emanates from
one’s repressed desires and the subject’s existence is based on ignorance.
• The most important influence on Foucault’s work, particularly from The Order of
Things onward, was the German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche. Nietzsche’s
ideas on the relationship between truth, knowledge and power influenced him
very much. Nietzsche rejected the notion that history unfolds in a rational way
with the gradual development of higher forms of reason. Any form of knowledge
or truth that emerges in a culture not because it is valuable or eternal, but it is
because one group manages to impose their will on others.
• Foucault addresses the question of power in his seminal writings. In The History
of Sexuality Volume one Foucault defines power as “the multiplicity of force
 relations immanent in the sphere in which they operate and which
constitute their own organisation”.
• Foucault argues, in medieval society power had been consolidated largely
through the existence of a sovereign authority who exercised absolute control
over the subjects through the open display of violence.
• In the modern era, power is exercised in a different way. In the seventeenth and
eighteenth centuries there was an invention of a new mechanism of power
possessed of highly specific procedural techniques. This new mechanism of
power is more dependent upon bodies.
• By means of surveillance power is constantly exercised. The common conception
is that power is attributable to and exercised by agents and is exercised on
agents. Foucauldian power is impersonal, purely relational and blind. Power is
impersonal because it is neither possessed nor exerted by individuals, groups, or
institutions. Foucault termed power as a complex set of relations. Power is
the sum total of influences that actions have on other actions.
• Foucauldian power is blind and purposeless. It emerges from a strategic
situation or web of relations. Power is impersonal; it is not anyone’s power,
because it is a web of relations among actions rather than among agents.
• Power is pervasive. No one can escape from power relations. To act in defiance
is to act within power, not against it. In order to escape from power one would
have to be utterly alone and free of all the enculturation that makes social beings.
One cannot escape power without achieving complete solitude or total
enslavement. Power is not something that individuals can or cannot escape. It is
the intricate web of constraining interrelationships that exists, the moment there is
more than one agent. The point is that there cannot be interaction among
individuals outside power. Power is not something that is acquired, seized, or
shared, because it is ever-present in the environment of which human beings are
subjects and agents.
• Foucauldian power is not domination. It is the complex network acts of
domination, submission and resistance. The aim of this technology of power is
not mere control, which is achievable through imposition or restrictions and
prohibitions, but pervasive management.
• What is new in Foucault’s consideration of pervasive management is description
of how it is achieved not just through restrictions, but through enabling
conceptions, definitions, and descriptions that generate and support behaviour
governing norms.
• Power is not just the ruthless domination of the weaker by the strong. The most
significant feature of Foucault’s thesis is his stress on the modern exercise of the
productive nature of power. His main aim is to replace the negative concept and
attribute the productive nature to power. It produces reality and truth.
• Foucault suggests that power is intelligible in terms of the techniques through
which it is exercised. Many different forms of power exist in society such as legal,
administrative, economic, military, and so forth. What they have in common is a
shared reliance on certain techniques or methods of application, and all draw
some authority by referring to scientific truths. Power must be analysed as
 something which circulates, or rather as something which only functions in the
form of a chain. It is never localised here or there, never in anybody’s hands,
never appropriated as a commodity or piece of wealth. Power is employed and
exercised through a net-like organisation. Individuals not only circulate between
its threads but they are always in the position of undergoing and exercising this
power.
• The most important feature of Foucault’s theories on power reveals that power is
not a thing or a capacity which can be owned either by State, social class or
particular individuals. Instead, it is a relation between different individuals and
groups and only exists when it is being exercised. A king is a king only if he has
subjects. Thus, the term power refers to sets of relations that exist between
individuals, or that are strategically deployed by groups of individuals.
• Institutions and governments are simply the ossification of highly complex
sets of power relations which exist at every level of the social body.
• Foucault distinguishes his ideas on power by criticising power models which see
power as being purely located in the State or the administrative and executive
bodies which govern the nation State. The very existence of the State in fact
depends on the operation of thousands of complex micro-relations of power at
every level of the social body. Foucault offers the example of military service
which can only be enforced if every individual is tied in to a whole network of
relations which include family, employers, teachers and other agents of social
education. The grand strategies of State rely on the cooperation of a whole
network of local and individualised tactics of power in which everybody is
involved. The State is merely a configuration of multiple power relations.
• Foucault criticises traditional power models; power is not about simply saying no
and oppressing individuals, social classes or natural instincts, instead power is
productive. It shapes forms of behaviour and events rather than simply curtailing
freedom and constraining individuals. He argues in The History of Sexuality,
Volume. One: “if power was never anything but repressive, if it never did
anything but say no, do you really believe that we should manage to obey
it?”.
• There must be something else, apart from repression, which leads people to
conform. Foucault suggests that power is intelligible in terms of the techniques
through which it is exercised. It generates particular types of knowledge and
cultural order. He describes in The History of Sexuality, Volume One the concern
that developed in the nineteenth century about male children’s masturbation, and
the way that this led to the publication of numerous advice manuals on how to
prevent or discourage such practices which, in turn, led to a full-scale
surveillance of boys.
• Power produces different types of behaviour pattern and discipline in human
lives. Thus, in Discipline and Punish Foucault states: We must cease once and
for all to describe the effects of power in negative terms: it excludes, it represses,
it censors, it abstracts, it masks, it conceals. In fact, power produces reality, it
produces domains of objects and rituals of truth.
• In Foucault’s view power and oppression should not be reduced to the same
thing for a number of reasons. To identify power with oppression is to assume
 that power is exercised from one source and that it is one thing. By regulating
people’s everyday activities, power produces particular types of
behaviours.
• Power is not an institution, a structure, or a certain force with which certain
people are endowed; it is the name given to a complex strategic relation in a
given society. Foucault suggests that one should refrain from questioning the
objectives and intentions of those exercising power. Power is reducible neither to
the actions nor the intentions of its putative agents. Power should be seen as a
verb rather than a noun, something that does something, rather than something
which is, or which can be held onto.
• Foucault puts it in the following way in Power/Knowledge: Power must be
analysed as something which circulates, or as something which only functions in
the form of a chain. Power is employed and exercised through a netlike
organisation…Individuals are the vehicles of power, not its points of application.
Power is conceptualized as a chain or as a net that is a system of relations
spread throughout the society rather than simply as a set of relations between the
oppressed and the oppressor.
• Individuals should not be seen simply as the recipients of power, but as the
place where power is enacted and the place where it is resisted.
• In The History of Sexuality Volume One, Foucault states that “where there is
power there is resistance” . It allows to consider the relationship between those in
struggles over power as not simply reducible to a master–slave relation, or an
oppressor–victim relationship. Where power is exercised, there has to be
someone who resists. Foucault goes as far as to argue that where there is no
resistance it is not, in effect, a power relation. Resistance is written into the
exercise of power.
• In order to analyse a power relation, one must analyse the total relations of
power, the hidden transcripts as well as the public performance. The possibility
for resistance is an elementary condition for every conceivable relation of power.
Foucault maintains that resistance is a necessary precondition for the operation
of relations of power. He insists resistance must be a precondition for power,
without such forms of contestation and struggle there would be only complete
domination, subservience and obedience. Power and the potentiality of
resistance are hence thought to be coterminous. Power cannot be treated as
complete control or absolute subservience. It is only through the articulation of
resistance that power can spread through the social field. Resistance is an
internal property of power. It is a condition of operation that remains inherent to
power itself. Resistance is everywhere and at every level.
• Foucault argues that power can be exercised only over free subjects. By
freedom, Foucault means the possibility of reacting and behaving in different
ways. If these possibilities are closed down through violence or slavery, then it is
no longer a question of a relationship of power. There is no power without
potential refusal or revolt.
• Foucault’s works try to evolve a methodology to analyse power and knowledge.
Power is based on knowledge and makes use of knowledge. Power reproduces
knowledge by shaping it in accordance with its anonymous intentions. Power re-
 creates its own fields of exercise through knowledge. In Discipline and Punish
Foucault points out the relationship between power and knowledge: Power
produces knowledge ,there is no power relation without the correlation
constituting of field of knowledge nor knowledge that does not presuppose and
constituted as the same time power.
• Foucault asserts that knowledge produces power and power produces
knowledge by reciprocating each other. He accepts the popular saying that
knowledge is power. Foucault states that power is the source of sovereignty.
Power is used as a repressive means to control and rule people with individual’s
body targeted for punishment by means of torture. Torture was used to get
confessions .
• Foucault introduces panopticon as one of the regulatory modes of power.
Panopticon is an architectural settings designed by Jeremy Bentham in the mid
nineteenth century. It was used to regulate the inmates of prisons, asylums,
schools, hospitals, and factories. Violent methods and dungeons were replaced
by surveillance and observation. Panopticon offers a powerful and sophisticated
internalized coercion through the constant observation. The modern structure
would allow guards to continually see inside each cell from their vantage point in
a high central tower, unseen. The constant observation was seen to act as a
control mechanism.
• The knowledge further categorizes people, sets norms for the society and the
subjects are meant to follow the laid down rules. In this way, society is
categorized into mental institutions, military institutions, prisons and hospitals
from which a madman, a patient and a condemned person must be kept and
observed through panopticon. The Panopticon is a metaphor that allows to
explore the relationship between systems of social control and people in a
disciplinary situation, and the power-knowledge concept. Power and knowledge
derive from observing others. It marks the transition to a disciplinary power.
• Surveillance enables every movement supervised and all events recorded. The
result of surveillance is acceptance of regulations. Panoptic surveillance aims at
transforming individuals such that it shapes their behaviour in prescribed
directions and dimensions.
• Suitable behaviour is achieved not through total surveillance, but by panoptic
discipline and inducing a population to internalize that surveillance. Power
becomes more efficient and active through the mechanisms of surveillance. The
major goal of panopticon is “to induce in the inmate a state of conscious and
permanent visibility that assures the automatic functioning of power” . Panoptic
surveillance is fundamentally concerned with monitoring and controlling the
people.
• To Foucault knowledge is a form of power and knowledge can be gained from
power. Through observation knowledge is produced. Human sciences
(psychology, sociology, economics, linguistics, even medicine) seek to define
human being simultaneously as they describe them. Human sciences work
together with such institutions as mental hospitals, prisons, factories, schools,
and law courts to have specific and serious effects on people. The human
sciences carefully define the difference between normal and abnormal, and then
 use these definitions always to regulate behaviour. The study of abnormality is
one of the main ways in which power relations are established in the society.
When an abnormality and its corresponding norm are defined, it is always the
normal person who has power over the abnormal.
• The psychologist tells about madmen, the physician about the patients, the
criminologist talks about the criminals, but people never expect to hear the latter
talk about the former. In this way, certain people get the rest of them to accept
their idea of who they are. The people who decide what knowledge is in the first
place can easily claim to be the most knowledgeable.
• Foucault’s point is that regimes of truth, such as those of the human sciences,
are infused with relations of power. For him, power exists everywhere and comes
from everywhere. It acts as a complex form of strategy with the ability to secretly
shape another’s behaviour.
▪ However, Foucault sees the effects of power as a producer of reality. It
produces domains of truth.. Truth is not outside power. Truth is produced
only by virtue of multiple forms of constraints. Foucault argues that
knowledge is power over others, the power to define others. In his view,
knowledge ceases to be liberation and becomes a mode of surveillance,
regulation and discipline.
• Foucault’s concepts of history are derived from Nietzsche. He expressed his
indebtedness to Nietzsche for having outlined a conception of history called
genealogy. It leads to the idea of will to power. Nietzsche believes that power is
the motive that works behind the production of knowledge. It is the will to power
that motivates all actions of human beings.
• Knowledge of things are not something the human intellect perceives or
intellectually grasps words or merely conforms to use the accepted conventions.
Power is implicated in the manner in which certain knowledge is applied. Truth is
not outside power; truth is a thing of this world. Each society has its regime of
truth. Foucault’s argument is that social power is ultimately created through
individuals who internalize discipline and this internalization is through
knowledge. This practical inseparability results in new modes of control in which
the growth of human science knowledge, the innovation of intricate disciplinary
technologies and the production of the psychological subject come to be linked.
• The mechanisms of power produce different types of knowledge. Foucault
describes truth as historical because it is relative to discourse and it is the
product of power. Truth is relative to social and learned discourses because truth
is produced by power relations. If each society has its own regime of truth, then
truths must somehow be produced, in a way that makes them specific to their
respective regimes. Knowledge and truth cannot exist outside the circulation of
power. There can be no possible exercise of power without a certain economy of
discourses of truth. People cannot exercise power except through the production
of truth.
• Power does not produce truth in any systematic way. Power produces truth
blindly and nonsubjectively. The idea of a single meaning is a philosophical myth.
There is no meaning but countless meanings. It is produced in discourse and it
has nothing to do with how things really are. Truth is not outside power, truth is a
 thing of this world. It is produced only by virtue of multiple forms of constraint. It
induces regular effects of power. Each society has its regime of truth. The world
or brute reality does not contain truth or facts. Truth works without necessarily
referring to how things are. He argues that there are strict historically and
culturally specific rules about how truth is both accessed and disseminated. One
cannot make any claims about truth except from within quite specific cultural and
historical settings. Any system of rules is also a finite system of constraints and
limitations.
• Foucault is interested in the way that power operates through different forms of
regime at particular historical periods. In Discipline and Punish he describes the
way that power has been exercised in different eras in Europe, the application of
power moved from the public spectacle of the tortured body of the individual to
the surveillance. In Discipline and Punish, he examines how discipline which is a
form of self-regulation is encouraged by institutions. He analyses the way that
regimes exercise power within a society through the use of a range of different
mechanisms and techniques. He analyses a range of different institutions such
as the hospital, the clinic, the prison and the universal practice of disciplinary
techniques. Discipline consists of a concern with control which is internalized by
each individual. It consists of a concern with time-keeping, selfcontrol over one’s
posture and bodily functions, concentration, sublimation of immediate desires and
emotions. All of these elements are the effects of disciplinary pressure. In
Foucault’s account, disciplinary power first began to develop at the end of the
eighteenth century. It replaced and worked in tandem with an older form of power
which Foucault designates as sovereign power.
• Sovereign power is operated in feudal societies. There were highly individualised
authority figures such as the king, the priest and the father who were designated
as the holders of power and to whom allegiance was owed. It operates via divine
right, public ceremony and by making examples of those who transgress
authority. Foucault argues that forms of sovereign power began to become less
and less efficient as a way of regulating the behaviour of populations in Europe
towards the end of the eighteenth century leading to the development of new
techniques of social control. Discipline is a technology aimed at keeping
someone under surveillance. There are ways to control one’s conduct, behaviour
and aptitude. It also deals on how to improve one’s performance, multiply one’s
capacities and how to put someone where he/she is most useful. Disciplinary
techniques were first developed in the army and the school, and then were very
quickly applied to hospitals, factories and prisons. One of the effective techniques
in the exercise of disciplinary power is the examination associated within the
institutions such as school, hospitals and asylums. The examination is able to
combine both surveillance and normalisation and turn people simultaneously into
objects of knowledge and power. Through the examination, individuals are
required to reproduce certain types of knowledge and behaviour. Their
performance can be measured, and entered into a data bank which compares
them with others.
• Sexuality by contrast, is an individual matter which involves personal desires,
fantasies, and pleasures. Has a matter of discourse and governmentality. It is
here that norms and standards are established and policed. People come to
understand the relationship between our sexuality and our society’s rules. Sex
 and sexuality together comprise a set of practices,behaviours, rules and
knowledges by which people produce their selves. Sexuality enabled
establishment of the normal and the abnormal. Suddenly individuals became
vulnerable to classification based on conformity with or deviation from norms
generated by a supposedly objective sexual nature. However, conformity with or
deviation from norms is not just a matter of what individuals do or do not do.
Classification as normal or abnormal is not mere cataloguing of normal or 35
abnormal actions. The History of Sexuality shows how members of a society are
made to perceive themselves as having certain sexual natures by application of
theories that define the nature of normality and abnormality.
• There is imposition of a new self-perception, and here too individuals are made
complicities in their own control. The other side of the coin is that some members
of society are empowered by special knowledge to exercise control over sexuality
to prevent and correct deviationism. In The History of Sexuality, Madness and
Civilization, and The Birth of the Clinic, Foucault describes how human nature
became an object of detailed scientific study that enables and supports regulative
disciplinary techniques. Post structuralism has emphasized that the subject is not
a free consciousness or a stable human essence but rather a construction of
language, politics, and culture.
• Foucault argues that the policies developed by disciplinary sites establish
discursive norms. Foucault argues that bio-power is a technology which
appeared in the late eighteenth century for managing populations. It incorporates
certain aspects of disciplinary power. If disciplinary power is about training the
actions of bodies, bio-power is about managing the births, deaths, reproduction
and illnesses of a population. Bio-power emerges at the end of the seventeenth
century from a disciplinary focus on individual bodies. It is typically localized to
the institutional confines of schools, hospitals and so on. Medicine and health
interventions have a crucial role to play. Meticulous attention was paid to
individual bodies, to a concern with the body of the population. Singular and
collective life came under the influence of power in the respective forms of bodily
technologies of discipline and biopolitical technologies of regularization. Bio-
politics can be understood as that type of biopower that targets collectivise,
constituting its subjects as people, a nation and a race.
• Bio-power begins with the body and its potentials. Bio-politics is always
necessarily a form of government. Bio-power deals with the strategies of the
government that acts under the guise of improving the welfare of the individual.
Bio-politics is to be understood as the calculated life-management of human
population. The state has a crucial role in regulating vital biological processes
such as birth, mortality, disease and life-expectancy.
• These biological processes come under the domain of bio-politics. He also uses
the term governmentality to describe a particular way of administering the
population. He later expands the definition to encompass the techniques and
procedures which are designed to govern the conduct of individuals. By
government, Foucault means the techniques and procedures which govern and
guide people’s conduct.
• In short, governmentality is the rationalisation and systematisation of a particular
way of exercising political sovereignty through the government of people’s
 conduct. The idea of governing a population, rather than simply ruling over a
territory is something that only started to appear in Europe in the sixteenth
century, adapting aspects of the pastoral forms of governance aimed at saving
people’s souls which already existed in the Church.

Q- Explain the modern view of political obligation with special

reference to max weber understanding of the concept.

The modern view of political obligation, especially through the lens of Max Weber,
emphasizes the crucial role of legitimacy and rationality in the acceptance of state
authority. Weber argued that political obligation arises not just from force or tradition,
but from a belief in the legitimacy of the ruling power, which he categorized into three
types: traditional authority, charismatic authority, and legal-rational authority. Modern
states, in Weber's view, are increasingly characterized by legal-rational authority,
where legitimacy stems from the belief in the legality of established rules and
procedures.
Here's a more detailed explanation:

1. Weber's Theory of Domination:

• Weber defines domination as the probability that a specific command will be obeyed. He
distinguishes between power, which is the ability to impose one's will even against
resistance, and authority, which is legitimate power.
• Weber identifies three types of legitimate domination:
o Traditional Authority: Based on the sanctity of age-old rules and powers, often
found in patriarchal societies or monarchies.
o Charismatic Authority: Based on the devotion to an individual's exceptional
sanctity, heroism, or exemplary character.
o Legal-Rational Authority: Based on the belief in the legality of enacted rules and
the right of those in authority to issue commands under those rules.
2. The Modern State and Legal-Rational Authority:
• Weber argues that the modern state is characterized by legal-rational authority, which is
closely tied to bureaucracy.
• This type of authority relies on a belief in the rationality of the system, where rules are
established through established procedures and applied impartially.
• The modern state, in Weber's view, is a bureaucracy, where power is centralized and
exercised through an independent administrative organization over a defined territory.
• Weber saw the modern state as a "bureau" or "Betrieb" (a business or enterprise), much
like a factory, where the relations of rulership are determined by rational rules and
procedures.
3. Political Obligation in the Modern Context:
 • Weber's concept of political obligation is closely linked to the legitimacy of the state's
authority.
• In modern societies, political obligation arises from the belief that the state's actions are
legitimate because they are based on rational laws and procedures.
• Individuals are expected to obey the law not necessarily because they fear punishment, but
because they believe in the legality and fairness of the system.
• Weber emphasizes that even within legal-rational systems, there is always a degree of
voluntary compliance or acceptance of authority.
• However, this acceptance is not blind faith; it is based on a rational assessment of the
system's legitimacy and its ability to serve the interests of the governed.
4. Weber's Emphasis on Rationality:
• Weber's analysis of political obligation is deeply intertwined with his broader theory of
modernity and the increasing rationalization of social life.
• He believed that rationality, with its emphasis on efficiency, predictability, and calculability,
was a driving force behind the development of modern institutions, including the state.
• In the context of political obligation, this means that the modern state's legitimacy is often
tied to its ability to demonstrate its rationality and efficiency in governing.
• However, Weber also recognized the potential downsides of rationalization, such as the
depersonalization of social relations and the potential for bureaucracy to become an end in
itself, rather than a means to an end.
In essence, Weber's understanding of political obligation in the modern era highlights
the significance of legitimacy, rationality, and bureaucracy in shaping the relationship
between the state and its citizens. While force and tradition may still play a role, the
modern state's legitimacy increasingly rests on its ability to demonstrate the rational
basis of its authority and its capacity to serve the interests of the governed.

Q- Utilitarian theory of political obligation

Utilitarianism is a moral and ethical philosophy in political theory. Though the traces can be finding even in
ancient Greek philosophy it was popularized because of contributions made by Jeremy Bentham and
[Link]. This concept has played an important role in the first half of the Nineteenth century. Utilitarianism
is a theory mainly based on the principle greatest happiness to the greatest member. Utilitarianism
became a core principle for all most all Nations in their political, economical, social functioning today.

Though Bentham and [Link] are the strong supporters of Utilitarian concept there are some
differences between their approaches.

Bentham strongly said that men's life always lies between two different masters like Pain and Pleasure.
Moreover Bentham said that pain and pleasure can be measured through arithmetical method and there
is a possibility for quantitative difference between pain and pleasure. [Link] is the strong supporter of the
utilitarianism and individualism. Mill in his explanation he pawed a mid way between utilitarianism and
individualism on modern bases. Mill explained that the difference between pain and pleasure can be
measured through quality measures.

Introduction
Utilitarianism is an English philosophy. It is a theory of morality. It is a tradition of ethical philosophy. It
advocates actions that foster happiness or pleasure and opposes actions that cause unhappiness or harm,
when directed toward making social, economic, or political decisions. A utilitarian philosophy would aim for
the betterment of society as a whole. It would say that an action is right if it results in the happiness of the
greatest number of people in a society or a group.

Utilitarianism considers the interests of all humans equally. Though Utilitarianism is one of the most
powerful and persuasive approaches to normative ethics in the history of philosophy. But this concept was
not articulated until the 19th Century.

Origin
The traces regarding utilitarianism can be found in ancient Greek philosophy

• The ancient Greek philosopher and hedonists[1] Aristippus[2] and Epicurus[3] viewed that the
happiness as the only good for well being of the people. Later this idea became principle/doctrine
and
• Scottish philosopher David Hume became the founder of Utilitarianism.
• English philosopher Joseph Priestly vigorously advocated the utilitarianism.
• Scottish philosopher Francis Hutcheson (in his book ‘A system of moral philosophy') was the first to
use the formula of the ‘greatest happiness of greatest number'.
• More over Cumberland, Shaftesbury, John Gay etc also supported the concept of utilitarianism.
• English philosopher Jeremy Bentham made a systematic exposition of utilitarianism. He made it
most popularized. Later it was famously known as ‘Bentham's School'. So, the entire of popularizing
Utilitarianism theory goes to Bentham, for giving a systematic exposition of this theory, and making
it widely known and its conceptions, characteristics.
• [Link] improved and modernized utilitarian approach to political obligation by inducting qualitative
aspect of its substance.

However, utilitarianism substitutes absolute empiricism[4] for absolute idealism and promotes egalitarian
concept.

Meaning

• Utility means the quality or state of being used; the quality to satisfy human wants; a public utility, a
service provided by one of these.
• Utilitarianism means the doctrine, expounded by Jeremy Bentham, that the moral and political
rightness of an action is determined by its utility, defined as its contribution to the greatest good of
the greatest number.

Utilitarian approach to political obligation means the habitual obedience of the people to the laws of the
State because of its utility to promote the general happiness of the greatest number of people.
Utilitarianism is hedonistic, pragmatic and altruistic. According to G.H. Sabine, the philosophical radicals
hold that utilitarianism is the only guide to private morals and public policy. Utilitarianism is its sole
justification. Utility is the basis of Government.

Objectives of the State according to Utilitarianism

In the utilitarian State, political obligation depends upon the objectives of the State. When the State sought
to promote general welfare of the people, the people are obliged to obey the laws made by the State.
The State exists for the individual. But the individual does not exist for the State.

Therefore, the State cannot absorb the individual. That means it is not purely supports individualism and
idealism.
The main object of the utilitarianism is enlightened benevolence.

Enlightened Benevolence
Everyone seeks pleasure and avoids pain. Utilitarianism has an ethical appeal. Reason reconciles self-
regarding and other regarding impulses of individual. Utilitarian approach to political obligation does not
separate individual from the society. It blends the individual happiness with the happiness of others. This is
called the philosophy of enlightened benevolence.

Jeremy Bentham (1748 to 1832)

Jeremy Bentham was an English philosopher, Jurist, economist and Social reformer. He regarded as
classical philosopher and the founder of modern utilitarianism. He was rightly regarded as the foremost
apostle of the practical and the leader of Utilitarian school of England. He has been described as one of the
oddest figures in the history of political thought. His father was a lawyer. He also studied law at the
Lincoln's inn.

Though he studied law he was not interested on advocate profession. He concentrated on the study of
legal philosophy (Jurisprudence). His legal and political thoughts influenced the development of welfarism.
He worked in several fields like economics, logic, psychology, penology, theology, politics and ethics etc.
because of his eminent knowledge the Portuguese Constitutional committed had took the services of
Bentham.

Bentham was influenced by both Hobbes explanation about human nature and Hume's account of social
utility.

His name would be remained as a reformer in the English legal history. He denounced antiquates and the
age-long institutions. He is one of the leading theorist in Anglo- American philosophy of law. He opposed
the idea of natural law and natural rights of the men.

He had made a serious comment about divine principle as it is nonsense. He supported for positive law
and individual legal rights. He advocated for individual and economic freedoms, the separation of church
and state, worked for freedom of expression, equal rights for women, the right to divorce and he also
proposed through an unpublished essay for decriminalizing of homosexual acts.

He supported for abolition of slavery, capital punishment (death) and physical punishments (too much
painful), more importantly he raised his voice against violent punishments to children. He is well known
animal lover and proposed for animal rights.

By his virtues he influenced many well known persons among them James Mill and his son John Stuart Mill,
the legal philosopher John Austin and Robert Owen, who is the one of the founder of ‘utopian socialism',
are prominent persons.

Bentham was the practical men with a typical character. One of the examples for this is his will about his
death. He left instructions for his body to be first dissected, and then to be permanently preserved as
an auto-icon, which would be his memorial. This was done, and the auto-icon is now on public display in
the entrance of the student centre at University College London (UCL). He is the spiritual founder of UCL.

Bentham made his explanations in his famous work Fragmentation of Government and Introduction to
the principles of moral and legislation. He said that the true end of the State was to promote the
greatest happiness of the greatest number. In his theory the following issues are the most important. They
are:

• Mankind placed between two sovereign masters

According to Bentham, Nature itself has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign
masters, namely Pain and Pleasure. So, he said that it is the duty of the State or the State is
necessary to the individual to maximize his pleasure and minimize his pain. More over according to
him utility is the property in any object whereby it tends to produce benefit, advantage, pleasure,
good, happiness or to prevent happening of mischief, pain, evil or unhappiness.

• Sanction
According to Utilitarianism the business of the government is to promote the happiness of the
society. If there is any disturbance the State has every power to punish the culprits. Bentham
distinguished four sanctions like physical/natural, religious, moral and political.

i. The Physical or Natural Sanction comprises the pains and pleasures which we may
experience or expect, in the ordinary course of nature, not purposely modified by any
human interposition
ii. The Moral Sanction comprises such pains and pleasures as we experience or expect at the
hands of our fellows, prompted by the feeling of hatred or good will, or contempt or regard;
in a word, according to the spontaneous disposition of each individual. The sanction may
also be styled popular; the sanction of public opinion or of honour, or the sanction of the
pains and pleasures of sympathy.
iii. The Political Sanction comprises such pains and pleasures as may experience or expect, at
the hands of the magistracy, acting under law. This might, with equal propriety, be termed
the legal sanction.
iv. The Religious Sanction comprises such pains and pleasure as we may experience or expect,
in virtue of the forebodings and promises of religion.
Here, Bentham said that men obey the laws of the State because the probable mischief of
obedience is less than the probable mischief of disobedience.

Law directory
Lawyer directory

• Pain and Pleasure could be calculated on Felicific Calculus

According to Bentham there are two kinds of pleasures and pains are there. They are:

i. Simple pleasures or those which cannot be resolved into other (as the pleasures of senses,
wealth, skill, amity, good name, power, piety, benevolence, malevolence, memory,
imagination, expectation, assistance and relief etc.) and
ii. Complex pleasures are those which can be resolved into various simple ones.

Simple pains are privation, awkwardness, enmity, ill-repute, benevolence, malevolence, memory,
 imagination, expectation and association.
Complex pains are those which can be resolve into simple ones.

According to Bentham, pleasure or pain could be arithmetically calculated by taking into account seven
factors, namely:

i. Intensity (more or less efficaciousness)

ii. Duration (longer or shorter life)
iii. Certainty (consideration of definiteness or indefiniteness)
iv. Propinquity (consideration of nearness or remoteness of time)
v. Purity (accompaniment of all pleasure or pain)
vi. Fecundity (capacity of being productive or barren) and
vii. Extensiveness (the number of persons fallen under influence)

These seven factors influence on pleasures or pains. More over according to him the balance will show the
tendency of good or bad. He also had given a list of 12 simple pains. These factors make one pleasure
more or less and create dimensions. But Bentham said that these can be mathematically calculated.
However, the critics said that pain and pleasure can't measure in quantitative methods.

Utilitarianism rejects Natural rights and Social Contract theory

Bentham utilitarianism rejected the dogma of natural rights. He regarded the natural rights as ‘rhetorical
nonsense upon stilt'. Rights are created not by nature, but by law (men made law). Need not the contract,
is the basis of state. People obey law because it aims at four ends, viz., security, substance, abundance and
equality. Government exists because they promote happiness of the people, but not because of any social
contract.

The greatest good of the greatest number

This is the most important formula of Bentham Utilitarianism. It is the central idea of this theory. Each
government is obliged to adopt such policies which could give the greatest good of the greatest number. A
government which works for the good of a few numbers is not at all a good government. It is tyranny and
unjustifiable government. Thus the principle of ‘the greatest good of the greatest number' is benevolent
and universalistic shape.

Bentham explained that the happiness of one individual on the one side and that of the many on the
other, the formula of the greatest happiness of the greatest number is the right answer. Bentham
observed that only under a system of self-government, the interests of the governors and those of the
governed would coincide.

Bentham regarded State as law-making agency. According to him, the State is a group of persons
organized for the promotion and maintenance of happiness; but for this end, it acts through law. By means
of law, the State rewards or punishes so that the happiness is increased and the pain decreased.

According to him, the law should take cognizance of bad actions and inflict punishment on the people so
that the net balance of pleasure is increased and that of pain decreased. Mere morality is not sufficient
and unless law comes into operation, bad things cannot be out of place. Only law being the command of
the sovereign can secure habitual obedience of the people.

John Stuart Mill (1806 – 1873)

Early life of the [Link]
[Link] was a British philosopher. He is a prominent economist, political philosopher and more over he was
worked as a civil servant in East India Company. He is the reformist of the utilitarianism and the best of the
individualist. He is the liberalist, feminist, supporter of utilitarianism, representative democracy and
economic freedom.

[Link] was the son of James Stuart Mill, who is the best friend and follower of Jeremy Bentham. [Link]
guided by God fathers James Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham. After the death of his father he become
independent researcher and became an ardent defender of liberty.

Mill regarded individual liberty as the supreme possession of man and declared the government is the
best which governs the least (laissez – fair theory). According to Mill liberty included with the freedom
of thought, expression, freedom of conscience, association etc. He believed that the social well-being has
inevitably bound with individual well-being. Like these explanations and through his strong support to
individual freedom he became one of the prominent individualists. He advocated for compulsory
education, minority representation, woman franchise, plural voting, open ballot etc.

The famous works of the Mill are Principles of political economy, Essays on liberty, Utilitarianism,
Considerations on representative government, Subjection of women, Autobiography etc.

[Link] - Utilitarianism
In his famous works Utilitarianism and Individualism and liberty one can find the views of the Mill about
Utilitarianism and individualism. Though Mill is strong supporter of Utilitarianism he himself declared that
he is the reformist of the utilitarianism and proposed several modifications. Because of this he became
one of the prominent personalities in utilitarianism approach.

Mill considerably modified Bentham's thesis of pleasure versus pain by admitting and emphasizing the
qualitative aspect of pleasure. He asserted that pleasures also differ in quality. Those pleasures which go
with the exercise of intellectual capacities are higher and better than sensuous pleasures. Mill made a
difference between higher quality of pleasure and lower quality of pleasure. He preferred more noble
pleasure over less noble pleasure.

The main differences between Bentham theory and Mill theory are:

• Bentham advocated that the pleasures and the pains differ in quantity and not in quality. He said
that pains and pleasures can be computed mathematically. But Mill said that pain and pleasure
can't be measured arithmetically they differ in quality only.
 • According to Bentham utilitarianism there is a gulf between individual interest and general
happiness. But Mill narrowed down the gulf between individual interest and general happiness.

• Bentham recognized only external sanctions. But Mill recognized not only external, but internal
sanctions also which would constrain the individual to promote general happiness, because every
individual possesses a feeling for the happiness of mankind.

• Bentham's principle of utility, in a society of wolves, would exalt wolfishness; in a society of saint it
would exalt saintliness. But according to Mill saintliness should be the criterion of utility in any
society whatsoever.

• Bentham utilitarianism supports the greatest good of the greatest number. But here there is a
chance for suppression of minorities' rights. So, Mill supported individualism.

• Bentham supported democratic government in any condition but Mill supported monarchy for
primitive man and democratic government for people who are able to understand value of
democratic government. It means Mill supported democracy based on condition of man.

• Bentham purely did not accept State's intervention in the individual's liberty. But Mill supported
State control over the institution of private property by holding that it can well impose taxation on
the socially-created values.

Law directory

However, Mill reformed Utilitarian concept with his liberal thoughts. But according to criticism made by
Wayper In all these alterations that he makes in Benthamism, Mill may think that he is defending it, but in
fact he is destroying it.

Notes
Introduction

Utilitarianism and deontology are two ethical systems that influence decision-making. Utilitarianism
is a consequence-oriented philosophy that states that actions that bring happiness are right, and
actions that bring unhappiness are wrong. Deontology is not consequence-oriented and states that
actions should conform to society's moral norms. These theories differ fundamentally in several
key aspects:

Body

Basic Principles:

o Utilitarianism: Utilitarianism, often associated with philosophers like Jeremy Bentham and
John Stuart Mill, focuses on the consequences of actions. It asserts that the morally right
action is the one that maximizes overall happiness or pleasure and minimizes suffering.
This is often referred to as the principle of utility.
o Deontology: Deontology, associated with philosophers like Immanuel Kant, emphasizes the
inherent nature of actions themselves rather than their consequences. It posits that certain
actions are inherently right or wrong, irrespective of their outcomes. Deontological ethics is
often based on rules, duties, or principles.

Moral Decision-Making:
 o Utilitarianism: Utilitarianism employs a consequentialist approach, where the morality of an
action is determined by evaluating the net balance of happiness or pleasure produced
compared to suffering or pain. It requires calculating the overall utility of an action.
o Deontology: Deontological ethics uses a non-consequentialist approach. It asserts that
some actions are inherently right or wrong, regardless of their outcomes. This means that
an action may be deemed morally wrong even if it leads to a good outcome and vice versa.

Motivation:

o Utilitarianism: Utilitarianism is concerned with the motivation behind actions, but the
primary focus is on the consequences. It allows for actions with morally questionable
motivations if they produce a greater overall good.
o Deontology: Deontology places significant importance on the motivation behind actions. It
argues that individuals have a duty to act in a certain way, irrespective of the potential
consequences, and that acting from a sense of duty is morally praiseworthy.

Universalizability:

o Utilitarianism: Utilitarianism is often criticized for its potential to justify actions that violate
individual rights or principles in pursuit of the greatest overall happiness. Critics argue that
it may not always respect individual autonomy and justice.
o Deontology: Deontology emphasizes the importance of universalizable principles or rules.
Kant’s famous categorical imperative suggests that an action is morally acceptable if one
can will it to be a universal law without contradiction. This places a strong emphasis on
individual rights and the idea that certain actions are inherently wrong, regardless of the
consequences.

Grey Areas and Dilemmas:

o Utilitarianism: Utilitarianism can sometimes struggle with moral dilemmas, as it requires

quantifying and comparing the happiness and suffering caused by different actions, which
can be challenging in complex situations.
o Deontology: Deontology provides more clear-cut guidelines for action, as it relies on rules
or duties that are not contingent on consequences. However, it may also face challenges
when conflicting duties arise.

Conclusion

Utilitarianism and deontology represent contrasting approaches to ethics. Utilitarianism

emphasizes consequences, flexibility, and the pursuit of overall happiness, while deontology
emphasizes moral rules, duties, and the inherent rightness or wrongness of actions, regardless of
outcomes.

Q- CONCEPTS POWER, AUTHORITY, LEGITIMACY

INTRODUCTION:
In political science, legitimacy is the popular acceptance of a governing law or regime as an
authority. Whereas “authority” denotes a specific position in an established government, the
term “legitimacy” denotes a system of government — wherein “government” denotes
“sphere of influence”. Political legitimacy is considered a basic condition for governing,
without which, a government will suffer legislative deadlock(s) and collapse. In political
systems where this is not the case, unpopular regimes survive because they are considered
legitimate by a small, influential elite.

The term “authority” refers to an abstract concept with both sociological and psychological
components. As a child born of a myriad of different social situations which have some rough
similarities, no easy definition exists. Of particular concern throughout the literature on the
topic is the entanglement of the concepts of authority, power, and legitimacy. This is a
concern not only in the abstract (by which I mean that scholars discuss and disagree on how
the three are entangled), but also in the concrete because scholars themselves are often
guilty of entangling them. One is defined as a function of the other and vice-versa until the
reader doesn’t know where to turn anymore for help.

What is power for use in politics, and does this power legitimise the authority of a
Government?

Power, in political contexts, is the ability to persuade others to do something, even if they
don’t want to do it.

This could take two forms, either through discussion, so that the people cooperate for
reasons which are given to them, or through a form of coercion; they are forced into doing
what somebody wants.

RELATION BETWEEN POWER, AUTHORITY AND LEGITIMACY

In politics Power gets used to implement a decision. The role of Power becomes most
effective when Power does not remain a source of coercion. In-fact after getting legitimized
it becomes Authority. Means the stability of Authority depends upon legitimacy.

So in short Authority is a quality or capacity of a person, institution, rule or order which

becomes important in defining whether Authority is correct or authentic, so that people can
follow the rules and regulation without any hesitation.
Because of the use of Authority official Governmental policies, rules and regulations get
accepted in the society. Authority has two main components: Power and Legitimacy.

Legitimacy of a rule or a decision signifies the fact that people reckon the decision as fruitful
and in welfare of the society. Thus they are always ready to follow the rule or decision.
Demonstration of Power does not become necessary as long as Legitimacy is attached to
Power. It only comes out as a symbol. Like a judge with his black gown or a policeman with
his uniform. Just like beauty lies in the eyes of beholder, Legitimacy lies in the eyes of
beholder.

There is no question, that without Power it will be very difficult to implement the official
decision as well as rules, but only by the fear of punishment or by the coercion authority may
not prove successful as far as long term benefits are concerned. In fact such a step becomes
tyranny and works as a catalyst for the rebellion.

The able use of Power always gets support from legitimacy. Most of the society follows the
rules on the basis of legitimacy therefore using Power does not become necessary all the
time. No one will follow the rule or a regulation if the legitimacy of that rule is ruined
irrespective of the Power of Authority
When we talk about authority, it is not the earthly type that we are addressing. Earthly
authority relies upon worldly law, or the amount of military troops one has, or power seized
or given by others. Worldly authority can be acquired by inheritance, wealth, or even
notoriety but not spiritual authority. Authority that is spiritual in scope is given to us by God
and operates according to His laws. Spiritual authority like worldly authority must have the
power to act in order for authority to be genuine. Worldly authority is not authentic if the
one who possesses it doesn't also posses the power to enforcement his will. We would say
that this one is just a figure head that possesses no real power. This is why we must not just
speak about authority but also power.

DEMOCRATIC USE OF POWER

In a democracy as well as in a dictatorship, both forms are used by political parties to get
what they want. They use persuasion to order to get themselves into power, using the
campaigns and speeches to convince the public to agree with them how to run the country,
but also use coercion when people step out of line, with the use of threats, sanctions, and, if
necessary, force.
However, the concept of power in political contexts is also tied in with that of authority and
legitimacy, as power without authority is likely to be short-lived, and the idea of authority
without power is meaningless. This is because those over whom power is being exorcised are
very likely to rebel against the state if they fail to recognize authority, legitimacy or power as
having moral justification.

AUTHORITY AND LEGITIMACY

Although authority traditionally is described as legitimised power, it could be possible,
though, to recognize a person as an authority without them having power, though this person
would have to be persuasively powerful.

By simply being voted into office, not even necessarily having any knowledge of what they
are doing or how to govern, a person could be said to have a great deal of power, both
persuasively and coercively by merely being ‘in authority’ (meaning somebody having a mere
position of power, as opposed to being an authority, which is a group or individual who has
expertise on a subject).

JOHN LOCKE’S VIEW

The Enlightenment-era British social theoretician John Locke said that political legitimacy
derives from popular explicit and implicit consent: “The argument of the [Second] Treatise is
that the government is not legitimate unless it is carried on with the consent of the
governed.” The German political philosopher Dolf Sternberger said, “Legitimacy is the
foundation of such governmental power as is exercised, both with a consciousness on the
government’s part that it has a right to govern, and with some recognition by the governed
of that right.” The American political sociologist Seymour Martin Lipset said that legitimacy
also “involves the capacity of a political system to engender and maintain the belief that
existing political institutions are the most appropriate and proper ones for the society.” The
American political theorist Robert A. Dahl explained legitimacy as a reservoir; so long as the
water is at a given level, political stability is maintained, if it falls below the required level,
political legitimacy is endangered.

In moral philosophy, the term “legitimacy” often is positively interpreted as the normative
status conferred by a governed people upon their governors’ institutions, offices, and
actions, based upon the belief that their government's actions are appropriate uses of power
by a legally constituted government.
In law, “legitimacy” is distinguished from “legality” (see color of law), to establish that a
government action can be legal whilst not being legitimate, e.g. a police search without
proper warrant; conversely, a government action can be legitimate without being legal, e.g.
a pre-emptive war, a military junta. An example of such matters arises when legitimate
institutions clash in a constitutional crisis. Conceptually, “legitimacy” also applies to apolitical
authorities, e,g, the Marxist philosophic and politico-economic challenge of capitalism as
form of social organization, and government.

SALIENT FEATURES OF POWER, AUTHORITY AND LEGITIMACY

Power is the ability, whether personal or social, to get things done either to enforce one’s
own will or to enforce the collective will of some group over others. Legitimacy is a socially
constructed and psychologically accepted right to exercise power. A person can have
legitimacy but no actual power (the legitimate king might reside in exile, destitute and
forgotten). A person can have actual power but not legitimacy (the usurper who exiled the
king and appropriates the symbols of office).

Here, now, we begin to approach an understanding of what authority is because in all social
situations a person is treated as an authority only when they have both
power and legitimacy. We might consider, for example, the phrase uttered so often when
someone intrudes into our business in order to give commands: “You have no authority
here.”

What does that mean? It might mean that the person has no legitimate claim to be heard or
heeded. It might mean that the person has no social power he has not the ability to enforce
his will over the objections of others. Or, it might be both. In any event, both must be present
for authority to exist (socially) and be acknowledged (psychologically).

This is still not quite enough, however, because it defines authority a bit too closely to the
concepts of legitimacy and power. When a person has authority over others, it means
something a bit more than simply that they have a right to exercise existing power. The
missing ingredient is psychological the previously mentioned but not explicated issue of
acknowledgment. Both power and legitimacy are social in that they exist in the interplay
between two or more humans. Yet what goes on in the mind of person when he
acknowledges the authority of another?
It isn’t simply that he accepts the factual existence of power or legitimacy; rather, it’s also
that he accepts that an authority figure is justified in making a decision without also
explaining the reason for that decision and persuading others to accept that the decision was
reached properly. The importance of this is not too difficult to see.

EXERCISING AUTHORITY
If I have authority over you, I can expect that when I make a decision you will go along with
that decision, even if I don’t take the time to explain it to you and persuade you that it is
indeed right. In turn, your acceptance of me as an authority implies that you have already
agreed to be persuaded, implicitly, and won’t demand explicit explanations and reasons.

Once I begin to explain my reasoning process and get you to agree that my conclusion was
the proper one, and then you have reached your own decision. When you act, it won’t be
because of me enforcing my will over you, nor will it have anything to do with the legitimacy
of my power. Instead, it will simply be you exercising your will for your own reasons.

Consider the appropriate example of a priest as a religious authority over a congregation.

This priest has the legitimate social power to see that his will and that of and his superiors is
enforced over the membership of the congregation. More than this, however, we must
understand that those members have implicitly accepted that the priest does not need to
patiently reason with each one of them in turn in order to get them to independently agree
to the decisions in question.

Why doesn’t the priest explain everything? There can be many reasons — perhaps members
of the congregation lack the sophisticated training necessary in order to understand them,
or maybe there just isn’t enough time. What’s important is that the priest could explain
things, but doesn’t authority means not having to explain everything but being able to wield
legitimate power anyway.

Only in a community of infinitely rational individuals with an infinite amount of time would it
be possible for everything to be fully explained all of the time. In the real world, however, we
must rely upon authority figures to make decisions for us. As a part of this, we invest them
with the power and legitimacy necessary to cause those decisions to be meaningful and
relevant.
CONCLUSION:
In conclusion, political power is legitimised authority, because this means that they have
been accepted by the state and have the states permission to govern over them, which is
most certainly the power which politicians crave.
When we talk about authority, it is not the earthly type that we are addressing. Earthly
authority relies upon worldly law, or the amount of military troops one has, or power seized
or given by others. Worldly authority can be acquired by inheritance, wealth, or even
notoriety but not spiritual authority. Authority that is spiritual in scope is given to us by God
and operates according to His laws. Spiritual authority like worldly authority must have the
power to act in order for authority to be genuine. Worldly authority is not authentic if the
one who possesses it doesn't also posses the power to enforcement his will. We would say
that this one is just a figure head that possesses no real power. This is why we must not just
speak about authority but also power.

This is because being in such a commanding role, they would have coercive control over the
state by controlling certain systems, such as the police force to a certain extent, and
persuasive control by simply being a figure in such a highly regarded position that some
people who be persuaded by the feeling of trust and respect they felt towards a person in
such an esteemed position as that.

If this is true, then this person would also of course have legitimate authority, as people have
submitted to them, through the process of voting, or even by just not rebelling against them.
And as soon as somebody has gained legitimate authority, they have most certain power.