“Power”, by John Scott (2001), scrutinizes the various patterns and manifestations of power used in everyday politics. In Scott’s first chapter of the book, the author introduces the reader to the distinct forms of power relations and the Elementary forms of social power, among other key characteristics of “power”. It is on the fourth section of the chapter where Scott instigates the reader with the dissimilar Structures of domination, and how each of the domination types in his view, lead to diverse patterns of social relations between “principals” and “subalterns”. These manifestations of authority within structures of domination, are labelled in his book in concord of animal traits associated with quintessential
…show more content…
In this text I am going to examine this personalisation method regarding the different kinds of domination, integrated with a personal, real life experience (Power, by John Scott, pp. 12-16, 2001).
Having lived in a boarding school in northern England for the past two years, I have been able to experience external “family” environmental situations in a large, collective scale; weekend curfews, house norms, drug orientation talks, disobedience sermons, etc... The family like power relations between the boarding head, along with other several stuff members as principals, with the entire boarding community based on intensive and strict limitations that were designed in an intention to ensure the safety and wellbeing of all boarders, as the subalterns. Running a boarding house inhabited by 300 students, with ages ranging from a minority of 11 to 15 years old, to a majority of 16 to 19 years old is evidently strongly demanding and at many stages, demanding. In the course of my junior year of high school in the boarding house, the boarding head at the time was rather benevolent and …show more content…
On the fact that every single person in the boarding community was conscious of the consequences of disobeying, it could be argued that Mr W was a hegemonic, “lion” authoritative figure of dominance. Smith argues that force and coercion are the principal foundations of an authoritarian regimes, backed up by force (Power and State, by Martin J. Smith, pp 129-131, 2009). Given that Mr W was the ultimate figure of power over the hierarchy of boarding ruling, he ensured through active threats that his goals and targets were met. For that matter, since the true face of his nature as a ruler was already exposed, and after proving his effective use of power, the rest of the course went by without significant actions on Mr W’s part, as credibility was already present (Power, by John Scott, pp. 17-18,
In this text I am going to examine this personalisation method regarding the different kinds of domination, integrated with a personal, real life experience (Power, by John Scott, pp. 12-16, 2001).
Having lived in a boarding school in northern England for the past two years, I have been able to experience external “family” environmental situations in a large, collective scale; weekend curfews, house norms, drug orientation talks, disobedience sermons, etc... The family like power relations between the boarding head, along with other several stuff members as principals, with the entire boarding community based on intensive and strict limitations that were designed in an intention to ensure the safety and wellbeing of all boarders, as the subalterns. Running a boarding house inhabited by 300 students, with ages ranging from a minority of 11 to 15 years old, to a majority of 16 to 19 years old is evidently strongly demanding and at many stages, demanding. In the course of my junior year of high school in the boarding house, the boarding head at the time was rather benevolent and …show more content…
On the fact that every single person in the boarding community was conscious of the consequences of disobeying, it could be argued that Mr W was a hegemonic, “lion” authoritative figure of dominance. Smith argues that force and coercion are the principal foundations of an authoritarian regimes, backed up by force (Power and State, by Martin J. Smith, pp 129-131, 2009). Given that Mr W was the ultimate figure of power over the hierarchy of boarding ruling, he ensured through active threats that his goals and targets were met. For that matter, since the true face of his nature as a ruler was already exposed, and after proving his effective use of power, the rest of the course went by without significant actions on Mr W’s part, as credibility was already present (Power, by John Scott, pp. 17-18,