The definitions in Box 1.1 show very considerable differences,
reflecting the viewpoint of the author. Most political scientists’
definitions of politics are much broader in scope than the first,
dictionary, definition which focuses on the state (although admittedly
‘part of a state’ could be interpreted widely). In effect they largely
endorse the view suggested above: that politics is about the social
exercise of power, rather than just the state. However, this may
reflect the natural ‘imperialism’ of academics on behalf of their own
discipline. Sociologists might argue that ‘man moving man’ would be
more appropriate as a definition of their concerns.
Consider also, though, the unit of analysis, in terms of which these
definitions are couched. Weber, Lasswell and de Jouvenal appear to
be thinking primarily in terms of individuals exercising power, Crick
and Parsons focus upon whole societies, the Shorter Oxford English
Dictionarytalks about governments, whilst Poulantzas views classes
as the primary political ‘actor’. This reflects a split between indivi-
dualistic and collectivist theories which will be discussed in greater
detail in Chapter 3.
POLITICS 5Power... the production of intended effects.
(Bertrand Russell, 1938)
... the probability that one actor within a social relationship will be in
a position to carry out his own will despite resistance regardless of the
basis on which the probability arises.
(Max Weber, in Gerth and Mills, 1948)
... the capacity to mobilize the resources of society for the attainment
of goals for which a general public commitment... may be made.
(Talcott Parsons, 1957)
... the capacity of a social class to realise its specific objective
interests.
(Nicos Poulantzas, 1973)