Since it threatens the boundaries of traditional or rational power, charismatic authorities are frequently unstable and irrational (coercive). It tends to oppose this authority and is frequently revolutionary. Routine integration of charismatic power typically causes society to evolve irrationally. Autocracies, authoritarian states, theocracies, and dictatorships all practice the charismatic rule in politics and create massive personality cults to uphold their charismatic power. Since there is only one person in charge, his or her death would result in the fall of the government unless there were other provisions in place. A society that faces the end of their charismatic leader can choose to move to another format of leadership or to have the transference of charismatic authority to another leader by means of succession search, revelation, designation by the first head, appointment by qualified staff, hereditary charisma, and office appeal. The transference routines do not consider the democratic rights of the people making it an irrational and unstable way of governance.
Additionally, the pursuit of charismatic leaders builds on the abilities that fit him for the position of power. The search is a way in which an original charismatic leader can be made to “live on” through a replacement but does not address the improvement in leadership. Also, the system is Revelation: the legitimacy of leaders depends on the legitimacy of the technique of selection. In ancient times, oracles were believed to have special access to “divine judgment,” and thus their technology in screening were perceived to be the legitimate endorsement. However, this is against the intellectual leadership of people for and by themselves. The charismatic authority also involves Designation by the original leader, the holder of power passing their power to another, an act against the common voice of the people.
Section A: Question 2
Webber’s bureaucracy is a supremely efficient type of domination in space and population being administered. Development of transport and communication technologies makes the bureaucracy administration efficient and also in popular demand. Also, democratization and rationalization of culture enable the system to treat everybody equally. Weber’s efficient administration involves delineated lines of authority in the different area of action, effective hierarchical organization, and measures taken by and recorded in written rules. Additionally, bureaucratic leadership is efficient since neutral officials help to implement the rules, and bureaucratic officials get expert training. Also, career progression considers technical qualifications, arbitrated through an organization, not individuals. The conclusive motive for the progress of bureaucratic society has always been its morally practical dominance over any other form of organization
In Economy and Society”, bureaucracy displays rule-governed decision making, chain of command, imperial positions, professionalism, bounded authority and defined responsibilities. The excellent values are unique with individualized qualities and consider official positions of every day’s activities for a successful bureaucratic economy. Also, bureaucracy is a supremely efficient type of domination since it sets those who hold these positions to disseminate orders in an accurate and stable manner. Finally, a red tape purpose for methodical provision, which evaluates the constant fulfillment of these specified duties in a community and Bureaucratic administration, means domination fundamentally through knowledge. The chain of command is imperative to a bureaucratic business because it sets up a particular ladder that allows for information and necessary decisions to be relayed swiftly and efficiently
Section B: Question 2
Banjos opinion that these companies take subjection to a different level, one that even Foucault could not have imagined is correct. Uber and Lyft uses power in the transportation industry as an instrument of coercion, and even away from the discreet structures in which passengers and also for the drivers operate. Power for Foucault is what makes us what we are, Uber and Lyft sets schedules which the drivers and passengers need to observe, restricting their freedom. In this case, the two companies cannot be easily integrated with preceding ideas, as power is diffuse rather than concentrated, discursive rather than purely coercive, constitutes agents rather than being deployed by them and embodied and enacted rather than possessed. The two transport companies own power wielded by themselves by way of ‘sovereign’ acts of domination or coercion, or ‘episodic,’ instead as dispersed and pervasive. Power comes from everywhere, and it is everywhere, so in this sense, it is neither a structure nor an agency. Contrary, the transport companies are kind of ‘met power’ or ‘regime of truth’ that pervades society, and which is in continuous instability and compromise.
Foucault uses the term ‘power or knowledge’ to signify that power establishes through conventional forms of scientific understanding, knowledge, and truth. The two transport companies do not recognize that authority is not just a negative, coercive or repressive thing that forces the drivers and passages against their wishes to follow the companies’ schedules and routine, but also an effective strength and a productive necessity in society. The companies have centralized decision-making system that describes the effects of power as impassive and not as a primary source of social conformity and discipline. In changing attention away from the episodic or the sovereign practice of power, traditionally centered in feudal states to coerce their subjects, Foucault pointed to a new kind of ‘disciplinary power’ the administrative systems could observe. The company’s systems of assessment and surveillance do not require force or violence, as people learned to behave in expected ways and discipline themselves.
A principle fact on Foucault’s examination of power is that it transcends politics and sees power as an everyday, socialized and embodied phenomenon. For this reason, Uber and Lyft centric power struggles, including revolutions, do not lead to change in the social order of the passengers and drivers. Additionally, Foucault’s approach to power is so elusive and removed from agency or structure that there seems to be little scope for practical action. But he has been hugely influential in pointing to the ways that customs can be so entrenched as to be past our insight, causing us to discipline ourselves without any willful coercion from others. Contrary to many transportation evolution frameworks in Uber and Lyft, Foucault believes in possibilities for action and resistance. He advocates for the role of the ‘organic intellectual.’ His ideas about work are concerned with capacities to question and recognize socialized constraints and norms.
To conclude, Discourses are not once and for all subservient to power or rose up against it. We must brand budget for the unstable and multifarious process whereby a speech can be both an effect of power and an instrument, but also a hindrance, a hesitant fact of confrontation and a preliminary idea for a different policy. Discourse produces and transmits power; it reinforces it, but also exposes and undermines it, makes it possible to thwart and renders it fragile. The power dice is not of revolutions in the transport system, for instance, the Uber and Lyft companies are not readily compatible with Foucauldian understandings of power. However, there is scope for critical strategic action and examination at the level of challenging or shaping discourse: for example taking the cultural or psychological sense of and ‘hegemony’ and ‘invisible power’ as a lens through which to look at the whole.
Also, Foucault’s approach is a critique of the transport development paradigms and thinking, and the ways in which development discourses are controlled and implemented. At this level of practitioners, practice, and activists should use methods of discourse analysis to identify normative aid language that needs more scrutiny and to shape alternative framings. Finally, however, in the workplace, there must defined and stable set of general rules for the employees that they must abide by at all times. The commitment yields jurisprudence and business management. In truth, instilling confident and a hardworking frame of mind throughout the workforce are pertinent to the success of business. Every single person yields a different aspect that builds the foundation of a healthy labor force. An office or workplace must have fields of specialization to diversify the company. Every worker must know the responsibilities of his job in the most intimation detail possible. For a company to be successful; employees have to know the details of their job so they can be supremely efficient and not conflict with the obligations of another employee and institutional regulations.