Inscription of Bodies and Institutional Forms of Power - Term Paper Example

Inscription of Bodies and Institutional Forms of Power Name: Institution: Introduction An institution can be described as a set of activities that operate in an environment under which certain rules, sanctions or pressures exist. In this given study, a relationship between power and institutions is studied. The inscription of institutions refers to the change within institutions with time due to the different types of power that exist within the institution. A relationship between an institution, power, its different forms and effects on individual behaviours, institutional operations and regulations are studied in this research. For an institution to exist, it must be powerful. An intimate relationship exists between power and an institution. The extent to which power affects the behaviours, opportunities of individuals and groups, and their beliefs explains how institutions change with time. Power within an institution refers to a regulated fashion of socially constructed controls that guide activities within the institution. Individuals and groups in an institution, depending on their agency and interest, also influence the role of social groups within the institution. This indicates that power affects the operation of individuals in an institution and as well the operation of individuals within also influence the direction that power takes in moderating activities. Thus, the relationship between power and an institution is a bilateral relationship. In a more understandable way, the processes that take place in an institution are as a result of individuals in the institution enduring organisational structures and processes. Institutions adopt certain activities in order to embrace legitimacy and not to be efficient in their operations. Work that involve determining the effects of politics on logics within institution, the roles of arrangements within an institution in creating political opportunities, the changes within an institution due to societal movements, the role of entrepreneurs within institutions in transforming the conditions there in and the influence of institutions on political actors further explains the relationship between power and institution. This mutually beneficial relationship can be looked at in three ways; the control of an institution, agency within an institution and the resistance that exists within the institution. With these examples, it is evident that these relationships are making reference to politics within an institution. In other words, the relationship between actors in an institution and the institution are looked at in terms of power. Aims of the Research Project The research project aims to establish; the relationship between Power and Institutions, How Power affects the operations of an institution, the role of power in reference to Institutional Control, Institutional Agency and Resistance, The impact of Institutional Structures and Operations on Agents in the institution, the roles of workers in changing the mode of operation within an institution and the different forms of power and how they relate and affect behaviours, myths and beliefs of agents that relate with an institution. Culture and Sociology are also related to the Institutional roles in the society. Institutional Control, Institutional Agency and Institutional Resistance Institutional Control makes reference to the kind of influence that the institution has on the beliefs and behaviour of actors within the institution, the Institutional agency explains the speed and efforts with which actors in an institution work to change or transform and disrupt the activities of an institution, while institutional resistance depicts the unending effort by actors in an institution to limit influences of institutional control and institutional agency on them. Power plays a fundamental role in each of these three dimensions and as well they form the systems under which institutional politics are based. Institutional politics and power shows an interconnection between the realistic and political levels of action and their relationship with institutional actors’ interests and ideas. A case study involving fishermen and fish merchants in Norway depicts a relationship between Institutional Control, Institutional Agency and Institutional resistance. The Central Institutional Battle (Hoffman 1999) in (Holm’s 1995) is a showcase between power and institutions. The fishermen in this given case had a common interest of regulating the supply of herrings. The major setback that affected them was that they could not act individually. Acting individually made their action invalid. In order to succeed, they set up a rule system (An Institution-a set of practises) that allowed them to collectively market their herring. Assuming that the fishermen acted individually, there are no accounts that can be made that the rule system was fully established and successfully organised on the herring trade for two years without some kind of a legal protection. In order to fully explain the facts surrounding this battle, a study of the pattern of interaction among the fishermen must be done. The fishery in question at this point in time was timely and geographically well established. The fishermen too came from the same area and shared the same social background. Also, they used the same technology. This brought the commonality between the fishermen and thus accounted for the collective nature and commonality of the problem. Thus the rule system formed an institution. They were trying to enforce conformity through a communal and literary/ cultural method/ system. The dense patterns of interaction and common backgrounds made it possible to form an institution. This institution resulted in a direct set of power relations between the rules and the fishermen and an indirect relation between the rules and the fish merchants that were now in combat with/ facing a much more organised and powerful group of actors. The individual efforts, in comparison, were relatively a weaker force to change the relations. Further to enhance on this relation, a rule making all the fishermen sell all their fish catch through the already established organisation, enforced by the legal apparatus of the Norwegian State and the police, immediately solves the problem of non members/ free-riders benefiting from the organisation’s actions. The fishermen’s Institutional project therefore required more than just mobilizing the state’s powers behind the fishermen. The project had to be made so important in order to top the political agenda list, make it survive through the various levels of vetting and decision making and finally that it acquired the right number of votes by politicians in parliament to enable it be passed as a law. This proves that the rule system that was to bind the fishermen and bring them together against the fish merchants, required important and complicated forms of institutional work (Lawrence & Suddaby 2006). To embrace the project as a law, the fishermen needed to be engaged in several discursive forums on strategies that had in mind a plan of labelling their problem “very important” and build and improve their relationship with actors in the government that were to shield the project through the system of government (bureaucracy). Therefore as much as institutions are linked to power through their force on behaviour and beliefs of actors, they are as well connected to power through the scheme of actors to transform the arrangements in an institution via a political process/ methodology. Therefore power plays a role in shaping the relationship between institutions and actors. In relevance to the subheading, power’s first role therefore is Institutional Control. It makes reference to what impacts an institution has on the beliefs of individual and organisational actors. It is applicable indirectly in that organisational actors comply with the rules and regulations/ norms of the institution. In the case study made reference to above, the fishermen and the fish merchants have to, after the set up of the rule system, sell all their catch through the organisation. This rule is enforced by the Norwegian State and Police who represent power. Therefore, power, evidently controls the activities of the institution that is set up by the fishermen in order to serve their interest. The fishermen have to comply with the standards and norms that have been set up by power, thus, institutional control. Institutional Agency in a broader sense, arguably points out that actors in an institution also have an impact on the operations of an institution due to power. The institutional agency alludes to the facts that work by individuals and actors collectively can lead to a transformation and disruption of institutional activities. The connection between power and agency and actors plus the institutional arrangements remains explicit. The fishermen in the above mentioned case study have formed a rule system/ institution that in turn use the influence of power to run its activity. Power makes the institution legal and registers it as an organisation or society. Because of this power thrown behind the institution, the fishermen are able to champion for changes in relationship between them and the fish merchants. Institutional resistance is a role of power that aims at imposing limits on both institutional control and agency. It makes emphasis on the fact that workers can resist the effects of institutional control and agency. In this given set up resistance is given to power giving rise to certain outcomes of power relations. Resistances can range from conforming to norms to being resistant, from being impotent to being influential and finally from a habitual mode to an opportunistic act. Actors can comply, have a compromise, avoid, defy and manipulate outcomes that result due to power relations. The case study above mentioned gives a sample relationship between fishermen and fish merchants. The formed institution that is meant to control their relationship has certain roles to discharge. For instance, forcing the fishermen to sell all their catch through the organisation may spark resistance. They fishermen can refuse to sell their catch through the organisation thus resisting an institutional control by power. The fish merchants as well can refuse to be restricted on when and how to supply the herrings, resulting in resistance. First off, in relation to the above mentioned dints, it is relevant to associate institutional power with an authority that seeks to make individuals acquire power through their positions in an integrated and stable system of societal rules. The power factor therefore looks at the facts which go together with the establishment of unwavering social prominence positions of individual individuals and which are inferentially associated to privileges/ human rights and entitlements of these people. For this (agents to be responsible to other agents for their behaviour) to be possible, certain permissions and obligations have to be socially instituted in specific relationships between agents. There are two forms of power in institutions namely; episodic power and Systematic Power. Episodic power makes reference to the influences and forces that power has on institutions, while, Systematic Power handles that theoretical framework within which institutions instil discipline and domination within the institution on its actors. These forms of power form the basis through which institutional control and agency relate to actors. They give rise to resistances that the institution experiences. Episodic power refers to a rather discrete/ separate power that is initiated by self-interested actors through mobilisations. It is looked at in two ways; one in relation to the quest to dominate or take over a production process, and two as an authority considered formal within an organisation that moderates institutional activities. On the other hand, Systematic Power makes reference to a set of activities that works through routine, in progress practises so as to benefit scrupulous groups without those groups automatically setting up or maintaining those practises. Such forms of power are associated with processes that include socialization and official approval/ authorization and recognition. Taxation/ Tax regimes and technological systems also form part of this system of power. They work in a continuing and characterless/ prosaic fashion that is usually not clear or apparent as forms of power. Episodic forms of power therefore underpin institutional agency. Members of an institution therefore are expected to engage in contests between institutions, mobilize resources and develop, oppose or attack forms of dialogue and practises. All these involve disconnected strategies of mobilisation thus embrace influence and force. Systematic power work with automatic rules that enforce compliance without involving any interested parties/ actors. They operate independent of the interest of agents after their establishment through social stakes or cultural values. Systematic forms of power instil discipline and domination on agents without necessarily involving them in the process. It takes into consideration what is morally acceptable in a society or a given culture. Conclusion Making reference to the above mentioned sentiments, it is therefore right to mention that power has influence on the operations of an institution given time. The course of action that an institution takes to moderate its practises really depends on the relationship between agents to agents and institutions to other organisations. It considers what the role of power in controlling institutions, managing its operations and handling the reactions that may arise due to the influence of power on an institutions operation. References Bachrach, SB & Lawler, EJ 1980, Power and Politics in Organizations. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Barbalet, JM 1985, Power and resistance. British Journal of Sociology, 36(4): 531 -548. Clegg, SR, Courpasson, D & Phillips, N 2006. Power and organizations. London: Sage Eagleton, T 2000, “Towards a Common Culture” in the Idea of Culture, Oxford, Malden Mass: Blackwell. Hoffman, A J 1999, Institutional evolution and change: Environmentalism and the U.S. chemical industry. Academy of Management Journal, 42: 3 5 1 -37 1. Holm, P 1995, The dynamics of institutionalization: Transformation processes in Norwegian fisheries. Administrative Science Quarterly, 40: 398 - 422. Jenkins, JC 1983, Resource mobilization theory and the study of social movements. Annual Review of Sociology, 9: 527-553 Jenkins, JC 1983, Resource mobilization theory and the study of social movements. Annual Review of Sociology, 9: 527-553. Lukes, S 1974, Power: A Radical View. London: MacMillan. Mintzberg, H, 1 983 Power in and Around Organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Read More