This website uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience on our website. Learn more

History Notes Approaches to History Notes

Approaches Sociology Power Notes

Updated Approaches Sociology Power Notes

Approaches to History Notes

Approaches to History

Approximately 45 pages

These notes provide comprehensive cover of the Approaches to History topics of Gender and Sociology. They were the sole resource that I used for my preliminary examination revision, in which I achieved a mark of 67%. They include a wealth of examples spanning across a wide range of time periods (from medieval to modern), as well as discussion of a broad range of historiography, making them a complete resource for studying for the Approaches prelim, if you are taking the Gender or Sociology option...

The following is a more accessible plain text extract of the PDF sample above, taken from our Approaches to History Notes. Due to the challenges of extracting text from PDFs, it will have odd formatting:

Approaches Revision Notes:

SOCIOLOGY:

Power:

1. Historiography:

  • From the ‘60s onwards, historians tried to give the weak a voice. Saw power as something domineering.

  • E.g. Michael Mann (1986) speaking of ‘despotic power’.

  • James C Scott:

  • Talks of a “hidden transcript”.

  • “Powerless groups have… a self interest in conspiring to reinforce hegemonic appearances”.

  • Allows ideologies to grow.

  • Book came from study of Malay village – accounts of transactions often contradictory.

  • Scott himself then noticed how he used diff lang for diff people, then usually told someone after about the unspoken thoughts.

  • Occasionally, HT reveals itself in “rare moments of political electricity”.

  • “[the weak] manage in a thousand artful ways to imply that they are grudging conscripts to the performance”.

  • Wrote ‘Weapons of the Weak’ on effectiveness of foot-dragging, sabotage etc.

  • Attacked (e.g. by Tilly) for not addressing complexities within HTs.

  • Also for not allowing more continuity between the transcripts (as Erving Goffman does).

  • Charles Tilly:

  • Also believes there are many probs with ‘top-down’ approach.

  • Has several reasons for why subordinates comply:

  • 1. They are actually subtly rebelling.

  • 2. They get something in return for subordination.

  • 3. They get wrapped up in these systems whilst pursuing something else e.g. identity.

  • 4. They are unaware of their true interests.

  • 5. Force holds them in place.

  • 6. They lack funding.

  • 7. A combination.

  • Complexity of issue: “were we searching for a chimera?”

  • Gerth & Mills:

  • Focus on charismatic leadership: “The ‘natural’ leaders… have been holders of specific gifts of the body and spirit”.

  • E.g. Irish Cuchulain, Homeric Achilles.

  • Foucault:

  • Focuses on the mind & the way that psychological structures have impacted society.

  • Looked at increase in state power in France in the 1960s (e.g. after General Strike of 1968).

  • Was aware of the way that certain aspects of human life, like sexuality, could disrupt power structures.

  • Talks of “perpetual spirals of power and pleasure”.

  • Weber:

  • Charismatic authority idea.

  • Supported by I Kershaw – Hitler.

  • Marxist-Leninists did not really agree on role of personality. E.g. thought Hitler’s rise due to backing of business leaders.

2. How do sociological models of power help historians? [For studying bureaucracies?] [For studying marginal groups?]

  • Can help to understand why marginal groups stay marginal.

  • Help to unpick popular culture – jokes etc.

  • Explain roots of events like Revolutions.

  • E.g. after Orwell’s stint in Moulmein, a Buddhist monk led an anti-colonial rebellion, which was violently crushed. Orwell had spoken of how ‘the greatest joy in the world would be to drive a bayonet into a Buddhist priest’s guts’

  • Scott’s account = good for being “exquisitely sensitive” (Tilly).

  • Can draw attention to previously unexplored areas, e.g. psychology (Foucault), language (Scott).

  • Can highlight questions about why things changed.

  • E.g. Foucault’s focus on sex highlights how authorities “perceived that they were…dealing…with a ‘population’” (Foucault) in C18th.

3. What are the limits of sociological approaches to power?

  • Do not always address unique situations of individuals.

  • Do not always address variety in power structures – class, status, gender and age are all separate.

  • Main pt of Braddick & Walter: “in reality, there were crowds, not one crowd”.

  • Do not always address variety place-to-place.

  • E.g. wars and disunity in Germany a “heroicisation of politics” (Kershaw).

  • Do not all address each type of power relation – political leader; one group over another (gender, religious, national); social class over another; individuals over each other.

4. Is power always a top-down phenomenon?

TOP-DOWN BOTTOM-UP

Do not overlook importance of being the dominant player in creating the PT:

  • Impact on self-esteem of weaker player – e.g. Mrs Poyser talks of being ‘treated like animals’.

Hidden transcript idea (Scott).

  • Expressed through jokes, songs, gestures, private conversations, tax evasion, pilfering.

  • E.g. Mary Livermore, governess from New England, recounts treatment of black cook’s daughter in antebellum US South. Beaten by master while cook (Aggy) looked on powerlessly. After, cook turned to Livermore and said ‘Thar’s a day a-comin’!... I shall see white folks shot down like de wolves when dey come hungry out o’de woods’ – seems thought out.

  • However, elite do normally dominate PT.

If the HT is revealed, the consequences for the weak are worse than those for the rich (beating v humiliation).

Public transcript created by both sides:

  • The weak and powerful “tacitly conspire” (Scott).

  • Serves both: is “a product of the need to normalise relations”.

  • Braddick and Walter talk of “shrewd reading of the acceptable and effective limits to collective action” – weak were clearly aware.

The elites undeniably do have more power than the weak.

  • Do not underestimate powers like persuasion.

Structures can have power over people, and they are created by everyone (everyone takes part).

  • Politeness: E.g. oral history of French farmer Old Tiennon – ‘I forced myself to appear amiable, in spite of the contempt I felt for him’.

  • Politeness: E.g. slavery in Old South in America – ‘I had endeavoured so to conduct myself as not to become obnoxious to the white inhabitants, knowing as I did their power, and their hostility’ (J C Scott).

  • E.g. George Orwell’s ‘Shooting an Elephant’ (from stint in 1920s as subinspector of police in Burma). Didn’t want to shoot elephant because had calmed down but had to – 2000...

Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Approaches to History Notes.