Skip to main content

Spheres of Power and Authority

Imagine the wealthy owner of an airline who donates significant funds to her child's school, via the local Parent Advisory Committee (PAC). Out of respect, although she does not formally sit on the committee, the members seek her input and advice on the priorities for PAC expenditures for the coming year. This same wealthy individual is a major donor to several local city councillors, who oblige her requests for phone calls from time to time. Within the airline industry, due to her position and stature, she is often called upon as an advisor for policy review committees.

Does something feel wrong with this picture? Should this individual be able to enjoy positions of influence within multiple different sectors and industries? Michael Walzer would say no. His 1983 book "Spheres of Justice" describes a concept called 'complex equality'. The fundamental premise here is that someone who holds a position of privilege, power, or domination in one "sphere" should not be able to extend that power or influence into other spheres of society. In other words, just because someone has financial power through a position of influence in industry, that power should not be easily extended into the local political realm or the educational realm, as in the example above.

This is an important point in several respects. First, the concept acknowledges the reality that in many 'spheres' of life hierarchies do emerge; individuals take on leadership roles, and some accumulate power and influence. Second, that there are different ways to achieve power, influence, and leadership, and these will be different in different sectors. And third, that no one, and no single entity, should have access to power and domination across all spheres - what Walzer calls a 'monopoly on the means of domination'. Keeping these 'spheres' separate and distinct from one another ensures that there are multiple groups and interests across society that can exert influence, and that there are varied and different opportunities for each of us to participate in society and develop our potential as humans. Think of your own life; what are the different 'spheres' where you participate socially, and how is your influence or relationships different in each of these 'spheres'?

It's also one of the reason why money in politics is bad. From this standpoint, it is critical that financial wealth and power do not easily transfer into political wealth and power. Luckily, the example I described above is not a situation I have actually come across. For the more part, different groups have a good sense that power and influence in one area of life does not imply automatic inclusion in leadership decisions in another area. It's why we have concepts like independent committees, and why having a conflict of interest is frowned upon.

There are, however, individuals in murky territory here. Are there people whose power and influence in one 'sphere' has equipped them with power and influence in multiple 'spheres'? A diverse political society requires us to push back when we see this happening.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Including rational thought in decision-making: novel idea?

The post last week brought up the idea that we need to think about what concepts and ideas are put forward in the public realm. From pop music to sports to local community events, our approach to decision-making is influenced by commonly understood cultural practices. Meaningful democratic decision-making requires that we think about the practices, ideas, and values that percolate throughout society. More specifically, when it comes to engaging a group of people to get together and go through a democratic decision-making process, practitioners need to think about how participants are being, or have been, educated. By definition, democratic decision-making is not limited to specialists. "Rule by the people" means everyone gets to participate in decision-making, even about issues where we are not experts. This does not mean, however, that democratic decision-making should be approached from a place of ignorance.  Robert Dahl  emphasized the importance of  enlight

Why democracy doesn't mean you get your way - Part 2

If you do an online search of the word "democracy", you'll come across references to things like 'majority decision-making' or 'control by a majority'. Majority decision-making, and voting, are often assumed to be key features of a democracy. However: neither voting, nor control by a majority, are necessary for democratic decision-making. This may come as a shock, but there are ways for groups of people to make decisions that do not involve voting. Voting leaves very little room for nuance, for the exploration of alternatives, or for compromise between disparate perspectives. Majority decision-making, for its part, can lead to a tyranny of the majority, the oppression of minority perspectives, the polarization of opinions, and, by definition, a portion of participants whose preferences are ignored. So what's the alternative? If you're part of a group that is empowered to make a decision on some issue (a board, community group, committ

Moving beyond a tyranny of the majority

I really like the colour orange, and orange shirts. But what if a majority of the people in my life wanted to stop me from wearing orange, and decided to take a vote of those who were opposed to ever allowing me to wear orange again? What would I do!? In the last post I made brief mention of the possibility that, under majority rules, decision-making could result in a tyranny of the majority. This can occur anytime there is a minority (which is pretty much possible all the time) who do not have the sufficient numbers to influence decisions under this approach (majority-based decision-making). In this scenario there is no incentive for the majority to take into account opposing views. Those who find themselves in the minority will have their needs and desires rejected, ignored, or worse, oppressed. To put it bluntly - a group could decide it's not cool to wear orange anymore, and to put in place a law whereby anyone caught wearing orange would be imprisoned. All they would ne