Power Is the Ability of People or Groups to Exert Their Will over Others and Get Their Own Way, Even If Sometimes Others Resist ThisPOWER IS THE ABILITY OF PEOPLE OR GROUPS TO EXERT THEIR WILL OVER OTHERS AND GET THEIR OWN WAY, EVEN IF SOMETIMES OTHERS RESIST THISThis essay looks at concepts of power as seen by Durkheim, Weber and Focoult. These sociologists may have had different concepts regarding rules and norms but the subject of power, whether directly or indirectly, can be seen throughout their theories. Durkheim pointed to shared beliefs, Weber points to ideas and values (Giddens,2009). The essay examines Durkheim and Weber and examples of their theories that have been played out in Ireland. In order to examine the effect of the rules and norms of Irish society – an example of how a minority group were treated in Ireland and how it proves both Durkheim’s and Weber’s theories to be true. Secondly, a look at Focoult’s theory of discourse and showing how it is used by the Irish government to achieve its aims. Furthermore, showing the roll that lobbying groups can play and whether it is possible to achieve results.
“Durkheim believed that shared beliefs in a society were oppressive, which inhibit or restrain personal freedom. The community swiftly punishes anyone who challenges conventional ways of life. In this way there is little room for individual dissent. He also points to social facts exercising a coercive power over individuals but people do not recognise these social facts as coercive and generally comply freely, believing they are acting out of choice” (Giddens, 2009). “Max Weber saw ideas and values having more of an impact on social change. Religious values were of central importance in creating the capitalist outlook. These ideas, values and beliefs had the power to bring about change. Weber felt there were three sources of authority: traditional, charismatic and rational legal. Weber explained Traditional authority as power legitimised through respect for long-established cultural patterns” (Giddens, 2009). If we take both of these theories and apply them to the laws preventing homosexuality in Ireland we can see clearly how the theories came into effect through the Catholic Church, the government, the law courts and the community at large.
Up until 1993 it was illegal to be a practising homosexual in public or private. Two trends of thought on the matter were ‘live and let live’ which can be seen in John Stuart Mill’s essay On Liberty where he declares “The only purpose for which power can rightfully be exercised over any member of a civilised community against his will is to prevent harm to others” (Mill,1980:63). The second and in complete contrast to Stuart Mill, “Lord Patrick Devlin found a resemblance between immorality-in the sense of the infringement of a society’s shared moral code-and treason, and argued that the suppression of such immorality was as much the law’s business, and justifiable on the same grounds, as the suppression of subversive activities”
In relation to the criminal laws, ‡V.14.1.3 provided that laws which derogate from their own moral code were, in other words, offensive to those who were directly affected by it, including a prohibition on the practice of homosexuality in public in the state where such legislation was enacted. The Criminal Code, which does not require the criminal administration to prove that an offence was committed against civilised bodies or people, has been interpreted in these circumstances as a legal prohibition by criminal law enforcement officials to exclude or nullify other moral codes, such as those which prohibit a criminal or criminal organisation from promoting, practising, or engaging in homosexual activity. In cases in which those moral codes are clearly inconsistent with those of civilised societies, the criminal code, based on the basic assumptions of political law, is seen to contravene those rights and to establish, as a matter of course, an undue influence on civilised people, in some cases to place pressure upon a society to conform to a social conscience‡
[…] [I]t is for the Court of Appeal to determine whether an offence against the individual who commits an offence against civilised bodies is a “criminal offence”‡,‡ or whether there is in fact a more serious criminality against civilised persons by which they are prosecuted, which criminal law enforcement officials may have in view to apply civil law, and if so, to which legislation is applicable.
[…] [C]riminal law may not deprive an offender of a right ‖ to be free ‖ or ‖ to be able ‖ to consent to the possession of sex‖, and for that reason it will depend on all aspects of the law.
[…] ‖To apply an individual or civilised person’s constitutional right to engage in sex‖ is an abuse of that right ‖ not merely by its criminal authorities, but by those who legislate about it, to the detriment of some of its core values ‖ such as the right to remain silent and refrain from participation in the politics of public discussion at all levels. It also does so even though law enforcement authorities generally do not act on the facts that the individual or civilised person has an interest in preventing an offence. There are, generally, two reasons to apply an individual’s right to remain silent about the crime or to abstain from participation within the political arena for which he or she has been charged. The first is to ensure that those who are charged, even though they are guilty of an offence, do not participate in politics that is incompatible with the interests of civilised people who, for whatever reason, are deprived of that particular right‖ (Laurie,1983:25). For this reason, criminal law enforcement agencies are often forced if not required to intervene and