The boundaries of politics have been long debated with traditional views being that of politics confined in institutions, but a more modern view is that politics is involved in every aspect of life. In this essay, I will interpret ‘everywhere’ and ‘everything’ as concerning the private and the public sphere of society, taking the view point that politics is not everywhere and everything is not politics. When mentioning institutions, I will focus on formal/state institutions and will refer to “power” as having a level of influence over the behaviour of individuals. Further, I will centre my writings around the definition of “politics” as activities associated with governance, decision-making, and distribution of power or resources. Ultimately, I will argue that politics is limited to the state and its sub-bodies (i.e. the “public sphere”), due to them having ultimate power to make decisions that affect an entire population. To begin with, I will outline that the state has a certain structure and holds an immense amount of power which makes politics inevitable, moving on to then explain the role of sub-bodies within the state as well as analyse the power of the public sphere. I will end with arguing that the private sphere sees individual subjective preferences and relationships having a stronger influence over agents’ behaviour, rather than state power itself, meaning that politics cannot be present.

Politics is arguably confined to the state and state institutions, due to it having a rigid structure and the power to make decisions that affect large groups. This is exemplified by the ancient Greek definition of politics as an ‘authoritative allocation of values for a total population’. The Greeks also claim the political sphere is restricted to ‘state actors who are motivated through ideological beliefs’ (Heywood, 2013). The use of the word ‘polis’, meaning the city state, extends this definition and correlates to the belief that politics is what solely concerns the polis. I agree with this viewpoint as institutions involve power and authority with the state being able to dictate how individuals should behave. As a result, politics is rife within formal institutions as they solve issues using the practice of politics. Politics is however mostly confined to these parameters due to the law or rule making decisions only taking place within these organizations on representative basis. Peters further raises the structuralist approach which explains how institutional bodies (e.g. Parliament) are rigid in their structure and follow strict procedures as set out above. (B Guy Peters, 2005) This means that order is constantly maintained by retaining organization in these formal institutions. Yet less formal institutions like schools, make decisions and exert their power using different structures. That said, the structure of formal state institutions is where politics truly takes place and is confined here, resulting in politics not being everywhere and in everything.  

However, the realm of politics can be seen to expand beyond institutions but also keep within the public sphere. Sub-bodies and the individuals involved within them, both help forming the required political structures and help the state make decisions. Leftwich claims that politics is the ‘relations of states and their citizens or subjects, in making and implementing public policy’ (Leftwich, 2015). Sub-bodies such as the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency or the Met Office have the exact role of ensuring citizens are looked after whilst enforcing and ‘implementing public policy’. In addition, March and Olsen point out that these sub-bodies consist of specialist individuals who have a defined binding decision making autonomy over citizens. (March and Olsen, 1989) This power emanates from the state, leaving them with the ability to make decisions that may affect the entire population. This therefore demonstrates the integral role of these sub-bodies to (i) the functioning of the government and (i) the enforcement of the laws. The sub-bodies can hold a similar level of power to the members of Parliament as their activities impact the behaviour of individuals. DVLA’s decision to create a theory test as a condition to getting a driver’s licence serves as an example of enforcing the law-making driving without a licence illegal.  Sub-bodies are therefore heavily involved in politics executing the powers granted to them by the Parliament. Whilst certain non-state bodies such as unions can arguably have a similar, if not identical structure to state sub-bodies; Baltz, Kosanke and Pickel (Baltz, 2022) dispute this argument. They claim that these non-state institutions are ultimately restricted by the state. This is because state-imposed laws define and limit non-state institution’s function and decision-making processes. For example, non-state-owned enterprises can only create their own rules within the strictly defined autonomy and the rules they create do not apply universally. Politics is therefore confined to the public sphere which consist of the state and sub-bodies which both have the power to make decisions that affect the entire population of a country, and they follow a rigid structure to ensure laws are created and implemented effectively.

Yet, looking at the private realm, not all decisions are state controlled but result from relationships and preferences. The state power is less central to the daily decision making within the private sphere as it lacks the direct ability to control small individual decisions (e.g. dinner choices). Macintyre provides the view that institutions shape many areas of human activity, such as the economy, through its ‘dispersion of power’ (Heywood, 2013). Yet a boundary must be drawn, as whilst politics catalyses and influences human activity, this does not mean that every such activity involves politics. For example, institutions set rules with general application using their power to shape the collective. Despite political institutions also being able to shape collective preferences, certain preferences such as what food one likes to eat, is not shaped by these institutions. Furthermore, the state cannot supress certain emotions and feelings people have towards circumstances, therefore this is what can often shape decisions individuals make such as what time to go to bed, rather than the state. This is due to humans having unique thoughts and feelings which exist independently of state influence, highlighting the boundary of politics as activity confined within the state and its sub-bodies. Garner takes this argument further by touching on how relationships are a key factor in driving the private decisions and how power is distributed (Garner, Ferdinand and Lawson, 2020). Relationships can form a basis of how power is used in the private sphere with traditional stereotypes e.g. the parents having power over children, coming into play. People can influence one another’s day-to-day actions due to their relationship with one another and trust. This contrasts with the state where certain citizens may not trust the state and therefore may not obey the state but may obey those that they know personally. Therefore, politics is limited in the private sphere as certain day to day decisions that individuals make are largely influenced by people they know personally rather than the state. However, when looking at the public sphere the state has a generic influence over the masses, despite having with no personal relations. As such their power is far greater than individuals so they can govern and distribute recourses effectively, without relationships and emotions coming to play. Thus, politics is not everywhere and in everything as in the private sphere, relationships and emotions take precedence in decision making, with the state having a limited role in controlling small day to day decisions, meaning politics is not present in the private sphere but is present within the public sphere.

Overall, politics is not in everywhere and in everything as it is only confined to the public sphere of the state and its sub-bodies, due to them having the power to make binding over entire populations. The state does not however have an as strong influence over all aspects of individuals’ lives due to personal preferences and relationships having a stronger influence over their behaviour, without politics being the driver. Despite my argument, I have not touched on different political systems such as totalitarian states where state control is exercised so that it filters deep into personal life such as in Stalin’s red terror where even personal thoughts and views expressed that were not in line with the regime, were at risk of being punished, weakening my argument. Nevertheless, even in such oppressive regimes the state rarely succeeds in completely eradicating the free will of individuals. Finally, in this essay, I have not considered the study of political science which may mean that politics is present, thus this topic requires further research in relation to the boundaries of politics. Yet the heart of politics remains within the state and its sub bodies, with the private sphere seeing little politics present, meaning that politics is not everywhere and everything is not politics.

Bibliography

-       Garner, R., Ferdinand, P. and Lawson, S. (2020). Introduction To Politics. S.L.: Oxford Univ Press.[online]

-       Heywood, A. (2013). Politics. 4th ed. Basingstoke ; New York, N.Y.: Palgrave Macmillan. [online]

-       B Guy Peters (2005). Institutional theory in political science : the ‘new institutionalism’. London ; New York: Continuum. [online]

-       March, J.G. and Olsen, J.P. (1989). Rediscovering Institutions. Riverside: Free Press. [online]

-       Baltz, E. (2022). Parties, Institutions and Preferences. Springer Nature. [online]

-       Leftwich, A. (2015). What Is politics? : The Activity and Its Study. Polity Press. [online]