Power, ideology and ritual: the practice of agriculture in the Inca Empire.

Scholars have long debated the nature and basis of political power in complex societies, and ideology has figured prominently in their debates as a force explaining and actively validating the social order. "An ideology tells the members of a group who they are and explains their relations to one another, to people outside the group, to the past and future, to nature, and to the cosmos" (Conrad 1992:159). In so doing, an ideology has the potential to be an active political force, "a system, or at least an amalgam, of ideas, strategies, tactics, and practical symbols for promoting, perpetuating, or changing a social and cultural order" (Friedrich 1989: 301). In state societies, the ideologies propagated by the dominant class have often been touted as the handmaidens of power, legitimating and securing the continuance of dominant interests. Ideologies are seen as the building blocks of consensus, convincing the subordinate of the "normal," "common sense" nature of their situation, and thereby reducing the need for a violent expression and confirmation of power relations. In other words, people in a state society obey their rulers either because they are made to believe a carefully crafted state ideology, or because they fear reprisal, or both. In this view, power is maintained by the interplay between violence and an ideologically driven consensus. Yet recent studies of power have emphasized its nature as a domain of possibilities rather than an instrument of control (Gramsci 1977, 1978; Foucault 1982). Power is the ability of certain agents or groups to impact and modify the actions of others. It can involve domination and resistance, but also persuasion, acceptance, and mitigated support. As such, Foucault notes that power requires neither violence nor consensus in order to take effect, although it often makes use of one or both to achieve its ends (1982: 220). If power relations can exist without consensus, then what role does ideology play in the maintenance of power? Why and in what way does ideology remain politically relevant?