Human relationships continue developing and improving regularly, affecting the creation of new political and economic norms and regulations. According to van Krieken (2019), some issues of dualism are always present in the world: individual vs. society or agency vs. structure. At the same time, technological and structural shifts promote the rise of states that is usually characterized by a number of factors. Therefore, the creation of specific theories and models is recommended to find meaningful explanations of interpersonal and state relationships. For example, Norbert Elias introduced the theory to identify the connection between power, human behaviors, emotions, and knowledge (van Krieken, 2019). His idea of monopoly mechanisms means the creation of social units on the basis of economic changes and the inequality in the population in accessing and using certain resources. In religion and social areas, Elias’ mechanisms of monopoly can be successfully applied to explain the essence of inevitable competitive situations and the establishment of public order.
Today’s evolution is a result of multiple attempts to organize society and achieve a monopoly, using various forces and restrictions. In his works, Elias discussed the nature of power relations in different social units like communities, towns, and states (van Krieken, 2019). The purpose of leaders is to maintain monopolization even if violence remains the only means of control. Thus, his idea of monopoly mechanisms is based on the possibility of states competing within the same, equal social power to obtain scarce resources. The theorist compared this approach to clockwork with the natural direction where competition is a leading concept (van Krieken, 2019). There is a certain number of competitors who use their knowledge, experience, and connections to achieve victory in order to control more opportunities. However, in such a state of affairs, there always be those who lose the battle and become dependent on other units. Domination of winners promotes additional chances to find new resources, stabilize their power, and continue struggling with others. In this way, it is impossible to see the end of the competition, which motivates and moves the progress.
Taking into consideration the simplicity and predictability of the mechanism monopoly idea, the representatives of religion and social sectors could rely on Elias’ idea in their relationships. For example, one particular religion, Christianity, has already established its superiority across the globe. Christians rely on some protective power they can get from the state to prevent the entry of new religions on the same grounds. Although there is a chance of free competition, the number of supporters and resources available to Christians at the moment prevail. Comparing the situations in the social area, the application of the monopoly mechanisms explains the success of particular organizations. For example, the monopolization of Google is not evident, but its worldwide recognition and impact remain significant. The company has already used multiple resources and opportunities to introduce its services from various perspectives as a search engine, mailing agent, maps, etc. Unlike its competitors, such as Microsoft or Yahoo, Google has already established itself as a monopolistic trend in society.
In conclusion, the discussion of Elias’ idea of monopoly mechanisms proves that inequality in human relationships is a continuous process that cannot be stopped or neglected. People need to search for additional sources and opportunities to prove their power and maintain control. In religion and society, this theoretical framework is commonly applied to show how one organization, community, or idea gains popularity and defeats competitors at a certain point. Christianity and Google are just two examples of how monopolizations might spread. The mechanism of monopoly is not hard to understand, but its progress mostly depends on available resources and participants’ ambitions.
Reference
van Krieken, R. (2019). Norbert Elias and organizational analysis: Towards process-figurational theory. In S. Clegg & M. Pina e Cunha (Eds.), Management, organizations and contemporary social theory (pp. 158-184). Routledge.