Social Power Structures

11 Key excerpts on "Social Power Structures"

• 

  eBook - ePub

  Biopolitics and Gender

  • Meredith W Watts Jr(Author)
  • 2012(Publication Date)
  • Taylor & Francis

    (Publisher)

  Power Structures and Perceptions of Power Holders in Same-sex Groups of Young Children

  Diane Carlson Jones

  ABSTRACT. The nature of power relations and the perceptions of power holders are explored by analyzing dominance and leadership structures in one male group and one female group of elementary school-age children. The results indicate that power structures can be specified for male and female groups. In both instances, power is most clearly indicated by dominance and play organization ranks. These hierarchic structures are, however, perceived differently by boys and girls. Powerful boys are linked by group members, but powerful girls are not well received. The implications for sex differences in power styles in adulthood are explored.

  Power is a central concept in the study of political behavior. While most studies on power have tended to focus on adults, the literature on political socialization suggests that early experiences have enduring consequences.1 In this article, some results are presented from a study that examined sex differences in power structures and perceptions of power holders in the nonpolitical context of a play group composed of same-sex peers. This analysis will allow examination of sex differences that have relevance for later political behaviors.

  POWER

  While conclusive definitions of power have seemingly eluded scholars,2 there are some elements of consensus central to the analysis of power structures in human groups. “Power is first of all a relationship (in which) . . . power holders . . . have the capacity to secure changes in the behavior of a respondent . . .”3 When power is viewed as a relationship, the focus is not on the individual's behavior but on the social exchange between two individuals, and more specifically, on who is controlling the interaction sequence. Power relations are presumed to be “asymmetrical in that the power holder exercises greater control over the behavior of the power subject than the reverse . . .”4

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Power in Close Relationships

  • Christopher R. Agnew, Jennifer J. Harman(Authors)
  • 2019(Publication Date)
  • Cambridge University Press

    (Publisher)

  Despite the considerable attention that social psychologists have given to power, this term is not used very often in evolutionary psychology. Rather, evolutionary psychologists are more likely to employ the term status which has clear similarities to power (see Cheng et al., 2013, for an extended discussion). Evolutionary psychologists tend to define status as the extent to which an indi- vidual can influence the behavior of others, receives social attention, has con- trol over valuable resources, and receives (relatively) unchallenged deference from others (e.g., Cheng, Tracy, & Henrich, 2010; Henrich & Gil-White, 2001; von Rueden, Gurven, & Kaplan, 2008). One reason that evolutionary psy- chologists prefer the term status (or social rank) over power is that it may apply to a wider array of hierarchical structures. For example, it has been argued that inequalities in power are almost exclusively found in groups that have insti- tutionalized hierarchies with clearly appointed leaders or formalized ranks (Cheng et al., 2010, 2013). For example, a group of friends who are making social plans together will often have relatively equal levels of power. Although there are clear similarities between the ideas of power and status, we will focus our review on status because that construct has been considered more often in the evolutionary psychology literature. Our goal will be to provide a review of status from an evolutionary perspective and consider the implications that status may have for various social relationships. The Importance of Status Hierarchical structures are a nearly universal feature of social groups (e.g., Brown, 1991; Magee & Galinsky, 2008; Mazur, 1985; Murdock, 1949; see Hawley & Bower, 2018, for a review). These hierarchical structures influence how groups handle conflict, allocate resources, and coordinate group tasks (e.g., Berger, Cohen, & Zelditch, 1972; de Kwaadsteniet & van Dijk, 2010; Ronay, Greenaway, Anicich, & Galinsky, 2012).

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  How Power Corrupts

  Cognition and Democracy in Organisations

  • R. Blaug(Author)
  • 2010(Publication Date)
  • Palgrave Macmillan

    (Publisher)

  While it can be argued that individuals are more than sufficiently difficult to comprehend – even in atomised isolation – it is in groups that we live and make meaning, and in groups that we take decisions. More avowedly social psychologies that adopt a greater methodological holism are better able to identify – and thus seek to explain – a greater variety of the decidedly strange occurrences that characterise our social Psychologies of Power 37 interactions, collectives and institutions. Groups, therefore, are more than merely an aggregation of individuals. 28 Groups of individuals We have seen that institutionalised asymmetrical power can deliver organisational effectiveness and meet individual psychological needs. But it may also perform more social functions. Indeed, any account of hierarchy would be incomplete if it failed to consider the growing body of knowledge which addresses the social and psychological needs of groups themselves. 29 The claim to which we now turn is that there is something about us when we get together that brings hier- archic relations of power into being, maintains them and then continues to affect how individuals think. 30 Holistic approaches in social psychology and group dynamics see social structure as partly an expression of individual psychological need and partly one of collective need. Hierarchy here assists both individuals and groups as they struggle to manage complex emo- tional, and indeed psychoanalytic, concerns. Wilfred Bion, for exam- ple, describes groups as helping to mediate between individual drives and external reality. 31 Yet where groups are distorted by collective psy- chological dynamics – here in the form of ‘basic assumptions’ – the collective entity becomes dysfunctional. Basic assumptions are, for Bion, recurrent and disruptive processes that occur in groups.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Foundations of Social Cognition

  A Festschrift in Honor of Robert S. Wyer, Jr.

  • Galen V. Bodenhausen, Alan J. Lambert, Galen V. Bodenhausen, Alan J. Lambert(Authors)
  • 2004(Publication Date)
  • Psychology Press

    (Publisher)

  In contrast, our approach distinguishes among the structural determinants of power (e.g., social hierarchy, organizational roles, resource control), the subjective experience of power (e.g., feelings of control, responsibility, superiority), and the formal exercise of power (e.g., the performance of control acts). In our review, we draw on previous traditions by defining the ability to provide rewards and punishments as a critical antecedent to the sense of power. We expand on prior work by emphasizing the sense of power and its psychological effects, which mediate the link between one’s ability to control outcomes and the effects of that ability on one’s social behavior. This definition applies to individuals and to groups, and distinguishes among the objective and the subjective aspects of power. Whereas power is often treated as a categorical variable that is dispositional and generalizable across situations, we assume that the determinants, experience and exercise of power vary within people and across situations.

  OVERVIEW OF THE THEORY

  Our theory specifies how the psychological reactions of powerholders to the experience of power affect their subsequent social behaviors. Figure 11.1 displays the proposed sequence of events. The sequence begins at the top of the figure with “origins of power” (A), and ends at the bottom with “social behavior” (D).

  Power Differences are a Consequence of Social Organization (A→B)

  In social systems, resources and work are distributed across individuals, which creates dependence relations and opportunities for interpersonal control (Emerson, 1962). An individual or group that controls access to de-sired resources holds power over those who desire access. Control over de-sired resources creates opportunities to reward and punish others. Thus those with power can control others’ actions as well as their outcomes. We assume that for power to be experienced, it must be recognized in the context of a particular episode. This experience can be derived from the possession of status, expertise, and charisma, as well as from formal authority (French & Raven, 1959). However, the decision to exercise power depends on the perceived presence or absence of social and physical constraints. Consistent with this argument, the ability to control others does not always lead to the experience or exercise of power (Wrong, 1979).

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  The Emerald Review of Industrial and Organizational Psychology

  • Robert L. Dipboye(Author)
  • 2018(Publication Date)
  • Emerald Publishing Limited

    (Publisher)

  Chapter 7 Social Structures in Organizations Introduction Imagine an organization in which an employee has no idea of what coworkers are likely to do, think, or feel from moment to moment and coworkers are equally clueless about what to expect of the employee. The likely outcome is that everyday existence quickly becomes intolerable as the employee and coworkers struggle through the simplest interactions. Social structure provides the predictability and order that people need before they can effectively work together as a group or organization. The previous chapter dealt with a variety of social processes including communication, conflict, competition, and cooperation, exchange, power and influence, political behavior, organizational citizenship behavior, and counter-productive behavior. This chapter covers the social structures that emerge from these processes in the form of recurring, stable interactions among people in an organization. A Model of Imposed and Emergent Social Structure Fig. 7.1 provides a general framework for the discussion of emergent social structures in this chapter. The contextual, personal, and interpersonal antecedents influence social processes and over time social structures emerge from these interactions. The link between social structure and process is reciprocal in that social structure emerges from social process, and in turn, structure constrains social processes. Social structures are relatively stable but are dynamic and can change because of outcomes. A norm can pressure employees to achieve a high level of productivity, but if management then decides to up the ante and require even higher performance, this could modify social processes and ultimately lower the productivity norm that employees believe is fair

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Who Rules America?

  The Corporate Rich, White Nationalist Republicans, and Inclusionary Democrats in the 2020s

  • G William Domhoff(Author)
  • 2021(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  Chapter 1 Concepts, Definitions, and Power Indicators DOI: 10.4324/9781003231400-2 This chapter provides general definitions and empirical findings relating to concepts concerning power. It presents an overview of the four main organizational networks that are the basis for the power arrangements that exist in all societies and explains how they interact in the United States. The paradoxical social psychology of power is introduced. The concept of “class” is also introduced, and its two dimensions, economic and social, are discussed. Traditional American perceptions of power, class, and color are discussed on the basis of sociological and historical studies. “Cultures of resistance,” which develop when people are subjugated, along with “cultures of resentment,” which emerge in powerful groups when they are challenged, are explained. The conspiratorial theories that often emerge in cultures of resentment are examined. Finally, the ways in which the distribution of power can be studied in detail, through the use of “power indicators,” are introduced. In a word, this chapter prepares the way for clear sailing in later chapters when the concepts and findings in it are applied to the United States of the 2020s. Power Is a Relationship: The Social Science View of Power Power is first of all a relationship, whether between individuals or between groups of individuals. Power at the group level, which is the focus of this book, has two intertwined dimensions. Collective power, which is the capacity of a group, class, or nation to be effective and productive, depends upon the degree to which the individuals within that group, class, or nation have been able to develop positive social relationships and respect for each other, which lead to the necessary social morale and cooperation to develop organizations. Organizations are sets of rules and roles that human beings develop in order to accomplish a particular purpose in an easily repeated and routine way

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Social Structure and Emotion

  • Jody Clay-Warner, Dawn T. Robinson(Authors)
  • 2011(Publication Date)
  • Academic Press

    (Publisher)

  We agree that the bases of social inequality are socially or institutionally defined at the macrostructural/cultural level (e.g., gender, race, class), but also recognize that power and status are “translated” into local encounters or situations (Collins 1981; Kemper and Collins 1990; Lawler, Ridgeway, and Markovsky 1993; Ridgeway 1991; Ridgeway and Erikson 2000; Thye 2000). In this sense, mac-rodimensions of inequality play out and become “real” to individuals as they 1 Here we focus explicitly on exchange theories of power and expectation state theories of status. Alternatively, the dimensions of male/female and white/African-American could be viewed as impor-tant identities that people hold. For example, one could draw insights from sociological theories of identity such as affect control theory (Smith Lovin and Heise 1988) or identity control theory (Burke and Stets 1999). We briefly consider how these theories might apply in the discussion section. Social Structure and Emotion 40 interact with others to achieve individual or collective goals in local situations. Structural social psychology is a broad theoretical frame for understanding this role of microprocesses and structures in creating, sustaining, or changing stable orders (Lawler, Ridgeway, and Markovsky 1993). Much of the social psychological work that falls within the rubric of structural social psychology can be construed as dealing with local contexts to which larger (external) inequalities are imported, and then acted upon. These local, immediate situations involve encounters between purposive and responsive individuals who are oriented to individual or collective goals (Lawler, Ridgeway and Markovsky 1993). Encounters are essentially arenas of social interaction that create, affirm, reproduce, and sometimes alter microstructures and macrostructures.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Management and the Dominance of Managers

  • Thomas Diefenbach(Author)
  • 2009(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  For example, Rosen (1984, p. 305) explained that the very concepts of ‘manager’ and ‘management’ are ‘social artifacts reflecting the social relations, or power order, in our society, based on hierarchical segmentation and value appropriation.’ Managers particularly are identified as powerful actors who use a range of power in order to pursue their own and powerful stakeholders’ interests. From a critical perspective, this is about the identification, critique and change of (dominant) ideologies, managerial power and oppressive social structures. Power has to be identified, unmasked and overcome. According to Max Weber’s famous definition, power means ‘any ability to impose one’s own will in a social relationship, even against opposition, regardless of what this ability is based on’ (Weber 1921/1980, p. 28, own translation). The ‘ability to impose one’s own will’ is largely interpreted as the ability to control the actions and non-actions of others (e.g. Mechanic 1962, p. 351). In this sense, power is regarded as relative and relational. The so-called standard theory of power (Turner 2005, p. 2) thus sees power primarily as a constituent part of social relations between people, a structural component of any social relationship (e.g. Spierenburg 2004, p. 627, Zeitlin 1974, p. 1090), hence manager-employee or, more generally speaking, superior-subordinate relationships. Although this understanding still constitutes the core of theories of power, 3 multi-dimensional concepts have been developed. In his widely referenced conceptual analysis of power, Lukes (1974, pp. 11–25) has linked three different dimensions of power: 1. one-dimensional view (behavioural, i.e. one person’s power over another person), 2. two-dimensional view (institutional, i.e. a person or group of people has managed to get their values and beliefs as the prevailing ones of a social system), and 3. three-dimensional view (hegemonic, i.e

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Handbook of Personality Psychology

  • Robert Hogan, John Johnson, Stephen Briggs(Authors)
  • 1997(Publication Date)
  • Academic Press

    (Publisher)

  In reality, of course, social causation is,far more complex. Indeed, multilevel additive, multipHcative, and interactive effects provide many of the most intriguing and theoretically suggestive findings in the personality and social structure domain. Consider Parker and Kleiner's (1964) penetrating study of the mental health of blacks in Philadelphia. They found that social mobiUty, either upward or down-ward, when combined with high levels of personal goal striving was associated with both mental illness and either ambivalent or weak racial identity. Similarly, Cohn (1978) has shown that unemployment, when combined with a strong sense of internal locus of control, can lead to severe dissatisfaction with oneself. Such mutual shaping underscores once again the fundamental tenet of social psychology: **. . . if men define situations as real, they are real in their conse-quences (Thomas & Thomas, 1928, p. 567). Culture and social structure impinge on individuals through their subjective interpretation. A major social psychological contribution to this area is its insistence that the linkages between personality and social structure must involve processes that include the individual's perceptions of the social environment. VI. ADVANTAGES OF THE PERSONALITY AND SOCUL STRUCTURE PERSPECTIVE Ryff (1987) provides a succinct discussion of five interrelated advantages of the personaUty and social structure perspective for personality and social psychology. First, neither personality nor social psychology has probed deeply into the general- 434 THOMAS F.PETnGREw ization of its theories, findings, or assumptions. Is it really part of the human condition, for example, for peoples everywhere to operate with a just-world hy-pothesis? Or is this just an assumption of Westerners? The personality and social structure perspective provides a theoretical and empirical entry into such questions. Likewise, the influence of normative culture can be approached through this tradition.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Power, Politics, and Paranoia

  Why People are Suspicious of their Leaders

  • Jan-Willem van Prooijen, Paul A. M. van Lange(Authors)
  • 2014(Publication Date)
  • Cambridge University Press

    (Publisher)

  Indeed, Chen et al. (2001) found that when primed with social power (vs. a control) individuals with a stronger communal (vs. exchange) orien- tation behaved with more social responsibility towards other individuals and showed a greater concern for social approval. Hence, interindividual differences alter the construal of power within the same social context. However, as indicated by the examples of teachers and parents above, the construal of power might be affected not only by the long-term social context (i.e., culture and interindividual differences) but also by the more immediate social context. In our own research, we aimed to provide evi- dence for this assumption by focusing on a social-structural variable – namely, group status (Scheepers, Ellemers, and Sassenberg, 2013). The standing of their own group, organization, or system – in which some individuals have high power and others have low power – should affect the construal of power and hence impact upon the willingness of those in power to take risks on behalf of their group. That is, we argued that broader concerns about the status of one’s own group affect the behav- ioral opportunities and outcome expectations of individual group mem- bers. A group with low status has nothing to lose and only something to gain. A power holder in this group may thus be willing to try even risky ways to improve the status of the group. In contrast, in a group with high status, both the low-power members and the powerful belonging to this group have a lot to lose (namely, their status) and not so much to gain. When group goal achievement is at stake, the relatively higher risk of losing when the group has high (vs. low) status should render a construal of power as responsibility more likely. Within a business simulation, par- ticipants received randomly determined feedback concerning their com- pany’s performance after a first round of decisions that indicated either high or low company status.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Role Theory

  Expectations, Identities, and Behaviors

  • Bruce J. Biddle(Author)
  • 2013(Publication Date)
  • Academic Press

    (Publisher)

  The professors want to publish, get promoted, get famous, and meanwhile stave off their creditors. . . . The wives of the professors . . . are socially ambitious and go in for cutthroat competition. The men students try to make fraternities, make athletic teams, avoid study, and then graduate somehow or other. The girls try to make sororities and find a husband. The parents of the students hope their offspring won't 'get ideas.' The dean of women hopes the girls won't conceive anything more dangerous than a con* cept before they find husbands. And the alumni hope the teams will win, and hunt promising high school athletes to send us. The Analysis of Social Systems 275 ganizations authority is based on explicit sanctioning, as in the army, whereas in business firms and universities authority is more likely to reflect loyalty and cha-risma. Some organizations rely on complex written rules for job specifications; in others jobs are defined by shared norms that are understood by all. And if writ-ten rules are used, these may either be revised, appropriate, and up-to-date, or they may be archaic and a subject for annoyance, laughter, or avoidance. Within a few organizations (such as family businesses or acrobatic teams) roles are attached to individuals, and when those persons die the organization will either go out of busi-ness or a painful period of readjustment is forced on the survivors. Within most or-ganizations, however, roles and authority are given to social positions, and formal procedures are set for recruiting persons to these positions. Some organizations will recruit anybody to their ranks; others have complex programs of selection, assignment, and training for new members. Still other variables are associated with behavioral structure in the organiza-tion. Some organizations have high morale, warm social relationships, and are a good place to work; others include ulcers or overt ethnic conflict among their functions.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book