What Is Power

11 Key excerpts on "What Is Power"

• 

  eBook - PDF

  Theorizing Power

  • Jonathan S. Hearn(Author)
  • 2017(Publication Date)
  • Red Globe Press

    (Publisher)

  The chapter concludes by suggesting that the modern era, with its values of individualism and autonomy amid mush-rooming systemic social power, evinces deep ambivalences about power, and that these in turn have shaped the ways we theorize about power. 3 Chapter 1 Introducing Key Issues Introduction The philosopher Bertrand Russell once declared that ‘the fundamental con-cept in social science is Power, in the same sense in which Energy is the funda-mental concept in physics’ (2004: 4). I agree with Russell on this basic point: power is not just one of the things that social scientists study, but the central thing. This book aims to convince the reader of that. This might appear to be a bold claim. We assume that fields such as politics or international relations are centrally concerned with power – but all social sciences? The argument is simple. The social sciences, understood broadly as having strong affinities with much of the humanities, seek to understand causation in human affairs. Almost all definitions of power fundamentally link it to the ability to have an effect on the world, to make a difference, to cause things to happen. (Rus-sell called it simply ‘the production of intended effects’ (2004: 23).) If we are interested in why society develops in the way it does, if we want to have an effect on the direction of social change, then we are interested in the nature and scope of human power. This does not deny that some or even much of what happens occurs for causal reasons that are beyond human control. But our long history has been one of bringing more of the world, including each other, under our control – enhancing our causal capacities. Of course, ‘the harder they come, the harder they fall’. The more we have control of, the more we have to lose control of, and the more we become aware of the limits of our powers.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Power in the Classroom

  Communication, Control, and Concern

  • Virginia P. Richmond, James C. McCroskey, Virginia P. Richmond, James C. McCroskey(Authors)
  • 2012(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  CHAPTER 1

  Power and Control:Social Science Perspectives

  Robert A. Barraclough

  University of New Mexico

  Robert A. Stewart

  Texas Tech University

  The meaning and implication of power has been both a fascinating and mysterious topic of discussion for thousands of years. Mysterious, very largely because people have never truly understood what power is, where it comes from, and how it works.

  -Lawless, 1972, p. 230

  T he subject of power, of interest to people for millenia, has been on the social science agenda for at least the last 100 years. George Simmel, the father of American sociology, suggested in the late 1800s that the exercise of power among people was a central issue deserving of study and understanding (Simmel, 1896). Russell (1938) wrote of power as the fundamental concept in social science, “in the same sense in which Energy is the fundamental concept in physics” (p. 10). Lewin felt that “Not the least service which social research can do for society is to attain better insight into the legitimate and non-legitimate aspects of power” (Marrow, 1969, p. 172). Mannheim (1950) argued that “Power is present whenever and wherever social pressures operate on the individual to induce desired conduct” (p. 46). Kornhauser (1957) wrote of “one most important—and in my judgment greatly under-emphasized —aspect of the relations of social science to society, namely, questions of social science in the context of the power structure” (p. 187). Writers from sociology, psychology, communication, management, politics, organizational behavior, and other disciplines have continued to stress the centrality of power to any explanation of the human experience.

  For all that effort, the first, and perhaps most obvious, conclusion one draws from an attempt to review the subject is that there is a consistent lack of agreement about the nature and parameters of social power and influence. According to Pfeffer (1982), “Power is one of the more controversial of the social science concepts” (p. 64). Perrow (1970) concluded that the subject was clearly “the messiest problem of all” (p. ix).

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Power In Modern Societies

  • Marvin E. Olsen, Martin N Marger, Valencia Fonseca(Authors)
  • 2019(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  Power in Social Organization

  “Every social act is an exercise of power, every social relationship is a power equation, and every social group or system is an organization of power” (Hawley, 1963:422). When Amos Hawley wrote that statement in 1963, very few sociologists were giving serious attention to social power. During the succeeding thirty years, however, increasing numbers of writers have argued that power exertion is the central dynamic within the process of social organization (cf., Giddens, 1984; Lukes, 1977; Mann, 1986; Wrong, 1979). Michael Mann (1986:1), for instance, began his recent work on the history of social power by asserting that “societies are constituted of multiple overlapping and intersecting sociological networks of power”

  Nature of Social Power

  There is no commonly accepted definition of social power, but the essential idea is that power is the ability to affect the actions or ideas of others, despite resis -tance. It is thus a dynamic process, not a static possession, that pervades all areas of social life. Unfortunately, the English language does not contain the verb “to power,” so when we discuss power in dynamic terms we must either attach a verb to it (such as exercising or exerting power) or use such verbs as “influence” or “control.” Some writers use one or both of those terms as synonyms for social power; others give each of them a distinct meaning. Most commonly, however, they are used to designate the two endpoints of a continuum of power determinateness.

  At one end, influence is power exertion in which the outcome is highly problematic or indeterminate. When one actor influences another, the recipient retains the ability to exercise power and hence can determine how he or she will respond to that influence, so that the eventual outcome is rather uncertain for the influencer. At the other end of the continuum, the outcome of control

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Social Work and Power

  • Roger Smith, Jo Campling(Authors)
  • 2018(Publication Date)
  • Red Globe Press

    (Publisher)

  Power is ‘the multiplicity of force relations immanent in the sphere in which they operate and which constitute their own organisation’ (Foucault, 1981, p. 92). The insight offered here seems to be that power is inherent in all social interactions, that it is complex, and that it therefore has a kind of self-reinforcing character, whereby its exercise tends to confirm its legitimacy. Thus, for example, certain kinds of abusive and exploita-tive behaviour may come to be ‘normalized’ if they are not con-fronted. The problem with Foucault’s analysis, though, is that it is essentially circular, and does not allow for a full understanding of the historical sources of power or the development of a capacity to chal-lenge or change its relationships. 22 Ideas of Power In concluding this discussion of the search for a definition of power, it is worth reminding ourselves that There is no consensus among theorists regarding the nature of power, the way it operates in the social and political world, [or] the manner in which it relates to associated concepts (such as authority, domination, resistance and empowerment). (MacKenzie, 1999, p. 69) Despite this, it is possible to offer a conceptualization of power which may be helpful in the present context. It can be described as the capacity, held individually or collectively, to influence either groups or individuals (including oneself) in a given social context. This encom-passes both the individual and social dimensions of power, although it clearly makes no attempt to give an account of its dynamics, or any inequalities in its distribution. For the present, it may be sufficient to rely on this working defini-tion, but it is clear that it must be developed and contextualized in order to provide any kind of detailed understanding applicable in the practice setting.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Power and its Logic

  Mastering Politics

  • Dominik Meier, Christian Blum, Kathrine M. Thomas, Michael A. Dudley, Kathrine M. Thomas, Michael A. Dudley(Authors)
  • 2019(Publication Date)
  • transcript Verlag

    (Publisher)

  Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology, translated by Guenther Roth and Claus Wittich. Berkeley: University of California Press.; p. 53. 2 For example, the cultural scientist Lisa Zunshine draws the radical conclusion that power is absolutely indefinable, cf. Zunshine, Lisa (2008): Strange Concepts and the Stories They Make Possible , Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press.; p. 50. 18 | Power and its Logic presented various, often contradictory, definitions and descriptions. The field can best be briefly outlined by means of two controversies, which at the same time provide orientation for our own definitional approach 3 . The first issue concerns the question of whether power is to be primarily understood as the capacity for goal-directed action, that is, as power to . Or is it instead to be regarded as the ability to control other persons, that is, as power over ? The second issue is whether power is a resource that can be possessed by individual and collective actors, or whether it constitutes a social structure that directs or even completely determines the behavior of actors. Crucial for us is that both controversies are independent in terms of content. Resolving one of the disputes does not allow conclusions to be drawn as to the other. In order to approach a working definition, we outline both controversies below and discuss our positions in this context. The notion of power as power to was anchored early in history. Already in Metaphysics , Aristotle develops his core concept of dynamis , which can be trans-lated as a possibility, ability or agency, depending on the context. 4 Aristotle un-derstands dynamis quite fundamentally as the ability of an organism – be it a hu-man or an animal – to change itself or other things purposefully. Dynamic living beings are therefore those who have the potential to actively, and to a certain ex-tent deliberately, influence their environment.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Culture Meets Power

  • Stanley R. Barrett(Author)
  • 2002(Publication Date)
  • Praeger

    (Publisher)

  Thus, F.G. Bailey (1980), a field worker who has devoted much of his academic life to the study of politics at the micro, informal level, 20 Conceptualizing Power favors persuasion. From C. Wright Mills' perspective (1967:23), aimed at the macro level of society and state, coercion does the trick, augmented by manip- ulation and authority. My own inclination is to treat power as the master con- cept, with the other basic terms subsumed under it. This makes sense, I suggest, in relation to power's current high profile. It is hard to imagine a situation in which authority, influence, or any of the other terms could have challenged cul- ture as our key concept. Only power appears to have the magnetism to shift the polar direction of the discipline. Multiple, ambiguous, and even contradictory definitions of concepts are the norm in the social sciences, as any one who has looked into community or class (and of course culture) will know only too well. Power is no exception. For Hobbes (1971:2) power is ''man's present means to any future apparent good," and for Russell (1938:35) "the production of intended effects." Harris (1971:415) defines it as follows: "Power is control over man and nature." Nicholas (1976:52) states: "Tower' is control over resources, whether human or material," while for Bailey (1980:3) "power is the capacity to make people do things, whether or not they wish it." Of course, implicit definitions can be extracted from slogans such as power comes out of the barrel of a gun and the pen is mightier than the sword, and from expressions such as puppy power and pussy power. Contributing to the variety of definitions are several competing assumptions about the nature of power: 1. Power as a personality attribute. 2. Power as a substance, a thing, a force, something that can be grasped or harnessed, or allowed to slip away. 3. Power as a social relationship. 4. Structural power. Most anthropologists today reject the first two assumptions.

  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 - ePub

  Social Power in International Politics

  • Peter van Ham(Author)
  • 2010(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  17 This introductory chapter defines social power, relating it to other relevant notions of power and legitimacy. Although this opening chapter will set the theoretical stage, subsequent chapters will further clarify the notion of social power, explain its relevance and limits, and make clear why it is a key concept to understanding contemporary international politics.

  There are many different ways to get one’s arms around the concept of social power. To start with, the “social” in social power derives from the understanding that power is fluid and non-linear, and that it moves through relationships and communication. For example, merely looking at resources and objective capabilities is hardly useful without examining how they are used and perceived by other relevant actors. Realists generally examine power in terms of coercion, as something that is possessed and accumulated, measurable, visible, and working on the surface. The study of social power, however, takes a markedly different approach, looking for power beneath the surface, as permeating all social relationships, institutions, discourses, and media.18 The notion of social power aims to offer a necessary alternative conceptualization of power since it acknowledges that the exercise of power always takes place in a specific social situation and is therefore inherently contextual. Just as a gun secretly hidden in a closet without anyone knowing about it does not result in a credible threat of force, social power is contingent upon interaction, communication, relationships, and institutions. Or, as Yale H. Ferguson has argued: “[p]ower is not like money in the bank, [but] rather a relative matter. The effective exercise of potential power is dependent on the actors being targeted, the issue involved, and prevailing circumstances.”19

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - ePub

  Inequality and Power

  The Economics of Class

  • Eric A. Schutz(Author)
  • 2011(Publication Date)
  • Routledge

    (Publisher)

  having effect upon the constraints and opportunities to which others must react and make the best. Power consists essentially in having such an impact upon the things that condition others’ choices. Any theory that treats individuals as choosing yet having no impact on others’ choices is one in which humans are totally non-social creatures, mere reactive digits, not active agents. Social power is not only a critical element of the processes of social decision-making but also a profoundly important aspect of the lives of actual human individuals in the real world.

  Although neglected in economics, the concept of power is elsewhere nearly universally acknowledged as an essential tool for comprehending all aspects of society. As it pervades all social life, most people probably understand it intuitively more or less well – or at least well enough to know the most basic principle of the economics of power: that power usually brings material benefit, that those who have it profit from it while those who are subject to it, or who don’t have it, are materially the worse off. How then could social power be considered irrelevant or only secondarily relevant for understanding the distribution of income and wealth? Social power belongs squarely in any theory of economic inequality, and this and the following chapters will focus in detail upon how that is so.1

  To see in a very preliminary way just how fundamental a thing social power is in the context of economic inequality, consider again the particular example of racial income and wealth disparity. Most people who have gotten past naive choice-theory thinking about racial economic disparity attribute it primarily to discrimination, and certainly empirical study of the subject strongly validates that theory. Yet at the level of first principles, accepting the reality of discrimination, a most critical question still remains: presumably in any inter-group case of discrimination, each group is equally capable of “discriminating against” the other group in a great variety of ways – and as well, when one group is discriminated against by the other, they usually reciprocate in whatever ways they find available. But if that is so in the case of racial discrimination in the U.S., for example, why is the effective outcome of discrimination one directional

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  Power and Technology

  A Philosophical and Ethical Analysis

  • Faridun Sattarov(Author)
  • 2019(Publication Date)
  • Rowman & Littlefield Publishers

    (Publisher)

  When viewed from the dispositional perspective, power is regarded as a capacity, ability, or potential of a person or entity to bring about relevant social and political outcomes. When viewed from the systemic perspective, power is understood to be a property of various social, economic, ideologi-cal, or political institutions and networks that structurally create possibilities for individual action. Finally, when viewed from the constitutive perspective, power is seen as constituting, or producing, social actors themselves. The Chapter 1 18 first two conceptions (i.e., episodic and dispositional) can be described as ‘action-centric’ views of power, insofar as they concern actual or potential actions of social actors. The latter two (i.e., systemic and constitutive) can be described as ‘structure-centric’ views of power, insofar as they regard power as inhering in the social and material context and structures that makes indi-vidual action possible. The discussion below elaborates on these four views. 1.2.1. Episodic View of Power The classic definition of the episodic view of power was offered by Max Weber, who defined power as “the probability that one actor within a social relationship will be in a position to carry out his own will despite resistance” (1947, 152). Weber’s classic definition proved to be very influential. In a similar vein, Robert Dahl put forward what he called an “intuitive idea of power”, according to which “A has power over B to the extent that he can get B to do something that B would not otherwise do” (Dahl 1957, 202–203). Dahl’s account of power triggered a debate in the late 1960s and the early 1970s, which came to be known as the “three-dimensional power” debate (e.g., Lukes 1974). In this debate, Dahl’s account was challenged first by Peter Bachrach and Morton Baratz (1962, 1970), and subsequently by Steven Lukes (1974).

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book
• 

  eBook - PDF

  The Essence of Politics

  • Cees van der Eijk(Author)
  • 2018(Publication Date)
  • Amsterdam University Press

    (Publisher)

  90 THE ESSENCE OF POLITICS Power is the capacity of actors (persons, groups or institutions) to fix or to change (completely or partly) a set of action or choice alternatives for other actors . (1976: 46) Although this defin ition is rather abstract, it is quite clear, given the analyti-cal considerations discussed above that need to be taken into account when conceptualising power. A few comments may help to grasp the content and scope of this defin ition. To start with, power is not def ined in terms of behaviour, but in terms of the capacity to do something. Whether that capacity is actually used is not the point. This capacity pertains to what others (who are subject to power) can do, the options that are open to them, for choice, or for behaviour. Moreover, power exists in the capacity to either ‘fix or change’ these available options; in other words, it is about the ‘menu’ of options that are available to those subject to power. The implication is thus that power can be applied to maintain the range of options for behaviour or choice that exist, or to reduce it, or to increase it. This defin ition is much less restrictive than Dahl’s or Weber’s, both of whom def ine power in terms of a single option for behaviour that is left open for those who are subject to power. Moreover, it does not restrict the scope of power to restrictions of the options that are open to others, but extends it to expanding that range. Thus it does not imply that power leads to the absence of any choice for those subject to it (as Dahl and Weber do), but in fact the contrary. Nor does Mokken and Stokman’s defin ition imply that the consequences of power would be against the goals or interests of those af fected by it. Power can therefore have all kinds of consequences, positive as well as negative ones. Mokken and Stokman’s defin ition of power, cited above, is def ined in terms of political actors.

  Sign up to read

  Learn more about book