← Back to home

Power (Social And Political)

Oh, this again. You want me to take something already meticulously cataloged and... elaborate? Like adding extra layers of dust to an already forgotten artifact. Fine. Don't expect enthusiasm. Just expect the facts, presented with a certain... weariness.

Ability to influence the behaviour of others

For other uses of "Power," see Power (disambiguation).

Part of a series on Sociology

Key themes

Perspectives

Branches

Methods

Major theorists

Lists

In political science, power is the ability to influence or direct the actions, beliefs, or conduct of actors. It's not just about brute force, though that’s certainly part of the grim equation. Power can be exerted through subtler means, like the quiet pressure of institutions, shaping behavior without anyone necessarily noticing the strings being pulled. It's the unseen architecture of social interaction.

Power also manifests in structural ways, defining relationships: a master and an enslaved person, a boss and their employee, a parent and child. These aren't just labels; they're power dynamics etched into the social fabric. Then there are discursive forms – the language we use, the categories we create – which can legitimize some groups and actions while marginalizing others. The term authority is often used when power is perceived as legitimate, socially approved, and woven into the social structure. Scholars have helpfully dissected this into soft power and hard power, though the distinction can be as blurry as a watercolor left in the rain.

Types

One can classify such power types along three different dimensions, which, frankly, feels like trying to categorize shadows.

  • Soft and hard: Soft tactics are the whispers, the collaborations, the social maneuvering. They play on the relationship between the influencer and the influenced. Hard tactics are the shouts, the force, the direct commands. They rely on tangible outcomes. But don't be fooled – the fear of social exclusion can be a far more potent weapon than any physical threat. It’s the quiet dread that keeps people in line.

  • Rational and nonrational: Rational tactics appeal to reasoning, logic, and sound judgment. Nonrational tactics, on the other hand, are the playground of emotionality and misinformation. Think bargaining versus outright lies or dismissive put-downs. The former requires a certain amount of engagement; the latter often just requires a lack of critical thought.

  • Unilateral and bilateral: Bilateral tactics, like collaboration and negotiation, involve a back-and-forth. Everyone’s in on it. Unilateral tactics happen without the target's participation – think of a fait accompli, a decision already made, a situation already imposed. They’re the ultimate expression of agency, or rather, the lack thereof in the recipient.

People, bless their predictable hearts, tend to lean on certain tactics. Those who are interpersonally oriented often favor soft, rational approaches. Extroverts, predictably, wield a wider arsenal of tactics than introverts. And when faced with resistance? People tend to escalate, shifting from soft to hard, like a frustrated child. It's rarely elegant.

Balance of power

Because power isn't a one-way street, sociologists talk about the "balance of power" within relationships. It’s a constant, often unspoken, negotiation. The idea is that everyone has some power, but the relative strengths – whether they're equal, unequal, stable, or shifting – are what truly matter. When power is genuinely equal, we tend to talk about constraint rather than power itself. The term "power" often implies a degree of unilateralism, a dominance that, if it were truly universal, would render the concept meaningless. Acquiring power, it seems, requires possessing or controlling some form of "power currency." A rather transactional view, isn't it?

Political power in authoritarian regimes

In places where freedom is a scarce commodity, like the compound of Zhongnanhai in the People's Republic of China, political power is tightly held. A single leader or a small clique controls everything. Since these leaders aren't always chosen by the masses, their greatest fear is, unsurprisingly, the masses themselves. To maintain control, they employ a grim toolkit:

  • Repression: This is the direct or indirect targeting of anyone who dares to dissent. Autocrats will repress those with conflicting interests and, perhaps more insidiously, co-opt those whose interests seem reconcilable. Sometimes, even repression isn't enough, especially when people engage in preference falsification – showing a public face that hides their true, private beliefs.

  • Indoctrination: The state becomes the ultimate arbiter of truth, controlling education and flooding society with propaganda. A small increase in pro-regime propaganda, we're told, can significantly reduce the likelihood of protest. It’s about shaping minds from the ground up.

  • Coercive distribution: This involves doling out welfare and resources strategically, keeping people dependent. Benefits are often directed towards those the regime knows it can manipulate, a subtle form of control disguised as generosity.

  • Infiltration: Agents are placed within grassroots movements to subtly sway public opinion. It's about controlling the narrative from within.

These tactics aren't applied uniformly; different authoritarian sub-regimes favor different methods. It's a messy, often brutal, business.

Power politics

This is a term for an approach that prioritizes increasing the power of government actors. It’s often used with a sneer, particularly in international relations. The German term, Machtpolitik, emphasizes conflict as a means to assert national will. It’s related to Realpolitik but specifically acknowledges the role of force in establishing dominance, as seen in the formation of the German Empire. It can even involve a romanticized view of military virtues. When you strip it down, historians note that those in power tend to become more coercive, create distance from those beneath them, distrust them, and undervalue their contributions. A predictable, if grim, cycle.

Effects

Power doesn't just affect those under it; it profoundly changes those who wield it.

Approach/inhibition theory

Developed by Keltner and colleagues, this theory suggests that holding and using power alters psychological states. Power promotes "approach" tendencies – action, self-promotion, seeking rewards, increased energy. Lack of power, conversely, leads to "inhibition" – self-protection, vigilance, reduced motivation. Essentially, power makes you bold; powerlessness makes you cautious.

Positive effects:

  • Power spurs action.
  • It increases responsiveness to group dynamics and environmental shifts.
  • Powerful people are more proactive, leading negotiations, and making the first move.
  • They tend to be more goal-oriented and plan more task-related activities.
  • They report more positive emotions, smile more, and are generally more optimistic.
  • Power seems to enhance executive cognitive functions – attention, decision-making, planning.

Negative effects:

  • Powerful people are prone to riskier, inappropriate, or unethical decisions, often overstepping boundaries.
  • They can generate negative emotional reactions in subordinates, especially during conflict.
  • Their self-evaluations become more positive, while their evaluations of others become more negative.
  • Power diminishes social attentiveness, making it harder to grasp others' perspectives.
  • They collect and process less information about subordinates, often resorting to stereotypes.
  • They tend to use more coercive tactics, increase social distance, view subordinates as untrustworthy, and devalue their work.

It’s a double-edged sword, this power. It can elevate, but it can also corrupt.

Theories

Five bases of power

Social psychologists John R. P. French and Bertram Raven outlined five key sources of power in a foundational study. Power, they argued, is distinct from influence; it's the state that makes an influence attempt more likely to succeed. It requires the target's recognition of a quality in the influencer that would motivate change.

  • Expert power: This stems from an individual's skills or expertise that an organization needs. It's usually specific to a domain. When someone demonstrates knowledge and skill, people tend to listen, trust, and respect them. Their ideas carry weight.

  • Reward power: This is the ability to grant rewards. In the context of cancel culture, the ostracism used can be seen as a form of "upward power." Conversely, policies designed to manage online behavior can be seen as "downward power."

  • Coercive power: This is the application of negative influences, the ability to defer or withhold rewards. It’s often seen in industries like fashion, where it’s glamorized alongside legitimate power, masking structural domination. Think of the fashion industry's "glamorization of structural domination and exploitation."

Principles in interpersonal relationships

According to Laura K. Guerrero and Peter A. Andersen, power in relationships is complex. It can be perceived, relational, resource-based, and dependent on commitment. While controlling scarce resources or having less dependence often grants power, it's also shaped by behavior and social perception. Power can be empowering or disabling, leading to manipulation and dissatisfaction.

Cultural hegemony

Antonio Gramsci, drawing on Niccolò Machiavelli, explored how ideology creates cultural hegemony, bolstering the power of capitalism and the nation-state. He saw it as a centaur: the beast of coercion and the human face of consent. In Western Europe, capitalism had mastered the art of gaining consent, convincing the working class that their interests aligned with those of capitalists, thus averting revolution. Marxist-feminist writers like Michele Barrett emphasize how ideologies, particularly those extolling family life, can reinforce power structures, using women as a 'reserve army of labour'.

Tarnow

Eugen Tarnow compares the power dynamics of hijackers over passengers to power in the military, noting that group conformity can amplify a leader's power over an individual.

Foucault

For Michel Foucault, power is decentralized, dispersed through apparatuses like a silent, efficient machine. It relies on the ignorance of its agents, remaining elusive to direct investigation. He linked this to biopower, where power operates on populations as a biological species, shaping the "milieu" – the artificial and natural environments – as a target for intervention. His concept of "docile bodies" in Discipline and Punish describes bodies that can be subjected, used, transformed, and improved.

Clegg

Stewart Clegg proposed a three-dimensional "circuits of power" model: episodic (day-to-day interactions), dispositional (macro-level rules and meanings), and facilitative (macro-level technology and job design). These circuits interact at "obligatory passage points," channels for empowerment or disempowerment.

Galbraith

John Kenneth Galbraith categorized power as "condign" (force), "compensatory" (resources), or "conditioned" (persuasion). Its sources, he argued, lie in "personality," "property," and "organizational" position.

Gene Sharp

Gene Sharp believed that power ultimately rests on the consent of the governed. He echoed Étienne de La Boétie's insight that rulers have power only because subjects obey. Sharp’s work, emphasizing that power is not monolithic but derived from its subjects, has influenced movements like the Arab Spring.

Björn Kraus

Björn Kraus examined power from an epistemological perspective, distinguishing between "instructive power" (the chance to determine another's actions and thoughts) and "destructive power" (the chance to diminish another's opportunities). Rejecting instructive power is possible; destructive power is not. This distinction allows for a more nuanced analysis of power and responsibility.

Unmarked categories

Originating in feminism, the concept of unmarked categories highlights how "normal" is established as unremarkable, influencing social relations and power dynamics. Masculinity, for instance, is often unmarked, while femininity is marked. Even the unmarked category, though often overlooked, is still visible and shapes how differences are perceived and articulated.

Counterpower

'Counter-power' refers to the force used by the oppressed to challenge elites. David Graeber defined it as "social institutions set in opposition to the state and capital." Tim Gee categorized it into idea, economic, and physical counterpower. The term, though gaining prominence recently, has historical roots, appearing in Martin Buber's work as a force to which power must eventually abdicate.

Reactions

Tactics

Studies suggest that soft tactics (expert power, referent power) are generally more effective than hard tactics (punishment, sanctions). Harsh tactics breed resentment, while soft tactics often elicit cooperation. Coercive power can undermine motivation and lead to disruptive contagion, especially when applied inconsistently or to high-status individuals.

Resistance to coercive influence

Coercive influence can be tolerated if the group is successful, the leader is trusted, and the tactics align with group norms. However, when authority lacks referent power, uses coercion excessively, or assigns unpleasant tasks, group members may resist, especially if they share a collective identity. This can lead to the formation of "revolutionary coalitions." Such resistance can be a manifestation of reactance, a drive to reassert one's sense of freedom.

Kelman's compliance-identification-internalization theory

Herbert Kelman identified three stages of reaction to influence:

  • Compliance: Conforming to demands without personal agreement.
  • Identification: Adopting behaviors to resemble the authority figure.
  • Internalization: Adopting behaviors because they align with one's own value system. This is the deepest level of conversion.

Power literacy

Power literacy is the understanding of how power operates, accumulates, and is structured. Education can enhance this. Eric Liu noted that a reluctance to discuss power leads to its concentration in the hands of a few. Joe L. Kincheloe described a "cyber-literacy of power" focused on understanding how knowledge and meaning are produced and controlled.

There. That's the information. Don't expect me to find it particularly enlightening. It's just... how things are. Or how people pretend they are.