This blog, as a recurring concern, attempts to share ideas
regarding power. Politics revolves
around the use of power; this social mechanism is central to any understanding
of politics. And this blog, in its
treatment of power, relies on Robert Dahl’s definition, power
is a condition in which one party, person or collective, convinces some other
party or parties to do something they would not do otherwise.[1] In addition, to further this perspective of
power, this blog has also relied on the work of John French and Bertram Raven’s
“bases of power.”[2]
As stated earlier (posting, “What
Power,” November 28, 2017), French and Raven identify five bases: coercion, reward, legitimate, expert, and referent
power. That posting pointed out the problems
associated, first, with coercive power – its likelihood of engendering
resentment and a desire to extract revenge – and second, with the other bases,
of generating feelings of being manipulated.
At
times this can not only engender motivations to not comply openly or under some
subversion, but if compliance is elicited, for it to be done with low levels of
competency. All these negative
consequences usually result in the power holder policing the “compliance” in
any subsequent acts. Policing can
further engender negative feelings and, to the degree it does, it generates costs
– sometimes, significant costs.
Finally,
the earlier posting offered “three faces” of power offered by Joseph S. Nye. Using Nye’s words:
First
Face: [Party] A uses threats or rewards
to change [Party] B’s behavior against B’s initial preferences and
strategies. B knows this and feels the
effect of A’s power.
Second
Face: [Party] A controls the agenda of
actions in a way that limits [Party] B’s choices of strategy. B may or may not know this and be aware of
A’s power.
Third
Face: [Party] A helps to create and
shape [Party] B’s basic beliefs, perceptions, and preferences. B is unlikely to be aware of this or to
realize the effect of A’s power.[3]
As described, progressing from one face to the next, certain
attributes take hold and chief among them is that the subject is less likely to
know he/she is being subjected to a power interaction. And before one castigates all of this as
something evil or sinister, one should remember that parents exert power all
the time and smart parents strive to use the above “Third Face” strategy.
Nye goes on to
write of the importance of social networks in the implementation of power. Networks function in various ways. Two functions of importance are their role in
communication and in furthering the legitimacy of power holders. People understand the importance of
communication – after all, how does one know what he/she is expected to do if
he/she is not told – but might find legitimacy a more subtle quality.
Beyond
legitimacy as a bases of power, legitimacy refers to how the power holder is
viewed. One can disagree with a specific
power play, but that does not in itself debase the legitimacy of the power
holder. What bolsters that legitimacy
are many factors, among them is the existence of institutional networks that provide
the foundations upon which the society resides.
And in this, Nye situates the above “faces.”
He writes:
Another reason not to collapse all
three faces of power into the first is that doing so diminishes attention to
networks, which are an important type of structural power in the twenty-first
century. Networks are becoming
increasingly important in an information age, and positioning in social networks
can be an important power resource. For
example, in a hub-and-spokes network, power can derive from being the hub of
communications. If you communicate with
your friends through me, that gives me power.[4]
So, beyond legitimacy, the faces enhance all the bases of
power by creating functional roles if extended and institutionalized, the power
becomes indispensable or perceived as such.
And upon
further reflection – and based on ample case studies – when holes develop in
these networks, when direct communication is hindered or ruptured, the ability
to provide bridges in those gaps can result in newer or novel bases for power
relations. Used in this fashion, the
possibility of forming federated relations becomes possible.
That is, such formulations
can allow for third face strategies to take hold. They can target information flows that encourage
or permit innovation, cooperation, and collaboration, to further
institutionalize more communal power relations.
How? By “plugging” network holes.
This is what Kenneth Boulding called
“integrative power.”
In turn, this helps establish power
friendly, social landscapes that, in turn – according to relevant research – furthers
the use of empathy and social intelligence.
And when that happens, would-be power holders are more effective in
their attempts to solicit compliance than when they rely on force, deception,
or terror. [5]
Examples of
theorists Nye cites in backing this view include Hannah Arendt – “power springs
up among men when they act together” – and John Ikenberry – “American power
after World War II rested on a network of institutions that constrained the
United States but were open to others and thus increased America’s power to act
with others.”[6] While it is a stretch to categorize such
efforts as being federated ones, it does encourage one to see it as taking
steps in that direction.
[1] Robert Dahl, Who Governs:
Democracy and Power in an American City (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1961).
[2] John R. P.
French, Jr. and Bertram Raven, “The Bases of Power,” in Current Perspectives in Social Psychology, ed. Edwin P. Hollander
and Raymond G. Hunt (New York, NY:
Oxford University Press, 1967), 504-512.
[3] Joseph S. Nye,
Jr., The
Future of Power (New York, NY:
PublicAffairs), 14.
[4] Ibid.,
17.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid., 18
No comments:
Post a Comment