In a previous posting (“Initial Power Factors, posted July
12, 2016), this writer reviewed the work of several scholars who have written
and theorized about social power, especially political power. The iconic – among political scientists –
writer who provides a definition for power is Robert Dahl. His definition is: 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] This is the definition used in this blog.
To further
enrich this definition, the writer also utilized a review of John French and
Bertram Raven’s “bases of power.”[2] These writers identify five bases of
power: coercive, reward, legitimate,
expert, and referent power. In this
posting, the aim is to pick up on the ideas of Joseph S. Nye.[3] He opines on these concerns and gives one a
good understanding of what is currently the notion of types of power. That would be the difference between hard and
soft power.
Before making
the distinctions involved, one general idea should be made. Yes, one can get others to do what they would
not do otherwise by either using or threatening a punishment or a string of
punishments. That’s coercive power. But coercive power has some costs. One, punishments or the threat of punishments
spur the subject of such treatment to resent the punisher or the aims of the
punisher.
This, in turn, might motivate the
subject to seek revenge at the time of the interaction or some future time –
perhaps when the right opportunity presents itself. So, the punisher is wise to police the
implementation of coercive power. This
is an expense and can siphon needed resources that would otherwise be used in
pursuing the initial aims.
Two, even if the subject does not
seek revenge, one can readily envision that the subject will not wholeheartedly
attempt to do a good job at accomplishing the aims. Again, policing or reviewing the “work” will
be challenging since a lot of less than optimal effort will likely be
exerted. And, at times, perhaps both
lack of effort and revenge can be at play at the same time.
A movie scene, admittedly in an
extreme situation, depicts these problems.
That is in the film, Schindler’s
List.[4] The Jews in a concentration camp, subjected
to untold punishments, organized, under the leadership of Oskar Schindler,
successfully sabotaged the work they were assigned. That was to build shell casings and, through
various ruses, were able to produce only unusable casings.
So, given these potential consequences,
other forms of power have been thought of and used. This includes issuing of rewards, exerting an
expert advice, convincing the subject of the rightness of what being asked, or
providing an appealing association for the subject. In any of these alternatives (and at times
these can be done in combination), the subject wants to do what the instigator
wants the subject to do, but usually for external reasons.
And, upon reflection, what says that
the subject must know what is being done to get him/her to do something. Yesterday, on NPR,[5] a rebroadcast
of an interview of architect, Mel McNally, was given. McNally is an expert on what makes Irish pubs
popular. In part, the plans of his
company’s designs for new pubs is telling of how power can be exerted without
the subject(s) being aware of what is happening.
The designs purposely encourage
customers to act in certain ways. They
become highly communal while they imbibe in spirits – it turns the pub into a
fun place. This has been such a successful
approach; his company has or have had contracted projects all over the world. McNally challenged the interviewer to come up
with a country his company had not been active.
The interviewer couldn’t come up with such a place.
This form of power reveals that power
has various “faces.” Ney identifies
three faces:
First Face: A uses threats or rewards to change B’s
behavior against B’s initial preferences and strategies. B knows this and feels the effect of A’s
power.
Second Face: A controls the agenda of actions in a way
that limits B’s choices of strategy. B
may or may not know this and be aware of A’s power.
Third Face: A helps to create and shape B’s basic
beliefs, perceptions, and preferences. B
is unlikely to be aware of this or to realize the effect of A’s power.[6]
The thing is: even if
the subject is not being punished, but instead is receiving a reward, being
exhorted to do the right thing, being given expert advice, or even being
associated with a perceived positive person, group, or thing, if a subject
knows the strategy, the subject might resent the manipulation or otherwise not
have his/her heart in the effort.
So, can one
get unsuspected subjects? Is that an
admirable choice or option?
Depends. One can be sure patrons
of an Irish pub who just experienced a delightful evening, couldn’t care
less. As a matter of fact, if this
subject was told of this planning, he/she might feel admiration for the power
holder.
But what if the manipulation had to
do with how a subject’s child is treated?
Even if the outcome is good – but especially if it is not good – upon
hearing of the “under-handedness,” might it not be considered offensive? As one goes from First Face to Second Face and
then Third Face, a subject is less of a proactive subject – he/she becomes more
of a manipulated subject. In political
realities, this progression becomes less democratic and, as it becomes more
pervasive, enables (in some ways causes) a society to veer away from a republic
form of polity.
On the other side of this
progression, the instigator, the power dealer, is engaging in more sophisticated
modes of power exertion. There are more
factors to consider; more variables that can stray from planned ways. One can see the use of computers and their
capacities in calculating massive amounts of data being utilized.
Lastly for this posting, one can
detect two operating stages. One is what
one wants to accomplish or possess – Nye calls this possession goals – and,
two, setting the stage for a power play – milieu goals. To this writer, this distinction suggests an
order: first, accomplish milieu goals
and, second, accomplish possession goals.
Of course, any such effort will call for formative evaluation to see
where the process is taking the instigator(s) and the subject(s). Such evaluations can alter the plan or the
progression as the plan is being implemented.
There is more to say about this
topic. It will be revisited.
[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.
[4] Steven Spielberg (director), Schindler’s List (Universal Pictures, 1993).
[5] See Ailsa Chang and Robert Smith, “The Mastermind behind
the International Irish Pub,” All Things Considered, accessed November
27, 2017, https://www.npr.org/2017/04/07/523044318/the-mastermind-behind-the-international-irish-pub .
No comments:
Post a Comment