Power is defined as the social production of an impact that determines an actor’s abilities, behaviors, beliefs, or conduct in social science and politics.[1] Power can also be exercised indirectly, through institutions, rather than just through the threat or actual use of force (coercion) by one actor against another.(Source: )[/2]
In addition, power can take structural forms that arrange actors in relation to one another (e.g., a master and an enslaved person, a householder and their relatives, an employer and their employees, a parent and a child, a political representative and their voters, etc.) and discursive forms that give legitimacy to certain behaviors and groups over others through the use of categories and language.(Source: )
Theories
Five bases of power
Social psychologists John R. P. French and Bertram Raven created a schema of sources of power in a now-classic research (1959)[3] that allowed them to analyze how power dynamics functioned (or did not function) in a particular relationship.
French and Raven explain that power and influence are different from one another. Power in a relationship is defined as the state of affairs that holds such that an attempt by A to influence B increases the likelihood that B will change in the way A wants it to. When seen in this light, power is essentially relative.
It is contingent upon the particular interpretations that A and B both bring to their relationship, and it necessitates that B acknowledge some aspect of A that would inspire B to act in the manner that A desires.
Legitimate power
Legitimate power—also referred to as “positional power”—is the authority that an individual possesses as a result of their position within an organization and their responsibilities. Formal authority granted to the position’s holder is known as legitimate power. It is typically accompanied by other symbols of authority, like a title, an intimidating physical office, or a uniform.
Power can be summed up as either upward or downward [by whom?]. A corporation’s supervisor uses downward power to persuade subordinates to achieve company objectives. When a business demonstrates upward power, its leaders’ decisions are influenced by their employees.
Referent power
Referent power is the capacity possessed by individuals to draw in others and foster a sense of loyalty. It depends on the charisma and social skills of the person in charge. A person may have a certain quality that makes them admired, and this admiration opens up the possibility of interpersonal influence.
Here, the person in charge wants to relate to these traits in themselves and finds fulfillment in fitting in as a follower. Patriotism and nationalism contribute to an ethereal form of referent power.
For instance, troops fight in conflicts to protect their nation’s honor. Despite being the most effective, this power is the second least evident. For years, marketers have leveraged sports celebrities’ referential power to endorse their products, for instance. The sports star’s alleged magnetic appeal.
Expert power
Expert power is a person’s ability to influence others based on their knowledge and experience as well as the demands of the organization. In contrast to the others, this kind of power is typically quite specialized and restricted to the specific field in which the specialist is educated and experienced.
People are more likely to listen to someone who possesses the information and abilities necessary to comprehend a situation, provide recommendations for solutions, exercise sound judgment, and generally perform better than others. People are more likely to appreciate and trust someone who exhibits expertise. Their ideas will be more valuable since they are subject matter experts, and others will look to them to take the lead in that field.
Reward power
Reward power is the extent to which an individual can provide others with a reward of some type, such as perks, time off, desired presents, promotions, or increases in income or responsibility. It is based on the ability of the power wielder to award desirable tangible goods.
This authority is apparent, but misuse of it renders it useless. Reprimands for being overly transparent or’moving things too quickly’ can be directed towards people who misuse reward power. It is very likely that others will comply if they anticipate rewards for performing what is requested. This basis of power has the drawback that the rewarder might not have the necessary amount of control over payouts.
Coercive power
The use of coercive power involves using negative influences. It encompasses the power to defer or refuse more benefits. Those in positions of authority can be made to obey by their fear of losing out on benefits they value or their desire to receive them. Since it causes resistance and resentment in those it affects, coercive power is typically the most visible but least successful type of power.
The use of threats and punishment is widespread in coercion. Using coercive power involves making threats or insinuating that someone would be demoted, fired, denied privileges, or assigned to unfavorable tasks. In an organizational context, it is rarely suitable to employ coercive power extensively. Relying solely on these sources of power will produce a very cold, impoverished style of leadership.
Rational choice framework
Game theory, which has its roots in the Walrasian theory of rational choice, is becoming more and more popular as a tool for power relationship analysis across a range of academic fields. Keith Dowding provides a definition of power based on rational choice in his book Power.
Within the framework of rational choice theory, individuals or groups of people can be modeled as ‘actors’ who select from a ‘choice set’ of potential actions to attempt and attain desired results. The costs of taking various actions in the choice set and the chances that those actions will result in desired outcomes make up an actor’s “incentive structure.”
Social power is the capacity of an actor to alter the incentive systems of other players in order to bring about outcomes. Outcome power is the capacity of an actor to bring about or assist in bringing about outcomes.
A broad variety of social interactions where actors have the capacity to exercise control over others can be modeled using this paradigm.
One ‘powerful’ actor could, for instance, remove alternatives from another’s set of possibilities, alter the relative costs of different actions, alter the probability that an action would result in a particular outcome, or even just alter the other’s perception of its incentive structure.
This framework is neutral when it comes to the use of “coercion,” much like other models of power.
Cultural hegemony
Within the Marxist framework, Italian author Antonio Gramsci expounded on the function of ideology in establishing a cultural hegemony, so serving as a mechanism for fortifying the authority of capitalism and the nation-state. Based on Niccolò Machiavelli’s The Prince, Gramsci attempted to explain why there was no Communist revolution in Western Europe despite claims of one in Russia by imagining this hegemony as a centaur with two sides.
The beast, or the rear end, stood for the more traditional, tangible conception of power—that is, authority acquired by compulsion or physical or financial force. However, he contended, the capitalist hegemony was dependent on the human face, the front end, which projected power through “consent.”
This power was absent in Russia, which made a revolution possible. But capitalism had managed to exercise consensual authority in Western Europe, particularly in Italy, persuading the working classes that their interests coincided with those of the capitalists. A revolution had been averted in this way.
Marxist-feminist authors like Michele Barrett emphasize the function of ideologies in promoting the benefits of family life, in contrast to Gramsci who emphasizes the significance of ideology in power structures.
The traditional defense of this viewpoint is the employment of women as a “reserve army of labor.” Women are expected to carry out traditionally male jobs during times of conflict, but roles can be readily reversed afterwards. Barrett therefore contends that it is imperative to destroy capitalist economic ties.
Foucault
According to Michel Foucault, the true authority always rests on its actors’ ignorance. The dispositif (machine or apparatus) is not run by a single human, group, or actor; rather, power is distributed as effectively and silently as possible across the apparatus, enabling its agents to carry out any required tasks. Power is elusive to ‘logical’ analysis because of this behavior, which makes it unlikely to be identified.
In Recherches et considérations sur la population de la France (1778), a text purportedly written by political economist Jean Baptiste Antoine Auget de Montyon is cited by Foucault.
However, it turns out that the author is his secretary, Jean-Baptise Moheau (1745-1794), and Lamarck, a biologist, by highlighting the views of biologist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, who consistently uses the plural form of the adjective “mieux” and interprets the term as referring to nothing more than air, light, and water, thereby confirming that the human species is a member of the milieu and that its social and political interactions, together with the population, form both an artificial and natural milieu.
According to Foucault, this environment—both natural and artificial—appears to be a target of power intervention. This is fundamentally different from earlier ideas about sovereignty, territory, and disciplinary space that are woven into social and political relations that operate as a species (biological species).11] The idea of “docile bodies” was introduced by Foucault.
Clegg
Stewart Clegg offers his “circuits of power”[13] idea, which suggests an additional three-dimensional model. The episodic, dispositional, and facilitative circuits are three separate interacting circuits on an electric circuit board, which is how this model compares the creation and organization of power.
There are three levels at which these circuits function: two macro and one micro. The micro level, known as the episodic circuit, is made up of agents’ erratic use of power when they deal with emotions, dialogue, conflict, and resistance in their daily interactions.
The episodic circuit has both favorable and unfavorable results. The socially constructed meanings and macro-level norms of behavior that shape member relationships and legitimate authority make up the dispositional circuit. Macro level technologies, environmental variables, job design, and networks make up the facilitative circuit.
Gene Sharp
American political science professor Gene Sharp feels that the foundations of power are ultimately what matter. People accept and abide by a political regime’s rules, regulations, and policies, which is how it stays in power. Étienne de La Boétie’s insight is cited by Sharp.
The core thesis of Sharp’s writing is that power is not a monolithic concept, meaning that persons in positions of authority do not possess it by nature. According to Sharp, political power ultimately comes from the people who live in the state, regardless of the specific structural arrangement of the state. His basic tenet is that the subordinates must obey their ruler(s) in order for any power system to exist. Leaders are powerless over disobedient followers.In [16]
It is believed that his work has had an impact.
Björn Kraus
Björn Kraus developed a unique version of constructivism known as relational constructivism in order to address the epistemological perspective on power with regard to the question of possibilities of interpersonal influence.18] Rather than concentrating on the distribution and appraisal of power, he first examines what the phrase can actually describe.19]
He understands that the concept of power needs to be divided into “instructive power” and “destructive power” after reading Max Weber’s definition of it [20].In [21]: 105126 [22] More accurately, destructive power is the ability to limit another person’s opportunities, whereas instructive power is the ability to influence another person’s actions and thoughts.19]