Concepts of Power and Cultural Identity - Essay Example

Critical Analysis Concepts: Power and Cultural Identity Power, often interchangeably used with authority, refers to the ability vested in someone that subsequently enables him to influence and control activities of others. Power and authority moves hand in hand, there’s no power without authority and therefore every powerful position has well cut out authoritative demarcations. Empowerment therefore implies transfer or bestowment of authority onto someone with the core objective of making him or her ultimate leader in a given setting. The concept of power and authority has soon evolved and taken different perceptions in various societies. Each given society regards power with certain attached perceptions and cultural inclinations. While power might be considered a mere symbol of direction and control in some societies, the same may be interpreted to imply a sophisticated personality who besides control and influence has ability to determine and terminate the fate of other society members. (Said & Viswanathan, 2002). The diverse perceptions of power in society usually touch on aspects of race, gender, modernization, civilization and sometimes influence from other worldly cultures and practices. In Sydney for instance, there is observable differences on the concept of power between the ancient practices and the postmodern practices. Power has been used as a gender discriminative tool, a reserve for a single gender within the society. In this aspect, the society has been manipulated to believe that power is meant for a certain gender only and therefore it would look out of place if the opposite gender tried to get involved. For instance, for quite some time, and still in some parts of Sydney, the society regards and associates power with the masculine. In fact, a slight consideration of the earlier dynasties and territorial leadership will reveal that none of these was ever headed by a feminine leader; leadership was a reserve for men. One may then take a short time to wonder what’s was it so special that could only be done by men in power and not by a woman bestowed with similar powers? The notion, perception and finally believe that leadership was a preserve of men was instigated and propagated by male chauvinism, the tendency to create a dominant and patronizing male figure in society. In essence, there is nothing special about gender as far as power is concerned; both sexes have equal capabilities to influence and control. (Owens & Bryson, 2012). However, things have taken a different tune with modernization and globalization. The global efforts and struggles for gender equality have soon proved that there is no reserve for any given gender regarding power and authority. The subsequent enlightenment is achieved at eradicating all the existing disparities and hurdle laid on the path to power for the feminine gender. (Wolf, 2001). Initial efforts to introduce equal grounds for both men and women as far as power is concerned was initially met with resistance in several societies and some societies are yet to come to terms on the same. However, compliant societies have realized enormous changes and adjustments in the power structures and provisions. Women have performed equally outstanding when bestowed with power just like their male counterparts. In fact, the once submissive and over ruled feminine gender has made way to the highest leadership and power positions on the land; there are several examples of female presidents, head of institutions and political eminent figures. The society has soon come to realize that perhaps, some societal believes are becoming outdated and might need critical review with aim of discarding those that might seem too obsolete. People bestowed with power and authority has used the same power to suppress and exploit others for their own benefit. There is no power without governance and as it is expected, every government must have the subjects to be governed. Marx, an Economist and Philosopher once observed that people in power consider the labors as units of production whose value depreciates with subsequent increase in the quantity of production. As a result, such individuals in power try to exploit and harness the maximum from such laborers before they are exhausted and can no longer produce numerous capacities as before. This observation by Marx sums up the concept of exploitation of subjects by individuals in power to an extent that they liken fellow human beings to material factors of production. This is a common practice among several people in power and authority. Power has been used as a quick means of amercing wealth through exploitation of others and unscrupulously embezzling resources from the society. (Sewell, 2010) In fact the initial cases of corruption came up as a result of abuse of power. A common cliché in connection to this is that power corrupts the mind and in deed it does. This is a common characteristic of ancient power and modern power. While the members of a given society might be living in dire poverty, often living from hand to mouth, powerful individuals within the same society will be found to enjoy affluent privileges, less concerned of such looming poverty. Power creates social classes and affiliated segmentation in society. Order in society depends on the kind of existing leadership within the same society. Such leadership therefore comes with power and authority, with individuals assigned duties and responsibilities to see to it that all members of society abide to the norms of the society. Execution of such powers and authorities in turn results into social classes and segmentation of individuals regarding to their proximity to the thrones of power. ( Dirks, 2004). The society regards individuals in power as extra ordinary beings that need to be treated differently from others. For instance, individuals in power command tremendous respect, recognition and general access to almost all aspects of society that would be restricted to other individuals. These and other privileges are intentional creations of the society to restrict leadership to certain individuals. This classes and segmentation have extended even into administrative structures of the society. For example, one cannot ascent to a certain given power position in society until after such individuals have attained a certain status or recognition in society. In countries where kingdoms exist, no one can ascend to the royal throne unless he is a male member of the royal family. While the society has been made to perceive such conditions as procedural requirements, critical analysis can reveal certain loopholes within the same provisions. The ability to influence and control cannot be forced onto someone because of his affiliations to the immediate power holder. These are inborn and developed personal characters which aren’t possessed by everyone. Respect, fame and recognition are earned depending on individual achievements within society. If an individual has not contributed anything outstanding to the community or society as a whole, he might not be accorded such recognition and honor. Such and similar facts might easily make the idea of inheritance as an inappropriate strategy for identifying future leaders and power bearers. It encourages laxity, often confining individuals not to engage in other activities that they would perform better with the hope of taking over power. Instances of planned assassinations can easily be propagated through such practices. Individuals plan to intentionally create a power void within society so as to take over the same. Postmodern identity has brought great revolution, evolution and metamorphosis of the general concept of power and cultural identity. Each individual would like to be associated with a societal structure that will portray its occupants as civilized and modern. In this case, any discriminative approaches to leadership and power have soon been discarded with most societies and cultures opting to a universally accepted strategies and approaches. As a result of postmodern identity, the whole issue of power has been institutionalized, with well -designed frameworks that govern aspects of power such as privileges, power transfer and eligibility to ascend onto power positions. (Cimdiņa & Osmond, 2007). The idea of modernity has also resulted into creation of institutions for checks and balances, charged with mandate to evaluate the performance of individuals in power, single out incidences of abuse of power and provide elaborate procedures for solutions in cases of power crises. (Taylor, 2013). This has in fact been lauded by most administrators as the major steps towards streamlining power and individual capabilities alongside interest of the society and doing away with imposter leadership. Modern identity has seen the feminine gender ascend to power positions, introduced alternative government structures besides the initially dominant anarchy and created more responsible leadership in society. In conclusion, power is such a broad concept that is yet to gain a universal approach or draw similar perceptions across all societies. However, the joint effects of modernization and globalization have created a number of similarities in the general power structures in most societies. (Blanning, 2006). There is evidence of equal power opportunities for genders, checks and balances for power limits as well as institutionalized control of power. All in all, the society remains the central focus of all these changes and modifications. Success or failure of such new creations will thus depend on how dynamic the society members are in terms of embracing such new aspects of power. A more swift and dynamic society will greatly aid in creation of global and modern power structures while stiff and reluctant societies will keep on with ancient power practices which might benefit the least members of society, in most cases a few individuals who might be in control of the same power. References BLANNING, T. C. W. (2006). The culture of power and the power of culture: old regime Europe 1660-1789. Oxford [u.a.], Oxford Univ. Press. CIMDIŅA, A., & OSMOND, J. (2007). Power and culture: identity, ideology, representation. Pisa, Plus-Pisa university press. DIRKS, N. B. (2004). Culture, power, history a reader in contemporary social theory. Princeton, NJ, Princeton Univ. Press. OWENS, C., & BRYSON, S. S. (2012). Beyond recognition: representation, power, and culture. Berkeley, University of California Press. SAID, E. W., & VISWANATHAN, G. (2002). Power, politics, and culture: interviews with Edward W. Said TAYLOR, A. (2013). People's platform: taking back power and culture in the digital age. [S.l.], Picador Usa Tylor, Edward Burnett( 2012) Primitive Culture. New York: Harper & Row Publishers. Victoria E. Bormel, Victoria E. & Lynn Hunt, {eds.) Beyond the Cultural Turn, pp. 35‐61. Berkeley: University of California Press. Wolf, Eric R. (2001) Pathways to Power. Building an Anthropology of the Modern World. Berkeley:University of California Press. Wolf, Eric R. (2009) Envisioning Power: Ideologies of Dominance and Crisis. Berkeley: University of California Press. Read More