The Concepts of Power - Research Paper Example

The Concept of power What is power is one of the most common questions asked by the humanity. Russell and Brittain (2004) pointed out that people search for power because it is their ultimate goal in life. Within the bound of religious belief for instance, power is the divine force that controls the universe even in the tiniest detail (Bramlett, 2003). This can be contestable but there are different concepts of power and they can be elaborated by understanding the different understanding of political analysts on this concept. Political analysts have wide range of concepts to say about power. In order to understand them, it is important to understand first the different types of power. There are different types of power and they can be classified as reward, coercive, expert, and legitimate and referent (Hinde, 1997). All of these are illustrated below based on the common perception or understanding about power. Power therefore is a contested concept considering that it is complex, open to modification, it has gained considerable arguments that cannot be hopelessly outmoded from time to time and so on (Freeden, 1996). Thus, the idea and concept of power must be altogether shared with common judgment considering it for instance as a language that has to be shared with in order to have uniform understanding of it (Connolly, 1993). Billionaires around the world whoever they are have something to say about how they come up into where they are right at this moment of their lives. They are popular enough and their names inspire others to become like them. These most well off people in the world therefore have the power to influence others by the good quality of their outputs in life. These people were able to realize their dreams in life because they substantially were able to reach for their dreams and make them into reality. They have the credibility to tell others about how to become someone else in the future. This means that they have such influence and that gives them enough power to help others decide on some certain things. It is clear that because of such money these billionaires have with them they hold certain power to make their will be followed by other people. They have certain influence that will allow them to let others do things they would not do otherwise. Power is an important concept in global governance. In global governance, disputes, interests and other related concerns are remarkable (Barnett and Duvall, 2005). These concerns are highly encompassed by understanding power as an important concept that according to Barnett and Duvall consists of different forms such as compulsory power, institutional power, and structural power. As for compulsory power, there is direct control of someone else over the other. If there is direct control, then there must be indirect control of someone over the other and such is contained in an institutional power. Finally, the direct relation of interest among social actors can be categorized in a structural power. Most of this happens right in the context of socio-economic activities where there is a need to come up with defined interests among social actors. In politics especially somewhere in democratic countries where the vote of the majority determines the faith of the government officials who want to serve the country, politicians must be able to possess qualities that will certainly make them a cut above their opponents. Those candidates who are aiming to win for a position in the government need to have substantial qualities that will influence the popular votes. They need to prove that they are competent enough and that it will be determined from their characters, trainings, experiences and other proofs that could help justify that they are competent to serve the people. In the same way, international organizations involving different nations require each representative from each country. This means that those countries with substantial influence are most likely to be designated on top or on higher positions. In fact, in the United Nations, it will be seldom to see officials on the top position that are coming from developing countries. Mostly, these kinds of organizations are led by those coming from highly developed countries. This only proves that influence is a definite source of power and that it is widely utilized in order to maximize its competitive advantage. For Porter (1980) his concept of competitive advantage is certainly a source of power. Through creating competitive strategies, Porter believes that an organization will certainly make itself a cut above any other. This is definitely a source of power knowing that when an organization is on top of above any other, its coverage of strength has become wider in scope. This means further that it can substantially create wider range of influence and such is a real source of power. Such power is considered by Dowding (1996) as the reason why there are those who lose, benefit and at competitive advantage in disputes. There must be something that triggers power to naturally come out. A gun for instance is a specific tool that generates power because in the absence of it, one may not be able to hold up other’s hand. In the absence of it, there might be no obedience at the expense of suppressing one’s interest, will or right. However, the presence of gun is definitely a source of power because such can manipulate one’s total being as there is given importance in life. People definitely are afraid to loss their lives. Thus, a gun is an effective tool to create control over somebody else. Managers have positional power as given to them by the company. They can generate obedience out from such positional power because the company has given them the ability to fire or hire employees. It is their prerogative to hire or fire and such is a privilege given to them by the company. This means that they also have the ability to decide things for as long as it is under of management approval. This clearly suggests that managers have control over the employees which determines their power. On the other hand, there exists another powerful group in the world. Informal groups are known for their substantive influence in the society or every organization. It influences somebody’s life. A new employee in the company may be easily brain washed by older employees due to peer pressure. Such of this pressure takes it control over that employee who usually ends up declining its own will. Teenagers are most likely the same. At some point, parents may end up losing their control over their children due to peer pressure. In this case, their children are most likely to adhere to the imposed peer pressure and such can be so challenging scenario among parents to gain back their parental control. In fact, parents have certain control over their children and the only way to gain back such control is to inflict pain or even use the opportunity where there is a strong dependence between parent-children relationship. Such dependence always gives the opportunity for parents to take control over their children. Knowledge is known to be a source of power and such can be illustrated as how teachers get control over their students. In order for teachers to gain respect and have control over their students, it is necessary that they have to be highly equipped with knowledge. Such is a great opportunity to gain attention and respect from students. In such way, there is a substantial relationship that will be developed and such would remind students to evaluate their level. Students will be able to realize their level of achievement that at some point does not come far ahead of their teachers’ achievement in life. For teachers, this is a remarkable strong source of control. Even the most popular persons in their fields have something power they possess. For instance, charismatic leaders and even those who are socially acclaimed personalities have something powerful influence over some people, organization, institution or group. This is the reason that for so many decades, companies in their marketing activities especially on the integrated marketing communications have strategically chosen influential personalities to be their offerings’ ambassadors. These companies have firmly believed that the only way to gain significant market share is to use influential personalities that will be able to convince people to go try their offerings. At some point, these companies are unconscious about it that there is concept of power involved in here. Such influence those influential personalities have with them are real source of power because it could motivate others to do something as a response to the given message. Power and control All of the above definitions, examples, illustrations or justifications about power are common observations. In reality, there is a genuine truth encompassing the ability of power to take control of the situation. For Castells (2009), power is not just something to posses but is a process. Within this process there are involved relationships that are instituted allowing somebody else according to his will, interests and values to influence other’s decision. There is a clear emphasis of control in here. For instance, an organization has the power if it is clear enough that there exists an influence based on underlying will, interests and values. In the case, such an organization with specialized power or control over the situation has the capacity to influence people, individual or other organizations according by imposing its will, interests and values. However, there is much more substantive level in understanding power. The possession of power may actually lead an individual or an organization to influence others to do something that they may not feel doing due to opposition of their own will, interests and values. For Castells (2009), the manipulative nature of power in this case rings personal gain and such is achievable when there is defined values and institutions. Thus, in the absence of substantially defined vales and institutions, power may fail to be essentially defined. A successful political power for Weber is something that ends up with somebody’s will to be asserted against the resistance of others (Silos, 2003). There is a strong emphasis of dominance in this case. Power might be defines as a way to ensure dominance and make it a certain competitive advantage in a society with remarkable on-going competition but today some theorists define it in line with the idea of empowerment (Bell, 2008). This only shows that there is a clear link between dominance and empowerment and they significantly show that through the use of power they can be essentially applied wherever they might be applicable. Since the whole thing about power talks about control, it is then important to define it as an actor’s ability to be able to achieve thoughts, to use resources and achieve anything else according to agenda, motives or will (Kanter, 1994). A study was conducted in countries like Sweden, Poland and Germany to the business administration students who were asked to illustrate organizational power (Joerges and Kranas, 1991). It was found that norms and expectations played significant roles in the process of creating the organizational experience. This talks about behavioral considerations within an organization in dealing with the concept of power that is highly tied up with the concept of control. Common sources of power The sources of power are known to resolve conflicts of interest and they can are elaborately called as formal authority; scarce resources control; organizational structure, rules, and regulations; decision process control; knowledge and information control; control of boundaries; ability to address uncertainty; technology control; interpersonal alliances, networks, and control of ‘informal organization’; control of counter organizations; symbolism and the management of meaning; gender and the management of gender relations; structural factors that define the stage of action; and the power from within each of everyone (Morgan, 1998). Morgan believes that this supports the fact that the sources of power are means of enhancing organization’s or one’s interest and even on perpetuating organizational conflict. There is an imposition of will, interest or value in the event of resolving conflicts with power. Porter (1980) believes that competitive advantage is a must prior to dominate in the market. There is certain control involved as implied in the concept of Porter’s competitive advantage. Hay’s concept of power This section summarizes first the different stand of Dahl, Bachrach, Baratz and Luke on the concept of power which was presented on the critical review of Collin Hay on the concept of power. As the discussion progresses, the proponent tries to discuss Hay’s specific stand on the concept of power. Hay presented Dahl’s idea on the concept of power as purely classic pluralism which states that someone has power over the other if there is capacity to let them do things they might not want otherwise (Hay, 1997). This emphasizes that there must be existing conflict of interests which can be manifested through the realization of preferences in the decision-making process. For instance, A must be able to let B decide things based on A’s preferences. By this, B’s ability to decide things on his own has been influenced by B. This gives B the power to take control over A. However, the idea of Bachrach and Baratz about power as pointed out by Hay goes beyond the context of decision-making process. Bachrach and Baratz believe that power is also manifested even in the context of non-decision making process. This is absolutely agreed by Hay (1997) by arguing that Dahl does not provide important basis on how issues and decisions would matter. Hay pointed out that Dahl’s idea on power in the context of decision-making process has paved way to the definition of power in the context of agenda-setting of Bachrach and Baratz. This is illustrated by Hay that at some point, a group with dominating power may sometimes allow the minority to prevail in such a way it does not threaten its potential domination rather it would stand as a prerequisite in achieving more power in the long run. This is the case of an institutional power (Barnett and Duvall, 2005). There is a hidden agenda that needs to be taken into account prior to obtaining competitive advantage at the expense of other’s disadvantage without them knowing it in the first place. In this case, Hay tries to emphasize the two dimensional view of power as pointed out by Bachrach and Baratz. Thus, from the decision-making concept of power, the concept presented by Bachrach and Baratz does not only consider the decision-making process but agenda setting. In this way, this two dimensional view of power as explicated by Hay becomes more sensitive to the consideration of decision-making agenda. There is a combined consideration of the decision-making context and the agenda of the one trying to come up with power over something, somebody or a certain situation. In addition, Hay expounded that just like the idea of Dahl, the two-dimensional concept of power assumes that when there is observed conflict of interests, power exists. According to Hay (1997) what the classic pluralism and two-dimensional concept of power have failed to consider is when A and B come into consensus. Definitely there would be no power involved as clearly stated by the basic assumption of the classic pluralism and two-dimensional concept of power. Hay stated that there must be involvement of preferences which would further define the existence of power that goes beyond or as an integral part of the contexts of decision-making process and agenda setting. This clearly reveals that the concepts of Dahl, Bachrach and Baratz of power are encompassed by the category of classic behavioralism (Hay, 1997). What they failed to consider was the inclusion of the idea of preferences. According to Luke in its radical three-dimensional conception of power, it is not just enough to focus purely on the contexts of decision-making process and agenda setting, but there is enough room to consider preferences shaping (Hay, 1997). According to Hay, Luke believes that power is not only obtained when someone is being influenced to do things beyond his or her will, but when his or her preferences are influenced. Thus, Luke pointed out that in understanding the context of power, there is a need to consider strategies, struggles and practices as attributes of decision-making process; the verbal and non-verbal factors involved in the agenda setting for the decision-making process; and the verbal and non-verbal considerations in shaping perceived interests and political preferences (Hay, 1997). However, Hay pointed out that there is a problem with the three-dimensional concept of power because there is a need to consider subjective, perceived and actual or real interests (Hay, 1997). Hay argued that real and perceived interests cannot be sustained. Hay comes into the point by illustrating that it can be harder to justify power in cases like when A has to exercise power over B’s real interest. Identifying interests according to Hay can be a difficult task to do. In the same way, the exposure of power over finding the real interest is the beginning of eliminating power in the first place. Hay (1997) believed that finding A’s power over B means B must be under A’s critic. This activity resulted to understanding three essential issues in identifying concept of power. This activity as defined by Hay is under the evaluative nature of understanding power. On the other hand, Hay defined the nature of activity in identifying power as an analytical concept if there is inclusion of understanding real interests on an empirical basis. This further leads to the consideration of ethical judgment. Therefore, Hay suggests that it is important to understand the concept of power based on the nature of its activity. Hay does not contest to the existing concepts of power. He does not contest the idea of Dahl, Bachrach, Baratz and Luke. Hay simply tries to combine them together and such combination can be clearly defined in the three-dimensional concept of power. However, Hay does not stay alone on the basic concept of it, but tries to point out that it is necessary to understand that there might be three essential considerations when power is to be defined. The evaluative nature of understanding the concept of power simply tries to understand the capacity of someone else to evaluate his deepest power over the other at the expense of the one to be over powered. On the other hand, finding for real interest in defining power requires substantial judgment and this can be successfully implemented through empirical considerations. Finally, everything about these boils down to ethical considerations and thus, ethical judgment is necessary. For Hay, power is politics and vise versa and it cannot be denied that in understanding it there is a substantial inclusion of evaluation, empirical basis and ethical considerations. All of these are interrelated which make power one of the most contested concepts ever (Hay, 1997). Critique on Hay’s concept of Power Hay was able to discuss the concept and interpretation of power based on the different concepts and ideas coming from renowned social and political scientists, and philosophers. It is without question that power has become contested concept considering that Luke, Dahl, Bachrach and Baratz have different stands on the interpretation of power. However, if it has to be closely evaluated, they all make significant contribution the way Hay have unified the concept of power. Hay was able to redefine the concept of power based on the different concepts argued by Luke, Dahl, Bachrach and Baratz. For Hay, power goes beyond the analytical and critical perspectives as much as on behavioral perspective. There is a need to closely put everything in detail based on an evaluative manner, empirical considerations and sound ethical judgment. For Hay, it is difficult to define power based on the context of three-dimensional concept of power alone because everything turns out to be complicated. There are many considerations that must be involved. However, if this is the point of Hay, then such point is contestable considering that there exist and various concepts and definition of power from the past until today. In this case, Hay can be significantly viewed as one who puts everything about power into a complex detail. However, Hay was able to consider placing parameters and such were intuitively organized. However, such parameters may or may not necessarily apply in some aspects or walks of life. Hay’s idea of power was only focused on domination and influence which have to be played by two or more players. Hay failed to consider the concept of power that is applicable even with a single player. For instance, Hay was not able to consider the necessary attributes of each person which at some point may contribute to power over the other. On the other hand, Hay was able to get rid of something that most political scientists created an error with. Hay was not just relying heavily on the criteria of empirical performance especially on conceptual issues about power which basically lead to errors among political scientists in the event of too much reliance on them (Johnson, 2003). References Barnett, M. and Duvall, R. (2005) ‘Power in Global Governance,’ in M. Barnett, and R. Duvall (eds). Power in Global Governance. United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. Bell, N. (2008) ‘Power, Alternative Theories of.’ Encyclopedia of Violence. 1703-1709. Bramlett, J. (2003) The Power. USA: Xulon Press. Castells, M. (2009) Communication power. Great Britain: Oxford University Press. Connolly, W. E. (1993) The Terms of Political Discourse. 3rd ed. USA: University of Michigan. Dowding, K. M. (1996) Power. Carolina: Open University Press. Freeden, M. (1998) Ideologies and Political Theory: A Conceptual Approach. Great Britain: Oxford University Press. Hinde, R. A. (1997) Relationships: a dialectical perspective. United Kingdom: Psychology Press. Joerges, B. C. and Kranas, G. (1991) ‘Power in the eyes of the innocent (Students talk on power in organizations).’ Scandinavian Journal of Management, Vol. 7 (1): 41-60. Johnson, J. (2003) ‘Conceptual problems as obstacles to progress in political science.’ Journal of Theoretical Politics, Vol. 15 (1): 87-115. Kanter, R. M. (1994) Men and women of the corporation. 4th ed. New York: Basic Books. Morgan, G. (1998) Images of organization. USA: Berrett-Koehler. Porter, M. (1980) Competitive Strategy. USA: Free Press. Russell, B., and Brittan, S. (2004) Power: an new social analysis. 2nd ed. Great Britain: Routledge. Silos, L. R. (2003) The power of the leader: mind and meaning in leadership. Philippines: Goodwill Trading. Read More