Contemporary Debates in Social Science - Essay Example

Power and Decisions] [Name] [Course] [Lecturer] [Date] Power is a contested concept for there is no clear understanding of how it works. This is contradicted given that the dispute over the function of capabilities and other facets of power enjoys a long and distinguished tradition in the history of international relations theory (Overbeck & Park 2006). For a long time, the focus has been concentrated on hard power as the key currency in international politics; a coercive type of power to compel another to do something it is not willing to do. Power can be understood through the focus of on different aspects and their relationship to power. First it is the structural power which underlines the capacities and the positional strength. Secondly, the procedural power which is the bargaining skills and finally, the ideational power which is the entire power of norms. Structural power is described as the possession of capacities. This includes the military strength, economic power and the voting rights just to mention but a few (Overbeck, Tiedens & Brion 2006). Moreover, positional strength for example saliency also falls under this category. A focus on this entails that it is of great importance and it matters as is attributed to the fact that those who have strong capacities and positions of strength have more options in shaping negotiations that those lacking the same type of power. It is worth noting that positional strength is totally dependant on the economic power or voting power (Anderson & Galinsky 2006). Those with Such strengths can use the same to dictate the way things should be done or should be Procedural power manifested in the bargaining skills and resources for negotiation is yet another power facet. Procedural power changed when the negotiators bargains smartly, forms strong and supportive coalitions, exploit personnel and knowledge fully, make good use of information asymmetries and sue appropriate negotiations so as to reach their desired goals. This can be achieved by applying various instruments like threats, bluffing, persuasion, charisma, appeal or even discourse (Crystal 2003). Information Asymmetries change the negotiations environments for they assume few interactions and limits of institutionalization like the case of arms negotiations during the cold war. Ideational Power looks like it is the least understood among the power facets. This happens as in the idea of the influence of ideas in international politics. Decision makers cover their true intentions and use ideas as avenues to propagate and legitimize their interest (Magee, Galinsky & Gruenfeld 2007,). Understanding power is one of complicated deliberations. However, understanding it with ease can be attributed to exploring the issue through social conditions. Using this approach, power is seen as a quantifiable commodity then the legitimacy and illegitimacy of power and finally the assumption that works in vertical relationships. Quantifiable power means that it can be measured through the use of quantity, like money or fame. In this case power is measured by how much one has over the others. This is sees power as a form of coercion (Anderson & Berdahl 2002). I.e. when two people are determined to achieve different outcomes then only one of them will succeed. This implies that power is the ability to compel people to do or not to do things against their will. Legitimate power is created through authorization or delegated authority. It is articulated to who governs and for instance domination. For instance there are leaders who hold their position by virtue of special qualities like sacredness, revelation or heroism and they are obeyed for their followers believe that their leadership can transform their lives. This kind of leadership is Jesus Christ, Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther, Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein. Power everywhere or the capillary power is exercised by groups, individuals, circumstances and are imposed by those in high positions on those below them. Disciplinary powers are made up of range techniques of power that don’t rely on coercion or force. They are designed to trained and control people (Lammers et al 2008). Power is therefore defined as the degree of control over material, human financial and intellectual resources exercised by different sections of the society. The control of these resources becomes the source of social power. In other words, the extent of power of an individual or group is attributed to how many different kind of resources that one can access and control. In the society there has been continued resistance by less powerful and marginalized societies, resulting to diverse changes in the structures of power. In the society today, the most recognized power is the ‘power over’ which is associated to many negative associations such as force, coercion, discrimination, corruption and abuse. It privileges many people while marginalizing others making many essential services and resources accessible to the powerless. In many instances, it has faced rebellion and resistance (Gruber 2001). In the political scenes, those who control resources and decision making have power over those without and exclude others from participation and access to these essential aspects in the society, decision making and resources. People often repeat the power over in their personal interactions, values, communities and institutions. For instance in maintaining emotional relationships with men who economically support their family and are the determinants of that family’s stability, women feel that the must give up much of their own so as to manipulate their way (Van Kleef 2006). On some instances however, when the marginalized or the powerless gain power in leadership positions for instance women, they at times imitate the oppressors and this means that seclusions are never a reason to become democratic. Power has diverse impacts on decision making in any area. Power is grounded on the argument that through the agenda of setting the process, powerful actors get to decide which issues become subject to the formal decision making process and which do not (Hay, 2002). Power is seen not only as a decision making and agenda setting aspect but also preference shaping. Meaning it has influence to others by shaping what they think, want or even need. However, there are negative notions associated with power in regard to decision making. This is brought about by the statement that, powerful individuals only exercise power over and set the agenda, and distort the perception and the perceived interest of people through ideological indoctrination or psychological control and thus affecting the ideas (Buchanan 2004) Power has the capability of redefining the parameters of what is socially and economically possible for other and in the long run affect the actions or choices of other individuals or groups. This is enforced by indirect and direct power. Indirect power enforces power relations in which structures, institutions and organizations are shaped by human action is such a way that the parameters of subsequent actions are altered (Hay, 2002). Indirect power is a potential basis for exercising direct power. The use of the tow powers creates an atmosphere that limits or restricts any future actions as well as set a good platform for potential exercise of other powers. In this case, the decisions made are limited. Power is a source of respect and cooperation. However, in most cases it is misused and associated with subjection and command. For instance in an organization it is exercised as dictatorship where no one can stand up to challenge the decision. For instance the case of Enron, power was used to hide corrupt deals and even if there were employees who were aware of what was happening the had no courage to confront the management for fear of losing their jobs (Matthew & Robert 2003). There were conflicts in decision making in WTO which was attributed to the powerful and the powerless. The powerful believed that, they had the right to make decision which the powerless or the poor countries were only required to comply. When it comes to voting, they had more powers to do so and this sidelined the poor countries (Cottier & Satoko 2003). It was said that, doing away with the consensus decision making principle would be seen by many as a leeching of their power. The powerful or the developed countries believed that, doing away with their de facto veto will finish their capacity to influence outcomes because of their weak bargaining power. They worried the adoption of any mechanism that would incapacitate their power to influence the outcomes so that they can have their way in every decision. This shows that with power one can influence the decision making process so that they can suit one desires and get to a tailor made expectation (Holzscheiter 2005). Power is common in solving conflicts and administration of justice. In this case, when the powerless are being marginalized or neglected, demands to cater for their grievances is of great help to them. However, power is not only reflected in concrete decisions, individuals or groups can also limit decision making to relatively non controversial issues by influencing community values and political procedures and rituals. It is also common in creating and reinforcing barriers to the public airing of policy conflicts. All this has impacts to the decision making process, whether positively or negatively (Ehlermann & Lothar 2005). Power can be used to prevent arguments and this is affected by preventing grievances. By shaping perceptions, cognitions, and preference in order to secure the acceptance of the status quo since no alternative seems to exist, or even because it is seen as natural and unchangeable or beneficial is a factor influenced by power to change or incapacitate decision making (Steinel & De Dreu 2004). When making decision, there are at times when limitations occur due to the power delegated to oneself. For example a CEO has powers to exercise discretion and is delegated to others under the power of delegation in the legislation. In this case, it is worth noting that, the power of delegation can not be delegated and therefore only to those it is bestowed upon, can make decisions. And before making taking any decisive action, the decision maker need to ensure that they have power to take the said action or make the decision and the limits of any discretion that can be exercised. In this case, it is the power that influence the kind of decision made (Guzzini 2005). One of the main mechanisms of influence in the social life of an individual is power. This is because the powerless are more dependent on those with power for it serves as the potent source of influencing, limiting and steering the behavior of others. This means that, the powerless have less to contribute in the decision making for what they need solely rests on the hands of the powerful (Brin˜ol et al 2007). In other words, it is for them with power to make decision and it is for the powerless to comply with the decisions. However, it is worth noting that, even if it said that power can impose influence and constraint to others, possessing it can also be conceptualized as freeing people from the influence of external forces (Overbeck, Tiedens & Anderson, 2003) and this on the other hand influences the decisions made. In most cultures power is associated with gender. In most cases, men are accorded powers over women. This means that, in a family scenario, men make all the decisions and it is the obligation of women to obey the decision, whether they are offensive or not. In this case, there has been inequality which has resulted from men being in power which has even cause gender violence. When this is the case, power, means that it is the work of those in authority to make decisions and it is the work of those under them to obey the decisions (Vescio, Snyder & Butz 2003). Conclusively, power influences decision making in many ways. This is because those with power are less influenced and constrained by salient information in the environment that those with no power. As a result of this, intra-psychic process and predilections matter more than determining the creative and attitude expressions of the powerful. Power transforms how people live their live mostly in altering how they construes and approaches the world. All this influences decisions and how they are made (Keltner, Gruenfeld & Anderson 2003). Those in power are well positioned to make decisions which no one is obligated to question. Moreover, the powerful tend to make decision which are directed to meeting their expectations and are out to oppress the week if need be so that they can have their way and have their intentions accomplished. Power however, is also said to influence decision making which is directed to making the life of the marginalized more comfortable (Guinote 2008). In other words power is an aspect which if used positively will result to decision making which is directed to the good for all. Reference Anderson, C., Berdahl, J., L., 2002, The experience of power: Examining the effects of power on approach and inhibition tendencies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1362–1377. Anderson, C., Galinsky, A., D., 2006, Power, optimism, and risk-taking. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 511–536. Brin˜ol, P., Petty, R. E., Valle, C., Rucker, D. D., Becerra, A., 2007, The effects of message recipients’ power before and after persuasion: A self-validation analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 1040–1053. Buchanan, M., 2004, “Power Laws & the New Science of Complexity Management” in Strategy + Business, Issue 34, pp. 70-79. Cottier, T., Satoko, T., 2003, “The Balance of Power in WTO Decision‐Making: Towards Weighted Voting in Legislative Response,” Aussenwirtschaft 58(2): 171‐214. Crystal, J., 2003. “Bargaining in the Negotiations over Liberalizing Trade in Services: Power, Reciprocity and Learning,” Review of International Political Economy 10(3):552‐78. Ehlermann, C., Lothar E., 2005. “Decision‐Making in the World Trade Organization,” Journal of International Economic Law 8(1):51‐75. Guinote, A., 2008, Power and affordances: When the situation has more power over powerful than over powerless individuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 237–252. Guinote, A., 2007, Power affects basic cognition: Increased attentional inhibition and flexibility. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 685–697. Gruber, L., 2001, “Power Politics and the Free Trade Bandwagon,” Comparative Political Studies 34(7):703‐41. Guzzini, S., 2005. “The Concept of Power: a Constructivist Analysis,” Millennium 33(3): 495‐521. Holzscheiter, A., 2005,‘Power of Discourse and Power in Discourse. An Investigation of Transformation and Exclusion in the Global Discourse of Childhood’, unpublished PhD thesis, FU Berlin. Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D., H., Anderson, C., 2003, Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological Review, 110, 265–284. Lammers, J., Galinsky, A. D., Gordijn, E. H., Otten, S., 2008, Illegitimacy moderates the effects of power on approach. Psychological Science, 19, 558–564. Magee, J., C., Galinsky, A., D., & Gruenfeld, D., H., 2007, Power, propensity to negotiate, and moving first in competitive interactions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 200–212. Matthew W., S., Robert R., U., 2003, Explaining Enron : Communication and Responsible Leadership.Management Communication Quarterly :17: 58 Overbeck, J., R., Tiedens, L., Z., Brion, S., 2006, The powerful want to, the powerless have to: Perceived constraint moderates causal attributions. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 479–496. Overbeck, J., R., Park, B., 2006, Powerful perceivers, powerless objects: Flexibility of powerholders’ social attention. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 99, 227–243. Steinel, W., De Dreu, C., K., 2004, Social motives and strategic misrepresentation in social decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 419–434. Van Kleef, G., A., De Dreu, C., K., W., Pietroni, D., Manstead, A., S., R., 2006, Power and emotion in negotiation: Power moderates the interpersonal effects of anger and happiness on concession making. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 557–581. Vescio, T., K., Snyder, M., Butz, D., A., 2003, Power in stereotypically masculine domains: A Social Influence Strategy _ Stereotype Match model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 1062–1078. Read More

This is sees power as a form of coercion (Anderson & Berdahl 2002). I.e. when two people are determined to achieve different outcomes then only one of them will succeed. This implies that power is the ability to compel people to do or not to do things against their will. Legitimate power is created through authorization or delegated authority. It is articulated to who governs and for instance domination. For instance there are leaders who hold their position by virtue of special qualities like sacredness, revelation or heroism and they are obeyed for their followers believe that their leadership can transform their lives.

This kind of leadership is Jesus Christ, Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther, Adolf Hitler and Saddam Hussein. Power everywhere or the capillary power is exercised by groups, individuals, circumstances and are imposed by those in high positions on those below them. Disciplinary powers are made up of range techniques of power that don’t rely on coercion or force. They are designed to trained and control people (Lammers et al 2008). Power is therefore defined as the degree of control over material, human financial and intellectual resources exercised by different sections of the society.

The control of these resources becomes the source of social power. In other words, the extent of power of an individual or group is attributed to how many different kind of resources that one can access and control. In the society there has been continued resistance by less powerful and marginalized societies, resulting to diverse changes in the structures of power. In the society today, the most recognized power is the ‘power over’ which is associated to many negative associations such as force, coercion, discrimination, corruption and abuse.

It privileges many people while marginalizing others making many essential services and resources accessible to the powerless. In many instances, it has faced rebellion and resistance (Gruber 2001). In the political scenes, those who control resources and decision making have power over those without and exclude others from participation and access to these essential aspects in the society, decision making and resources. People often repeat the power over in their personal interactions, values, communities and institutions.

For instance in maintaining emotional relationships with men who economically support their family and are the determinants of that family’s stability, women feel that the must give up much of their own so as to manipulate their way (Van Kleef 2006). On some instances however, when the marginalized or the powerless gain power in leadership positions for instance women, they at times imitate the oppressors and this means that seclusions are never a reason to become democratic. Power has diverse impacts on decision making in any area.

Power is grounded on the argument that through the agenda of setting the process, powerful actors get to decide which issues become subject to the formal decision making process and which do not (Hay, 2002). Power is seen not only as a decision making and agenda setting aspect but also preference shaping. Meaning it has influence to others by shaping what they think, want or even need. However, there are negative notions associated with power in regard to decision making. This is brought about by the statement that, powerful individuals only exercise power over and set the agenda, and distort the perception and the perceived interest of people through ideological indoctrination or psychological control and thus affecting the ideas (Buchanan 2004) Power has the capability of redefining the parameters of what is socially and economically possible for other and in the long run affect the actions or choices of other individuals or groups.

This is enforced by indirect and direct power. Indirect power enforces power relations in which structures, institutions and organizations are shaped by human action is such a way that the parameters of subsequent actions are altered (Hay, 2002).

Read More