Political power

In political science, power is the ability to influence or direct the actions, beliefs, or conduct of actors. Power does not exclusively refer to the threat or use of force (coercion) by one actor against another, but may also be exerted through diffuse means (such as institutions).

Social and political power as a multifaceted concept. Top-left: The entrance of the Zhongnanhai, the compound that houses the top leadership of the government of the People's Republic of China (PRC) and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Top-right: In the indexes of the Henley Passport Index, Singapore is often posited as the most visa-free access of any country through their passport agreements to 195 destinations; an example of soft power. Bottom-left: a chain gang of prisoners serving their sentences under the authority of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice in the United States. Bottom-right: statue of Barack Obama and Michelle Obama near Moneygall, Ireland; an example of cultural power.

Power may also take structural forms, as it orders actors in relation to one another (such as distinguishing between 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, as categories and language may lend legitimacy to some behaviors and groups over others.

The term authority is often used for power that is perceived as legitimate or socially approved by the social structure.

Scholars have distinguished between soft power and hard power.

Theories

Five bases of power

In a now-classic study (1959), social psychologists John R. P. French and Bertram Raven developed a schema of sources of power by which to analyse how power plays work (or fail to work) in a specific relationship.

According to French and Raven, power must be distinguished from influence in the following way: power is that state of affairs that holds in a given relationship, A-B, such that a given influence attempt by A over B makes A's desired change in B more likely. Conceived this way, power is fundamentally relative; it depends on the specific understandings A and B each apply to their relationship and requires B's recognition of a quality in A that would motivate B to change in the way A intends. A must draw on the 'base' or combination of bases of power appropriate to the relationship to effect the desired outcome. Drawing on the wrong power base can have unintended effects, including a reduction in A's own power.

French and Raven argue that there are five significant categories of such qualities, while not excluding other minor categories. Further bases have since been adduced, in particular by Gareth Morgan in his 1986 book, Images of Organization.

Legitimate power

Also called "positional power", legitimate power is the power of an individual because of the relative position and duties of the holder of the position within an organization. Legitimate power is formal authority delegated to the holder of the position. It is usually accompanied by various attributes of power, such as a uniform, a title, or an imposing physical office.

In simple terms, power can be expressed^{[by whom?]} as being upward or downward. With downward power, a company's superiors influence subordinates to attain organizational goals. When a company exhibits upward power, subordinates influence the decisions of their leader or leaders.

Referent power

Referent power is the power or ability of individuals to attract others and build loyalty. It is based on the charisma and interpersonal skills of the powerholder. A person may be admired because of a specific personal trait, and this admiration creates the opportunity for interpersonal influence. Here, the person under power desires to identify with these personal qualities and gains satisfaction from being an accepted follower. Nationalism and patriotism count towards an intangible sort of referent power. For example, soldiers fight in wars to defend the honor of the country. This is the second-least obvious power but the most effective. Advertisers have long used the referent power of sports figures for product endorsements, for example. The charismatic appeal of the sports star supposedly leads to an acceptance of the endorsement, although the individual may have little real credibility outside the sports arena. Abuse is possible when someone who is likable yet lacks integrity and honesty rises to power, placing them in a situation to gain personal advantage at the cost of the group's position.^{[citation needed]} Referent power is unstable alone and is not enough for a leader who wants longevity and respect. When combined with other sources of power, however, it can help a person achieve great success.

Expert power

Expert power is an individual's power deriving from the skills or expertise of the person and the organization's needs for those skills and expertise. Unlike the others, this type of power is usually highly specific and limited to the particular area in which the expert is trained and qualified. When they have knowledge and skills that enable them to understand a situation, suggest solutions, use solid judgment, and generally outperform others, then people tend to listen to them. When individuals demonstrate expertise, people tend to trust them and respect what they say. As subject-matter experts, their ideas will have more value, and others will look to them for leadership in that area.

Reward power

Reward power depends on the ability of the power wielder to confer valued material rewards; it refers to the degree to which the individual can give others a reward of some kind, such as benefits, time off, desired gifts, promotions, or increases in pay or responsibility. This power is obvious, but it is also ineffective if abused. People who abuse reward power can become pushy or be reprimanded for being too forthcoming or 'moving things too quickly'. If others expect to be rewarded for doing what someone wants, there is a high probability that they will do it. The problem with this basis of power is that the rewarder may not have as much control over rewards as may be required. Supervisors rarely have complete control over salary increases, and managers often cannot control all actions in isolation; even a company CEO needs permission from the board of directors for some actions. When an individual uses up available rewards or the rewards do not have enough perceived value for others, their power weakens. One of the frustrations of using rewards is that they often need to be bigger each time if they are to have the same motivational impact. Even then, if rewards are given frequently, people can become so satiated by the reward it loses its effectiveness.^{[citation needed]}

In terms of cancel culture, the mass ostracization used to reconcile unchecked injustice and abuse of power is an "upward power." Policies for policing the internet against these processes as a pathway for creating due process for handling conflicts, abuses, and harm that is done through established processes are known as "downward power."

Coercive power

Coercive power is the application of negative influences. It includes the ability to defer or withhold other rewards. The desire for valued rewards or the fear of having them withheld can ensure the obedience of those under power. Coercive power tends to be the most obvious but least effective form of power, as it builds resentment and resistance from the people who experience it. Threats and punishment are common tools of coercion. Implying or threatening that someone will be fired, demoted, denied privileges, or given undesirable assignments – these are characteristics of using coercive power. Extensive use of coercive power is rarely appropriate in an organizational setting, and relying on these forms of power alone will result in a very cold, impoverished style of leadership. This is a type of power commonly seen in the fashion industry by coupling with legitimate power; it is referred to in the industry-specific literature as "glamorization of structural domination and exploitation".

Principles in interpersonal relationships

According to Laura K. Guerrero and Peter A. Andersen in Close Encounters: Communication in Relationships:

• Power as a perception: Power is a perception in the sense that some people can have objective power but still have trouble influencing others. People who use power cues and act powerfully and proactively tend to be perceived as powerful by others. Some people become influential even though they do not overtly use powerful behavior.
• Power as a relational concept: Power exists in relationships. The issue here is often how much relative power a person has in comparison to one's partner. Partners in close and satisfying relationships often influence each other at different times in various arenas.
• Power as resource-based: Power usually represents a struggle over resources. The more scarce and valued resources are, the more intense and protracted the power struggles. The scarcity hypothesis indicates that people have the most power when the resources they possess are hard to come by or are in high demand. However, scarce resources lead to power only if they are valued within a relationship.
• The principle of least interest and dependence power: The person with less to lose has greater power in the relationship. Dependence power indicates that those who are dependent on their relationship or partner are less powerful, especially if they know their partner is uncommitted and might leave them. According to interdependence theory, the quality of alternatives refers to the types of relationships and opportunities people could have if they were not in their current relationship. The principle of least interest suggests that if a difference exists in the intensity of positive feelings between partners, the partner who feels the most positive is at a power disadvantage. There's an inverse relationship between interest in a relationship and the degree of relational power.
• Power as enabling or disabling: Power can be enabling or disabling. Research^{[citation needed]} has shown that people are more likely to have an enduring influence on others when they engage in dominant behavior that reflects social skill rather than intimidation. Personal power is protective against pressure and excessive influence by others and/or situational stress. People who communicate through self-confidence and expressive, composed behavior tend to be successful in achieving their goals and maintaining good relationships. Power can be disabling when it leads to destructive patterns of communication. This can lead to the chilling effect, where the less powerful person often hesitates to communicate dissatisfaction, and the demand withdrawal pattern, which is when one person makes demands and the other becomes defensive and withdraws (Mawasha, 2006). Both effects have negative consequences for relational satisfaction.
• Power as a prerogative: The prerogative principle states that the partner with more power can make and break the rules. Powerful people can violate norms, break relational rules, and manage interactions without as much penalty as powerless people. These actions may reinforce the powerful person's dependence on power. In addition, the more powerful person has the prerogative to manage both verbal and nonverbal interactions. They can initiate conversations, change topics, interrupt others, initiate touch, and end discussions more easily than less powerful people. (See expressions of dominance.)

Rational choice framework

Game theory, with its foundations in the Walrasian theory of rational choice, is increasingly used in various disciplines to help analyze power relationships. One rational-choice definition of power is given by Keith Dowding in his book Power.

In rational choice theory, human individuals or groups can be modelled as 'actors' who choose from a 'choice set' of possible actions in order to try to achieve desired outcomes. An actor's 'incentive structure' comprises (its beliefs about) the costs associated with different actions in the choice set and the likelihoods that different actions will lead to desired outcomes.

In this setting, we can differentiate between:

1. outcome power – the ability of an actor to bring about or help bring about outcomes;
2. social power – the ability of an actor to change the incentive structures of other actors in order to bring about outcomes.

This framework can be used to model a wide range of social interactions where actors have the ability to exert power over others. For example, a 'powerful' actor can take options away from another's choice set; can change the relative costs of actions; can change the likelihood that a given action will lead to a given outcome; or might simply change the other's beliefs about its incentive structure.

As with other models of power, this framework is neutral as to the use of 'coercion'. For example, a threat of violence can change the likely costs and benefits of different actions; so can a financial penalty in a 'voluntarily agreed' contract, or indeed a friendly offer.

Cultural hegemony

In the Marxist tradition, the Italian writer Antonio Gramsci elaborated on the role of ideology in creating a cultural hegemony, which becomes a means of bolstering the power of capitalism and of the nation-state. Drawing on Niccolò Machiavelli in The Prince and trying to understand why there had been no Communist revolution in Western Europe while it was claimed there had been one in Russia, Gramsci conceptualised this hegemony as a centaur, consisting of two halves. The back end, the beast, represented the more classic material image of power: power through coercion, through brute force, be it physical or economic. But the capitalist hegemony, he argued, depended even more strongly on the front end, the human face, which projected power through 'consent'. In Russia, this power was lacking, allowing for a revolution. However, in Western Europe, specifically in Italy, capitalism had succeeded in exercising consensual power, convincing the working classes that their interests were the same as those of capitalists. In this way, a revolution had been avoided.

While Gramsci stresses the significance of ideology in power structures, Marxist-feminist writers such as Michele Barrett stress the role of ideologies in extolling the virtues of family life. The classic argument to illustrate this point of view is the use of women as a 'reserve army of labour'. In wartime, it is accepted that women perform masculine tasks, while after the war, the roles are easily reversed. Therefore, according to Barrett, the destruction of capitalist economic relations is necessary but not sufficient for the liberation of women.

Tarnow

Eugen Tarnow considers what power hijackers have over air plane passengers and draws similarities with power in the military. He shows that power over an individual can be amplified by the presence of a group. If the group conforms to the leader's commands, the leader's power over an individual is greatly enhanced, while if the group does not conform, the leader's power over an individual is nil.

Foucault

For Michel Foucault, the real power will always rely on the ignorance of its agents. No single human, group, or actor runs the dispositif (machine or apparatus), but power is dispersed through the apparatus as efficiently and silently as possible, ensuring its agents do whatever is necessary. It is because of this action that power is unlikely to be detected and remains elusive to 'rational' investigation. Foucault quotes a text reputedly written by political economist Jean Baptiste Antoine Auget de Montyon, entitled Recherches et considérations sur la population de la France (1778), but turns out to be written by his secretary (1745–1794), and by emphasizing biologist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, who constantly refers to milieus as a plural adjective and sees into the milieu as an expression as nothing more than water, air, and light confirming the genus within the milieu, in this case the human species, relates to a function of the population and its social and political interaction in which both form an artificial and natural milieu. This milieu (both artificial and natural) appears as a target of intervention for power, according to Foucault, which is radically different from the previous notions on sovereignty, territory, and disciplinary space interwoven into social and political relations that function as a species (biological species). Foucault originated and developed the concept of "docile bodies" in his book Discipline and Punish. He writes, "A body is docile that may be subjected, used, transformed and improved.

Clegg

Stewart Clegg proposes another three-dimensional model with his "circuits of power" theory. This model likens the production and organization of power to an electric circuit board consisting of three distinct interacting circuits: episodic, dispositional, and facilitative. These circuits operate at three levels: two are macro and one is micro. The episodic circuit is at the micro level and is constituted of irregular exercise of power as agents address feelings, communication, conflict, and resistance in day-to-day interrelations. The outcomes of the episodic circuit are both positive and negative. The dispositional circuit is constituted of macro level rules of practice and socially constructed meanings that inform member relations and legitimate authority. The facilitative circuit is constituted of macro level technology, environmental contingencies, job design, and networks, which empower or disempower and thus punish or reward agency in the episodic circuit. All three independent circuits interact at "obligatory passage points", which are channels for empowerment or disempowerment.

Galbraith

John Kenneth Galbraith (1908–2006) in The Anatomy of Power (1983) summarizes the types of power as "condign" (based on force), "compensatory" (through the use of various resources) or "conditioned" (the result of persuasion),^{[citation needed]} and the sources of power as "personality" (individuals), "property" (power-wielders' material resources), and/or "organizational" (from sitting higher in an organisational power structure).

Gene Sharp

Gene Sharp, an American professor of political science, believes that power ultimately depends on its bases. Thus, a political regime maintains power because people accept and obey its dictates, laws, and policies. Sharp cites the insight of Étienne de La Boétie.

Sharp's key theme is that power is not monolithic; that is, it does not derive from some intrinsic quality of those who are in power. For Sharp, political power, the power of any state – regardless of its particular structural organization – ultimately derives from the subjects of the state. His fundamental belief is that any power structure relies upon the subjects' obedience to the orders of the ruler(s). If subjects do not obey, leaders have no power.

His work is thought to have been influential in the overthrow of Slobodan Milošević, in the 2011 Arab Spring, and other nonviolent revolutions.

Björn Kraus

Björn Kraus deals with the epistemological perspective on power regarding the question of the possibilities of interpersonal influence by developing a special form of constructivism (named relational constructivism). Instead of focusing on the valuation and distribution of power, he asks first and foremost what the term can describe at all. Coming from Max Weber's definition of power, he realizes that the term power has to be split into "instructive power" and "destructive power".^{: 105 : 126} More precisely, instructive power means the chance to determine the actions and thoughts of another person, whereas destructive power means the chance to diminish the opportunities of another person. How significant this distinction really is, becomes evident by looking at the possibilities of rejecting power attempts: Rejecting instructive power is possible; rejecting destructive power is not. By using this distinction, proportions of power can be analyzed in a more sophisticated way, helping to sufficiently reflect on matters of responsibility.^{: 139 f.} This perspective permits people to get over an "either-or-position" (either there is power or there is not), which is common, especially in epistemological discourses about power theories, and to introduce the possibility of an "as well as-position".^: 120

Unmarked categories

The idea of unmarked categories originated in feminism. As opposed to looking at social difference by focusing on what or whom is perceived to be different, theorists who use the idea of unmarked categories insist that one must also look at how whatever is "normal" comes to be perceived as unremarkable and what effects this has on social relations. Attending the unmarked category is thought to be a way to analyze linguistic and cultural practices to provide insight into how social differences, including power, are produced and articulated in everyday occurrences.

Feminist linguist Deborah Cameron describes an "unmarked" identity as the default, which requires no explicit acknowledgment. Heterosexuality, for instance, is unmarked, assumed as the norm, unlike homosexuality, which is "marked" and requires clearer signaling as it differs from the majority. Similarly, masculinity is often unmarked, while femininity is marked, leading to studies that examine distinctive features in women’s speech, whereas men’s speech is treated as the neutral standard.

Although the unmarked category is typically not explicitly noticed and often goes overlooked, it is still necessarily visible.

Counterpower

The term 'counter-power' (sometimes written 'counterpower') is used in a range of situations to describe the countervailing force that can be utilised by the oppressed to counterbalance or erode the power of elites. A general definition has been provided by the anthropologist David Graeber as 'a collection of social institutions set in opposition to the state and capital: from self-governing communities to radical labor unions to popular militias'. Graeber also notes that counter-power can also be referred to as 'anti-power' and 'when institutions [of counter-power] maintain themselves in the face of the state, this is usually referred to as a 'dual power' situation'.Tim Gee, in his 2011 book Counterpower: Making Change Happen, put forward the theory that those disempowered by governments' and elite groups' power can use counterpower to counter this. In Gee's model, counterpower is split into three categories: idea counterpower, economic counterpower, and physical counterpower.

Although the term has come to prominence through its use by participants in the global justice/anti-globalization movement of the 1990s onwards, the word has been used for at least 60 years; for instance, Martin Buber's 1949 book 'Paths in Utopia' includes the line 'Power abdicates only under the stress of counter-power'.^: 13

Other theories

• Thomas Hobbes (1588–1679) defined power as a man's "present means, to obtain some future apparent good" (Leviathan, Ch. 10).
• The ideas of David Hume (1711-1776) on the undesirable excesses with which monotheistic intolerance can consolidate power have had wide resonance.
• The thought of Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900) underlies much 20th-century analysis of power. Nietzsche disseminated ideas on the "will to power", which he saw as the domination of other humans as much as the exercise of control over one's environment.
• Some schools of psychology, notably those associated with Alfred Adler (1870–1937), place power dynamics at the core of their theory (where orthodox Freudians might place sexuality).
• Paul Tillich (1886–1965) saw law as structuring/expressing power and developing through "sacramental" (community) and theocratic stages before reaching a secular rational mode.
• Rodolfo Henrique Cerbaro suggests understanding power as "what counts as a means of determining a subject's position in a given competition".

Psychological research

Recent experimental psychology suggests that the more power one has, the less one takes on the perspective of others, implying that the powerful have less empathy. Adam Galinsky, along with several coauthors, found that when those who are reminded of their powerlessness are instructed to draw Es on their forehead, they are 3 times more likely to draw them such that they are legible to others than those who are reminded of their power. Powerful people are also more likely to take action. In one example, powerful people turned off an irritatingly close fan twice as much as less powerful people. Researchers have documented the bystander effect: they found that powerful people are three times as likely to first offer help to a "stranger in distress".

A study involving over 50 college students suggested that those primed to feel powerful through stating 'power words' were less susceptible to external pressure, more willing to give honest feedback, and more creative. In one paper, power was defined "as a possibility to influence others."^: 1137Research experiments were done as early as 1968 to explore power conflict. One study concluded that facing one with more power leads to strategic consideration whereas facing one with less power leads to a social responsibility.

Bargaining games

There have also been studies aimed at comparing behavior done in different situations were individuals were given power. In an ultimatum game, the person in given power offers an ultimatum and the recipient would have to accept that offer or else both the proposer and the recipient will receive no reward. In a dictator game, the person in given power offers a proposal and the recipient would have to accept that offer. The recipient has no choice of rejecting the offer. The dictator game gives no power to the recipient whereas the ultimatum game gives some power to the recipient. The behavior observed was that the person offering the proposal would act less strategically than would the one offering in the ultimatum game. Self-serving also occurred and a lot of pro-social behavior was observed.

When the counterpart recipient is completely powerless, lack of strategy, social responsibility and moral consideration is often observed from the behavior of the proposal given (the one with the power).

Tactics

Tactics that political actors use to obtain their goals include using overt aggression, collaboration, or even manipulation. One can classify such power tactics along three different dimensions:

1. Soft and hard: Soft tactics take advantage of the relationship between the influencer and the target. They are more indirect and interpersonal (e.g., collaboration, socializing). Conversely, hard tactics are harsh, forceful, direct, and rely on concrete outcomes. However, they are not more powerful than soft tactics. In many circumstances, fear of social exclusion can be a much stronger motivator than some kind of physical punishment.
2. Rational and nonrational: Rational tactics of influence make use of reasoning, logic, and sound judgment, whereas nonrational tactics may rely on emotionality or misinformation. Examples of each include bargaining and persuasion, and evasion and put-downs, respectively.
3. Unilateral and bilateral: Bilateral tactics, such as collaboration and negotiation, involve reciprocity on the part of both the person influencing and their target. Unilateral tactics, on the other hand, develop without any participation on the part of the target. These tactics include disengagement and the deployment of fait accomplis.

People tend to vary in their use of power tactics, with different types of people opting for different tactics. For instance, interpersonally oriented people tend to use soft and rational tactics. Moreover, extroverts use a greater variety of power tactics than do introverts. People will also choose different tactics based on the group situation, and based on whom they wish to influence. People also tend to shift from soft to hard tactics when they face resistance.

Balance of power

Because power operates both relationally and reciprocally, sociologists speak of the "balance of power" between parties to a relationship: all parties to all relationships have some power: the sociological examination of power concerns itself with discovering and describing the relative strengths: equal or unequal, stable or subject to periodic change. Sociologists usually analyse relationships in which the parties have relatively equal or nearly equal power in terms of constraint rather than of power.^{[citation needed]} In this context, "power" has a connotation of unilateralism. If this were not so, then all relationships could be described in terms of "power", and its meaning would be lost. Given that power is not innate and can be granted to others, to acquire power one must possess or control a form of power currency.^{[need quotation to verify]}

Political power in authoritarian regimes

In authoritarian regimes, political power is concentrated in the hands of a single leader or a small group of leaders who exercise almost complete control over the government and its institutions. Because some authoritarian leaders are not elected by a majority, their main threat is that posed by the masses. They often maintain their power through political control tactics like:

1. Repression: The state targets actors who challenge their beliefs. Can be done directly or indirectly.

   • Autocrats repress actors they perceive as having irreconcilable interests, and cooperate with those they think have reconcilable ones.
   • Because of preference falsification- distinguishing between an individual's private preference and public preference- sometimes repression in itself is not enough.

2. Indoctrination: The state controls public education and uses propaganda to diffuse its views and values into society.

   • A one standard deviation increase in pro-regime propaganda reduces the odds of protest the following day by 15%.

3. Coercive distribution: The state distributes welfare and resources to keep people dependent while offering benefits to people they know they can manipulate.
4. Infiltration: The state assigns people to go into grassroot level to sway the public in favor of the authoritarian regime.

Although several regimes follow these general forms of control, different authoritarian sub-regime types rely on different political control tactics.

Effects

Power changes those in the position of power and those who are targets of that power.

Approach/inhibition theory

Developed by D. Keltner and colleagues, approach/inhibition theory assumes that having power and using power alters psychological states of individuals. The theory is based on the notion that most organisms react to environmental events in two common ways. The reaction of approach is associated with action, self-promotion, seeking rewards, increased energy and movement. Inhibition, on the contrary, is associated with self-protection, avoiding threats or danger, vigilance, loss of motivation and an overall reduction in activity.

Overall, approach/inhibition theory holds that power promotes approach tendencies, while a reduction in power promotes inhibition tendencies.

Positive

• Power prompts people to take action
• Makes individuals more responsive to changes within a group and its environment
• Powerful people are more proactive, more likely to speak up, make the first move, and lead negotiation
• Powerful people are more focused on the goals appropriate in a given situation and tend to plan more task-related activities in a work setting
• Powerful people tend to experience more positive emotions, such as happiness and satisfaction, and they smile more than low-power individuals
• Power is associated with optimism about the future because more powerful individuals focus their attention on more positive aspects of the environment
• People with more power tend to carry out executive cognitive functions more rapidly and successfully, including internal control mechanisms that coordinate attention, decision-making, planning, and goal-selection

Negative

• Powerful people are prone to take risky, inappropriate, or unethical decisions and often overstep their boundaries
• They tend to generate negative emotional reactions in their subordinates, particularly when there is a conflict in the group
• When individuals gain power, their self-evaluation become more positive, while their evaluations of others become more negative
• Power tends to weaken one's social attentiveness, which leads to difficulty understanding other people's point of view
• Powerful people also spend less time collecting and processing information about their subordinates and often perceive them in a stereotypical fashion
• People with power tend to use more coercive tactics, increase social distance between themselves and subordinates, believe that non-powerful individuals are untrustworthy, and devalue work and ability of less powerful individuals

Reactions

Tactics

A number of studies demonstrate that harsh power tactics (e.g. punishment (both personal and impersonal), rule-based sanctions, and non-personal rewards) are less effective than soft tactics (expert power, referent power, and personal rewards). It is probably because harsh tactics generate hostility, depression, fear, and anger, while soft tactics are often reciprocated with cooperation. Coercive and reward power can also lead group members to lose interest in their work, while instilling a feeling of autonomy in one's subordinates can sustain their interest in work and maintain high productivity even in the absence of monitoring.

Coercive influence creates conflict that can disrupt entire group functioning. When disobedient group members are severely reprimanded, the rest of the group may become more disruptive and uninterested in their work, leading to negative and inappropriate activities spreading from one troubled member to the rest of the group. This effect is called Disruptive contagion or ripple effect and it is strongly manifested when reprimanded member has a high status within a group, and authority's requests are vague and ambiguous.

Resistance to coercive influence

Coercive influence can be tolerated when the group is successful, the leader is trusted, and the use of coercive tactics is justified by group norms. Furthermore, coercive methods are more effective when applied frequently and consistently to punish prohibited actions.

However, in some cases, group members chose to resist the authority's influence. When low-power group members have a feeling of shared identity, they are more likely to form a Revolutionary Coalition, a subgroup formed within a larger group that seeks to disrupt and oppose the group's authority structure. Group members are more likely to form a revolutionary coalition and resist an authority when authority lacks referent power, uses coercive methods, and asks group members to carry out unpleasant assignments. It is because these conditions create reactance, individuals strive to reassert their sense of freedom by affirming their agency for their own choices and consequences.

Kelman's compliance-identification-internalization theory of conversion

Herbert Kelman identified three basic, step-like reactions that people display in response to coercive influence: compliance, identification, and internalization. This theory explains how groups convert hesitant recruits into zealous followers over time.

At the stage of compliance, group members comply with authority's demands, but personally do not agree with them. If authority does not monitor the members, they will probably not obey.

Identification occurs when the target of the influence admires and therefore imitates the authority, mimics authority's actions, values, characteristics, and takes on behaviours of the person with power. If prolonged and continuous, identification can lead to the final stage – internalization.

When internalization occurs, individual adopts the induced behaviour because it is congruent with his/her value system. At this stage, group members no longer carry out authority orders but perform actions that are congruent with their personal beliefs and opinions. Extreme obedience often requires internalization.

Power literacy

Power literacy refers to how one perceives power, how it is formed and accumulates, and the structures that support it and who is in control of it. Education can be helpful for heightening power literacy. In a 2014 TED talk Eric Liu notes that "we don't like to talk about power" as "we find it scary" and "somehow evil" with it having a "negative moral valence" and states that the pervasiveness of power illiteracy causes a concentration of knowledge, understanding and clout.Joe L. Kincheloe describes a "cyber-literacy of power" that is concerned with the forces that shape knowledge production and the construction and transmission of meaning, being more about engaging knowledge than "mastering" information, and a "cyber-power literacy" that is focused on transformative knowledge production and new modes of accountability.

See also

• Authority bias
• Discourse of power
• Power structure
• Power vacuum
• Separation of powers
• Speaking truth to power
• Social control
• State collapse
• Veto, the power to forbid an action

References

1. McLean, Iain; McMillan, Alistair (26 February 2009). The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics. OUP Oxford. ISBN 978-0-19-101827-5.
2. "Definition of POWER". www.merriam-webster.com. 11 October 2024. Retrieved 15 October 2024.
3. Barnett, Michael; Duvall, Raymond (2005). "Power in International Politics". International Organization. 59 (1): 39–75. doi:10.1017/S0020818305050010. ISSN 0020-8183. JSTOR 3877878. S2CID 3613655.
4. Finnemore, Martha; Goldstein, Judith (2013), "Puzzles about Power", Back to Basics: State Power in a Contemporary World, Oxford University Press, doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199970087.003.0001, ISBN 978-0-19-997008-7, retrieved 9 April 2022
5. "Authority | Definition, Types & Uses | Britannica". www.britannica.com. Retrieved 15 October 2024.
6. Wilson III, E. J. (2008). Hard power, soft power, smart power. The annals of the American academy of Political and Social Science, 616(1), 110-124.
7. Gray, Colin S. Hard power and soft power: the utility of military force as an instrument of policy in the 21st century. Lulu. com, 2011.
8. French, J.R.P., & Raven, B. (1959). 'The bases of social power,' in D. Cartwright (ed.) Studies in Social Power. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press. 259–269.
9. de Moll, Kelly E. (August 2010), Everyday Experiences of Power (PDF) (Ph.D. dissertation), Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee, p. 22, archived from the original on 22 October 2021, retrieved 16 May 2014.
10. Montana, Patrick J.; Charnov, Bruce H. (2008). Management (4th ed.). Hauppauge, NY: Barron's Educational Series. p. 257. ISBN 978-0764139314. OCLC 175290009.
11. Schein, Larry E. Greiner, Virginia E. (1988). Power and organization development : mobilizing power to implement change (Repr. with corrections. ed.). Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley. ISBN 978-0201121858.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
12. Marsh, Stefanie (2 September 2018). "Chanel shoes, but no salary: How one woman exposed the scandal of the French fashion industry". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 28 March 2023. Retrieved 5 September 2018.
13. Guerrero, Laura K., and Peter A. Andersen. Close Encounters: Communication in Relationships, 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage, 2011. Print. pp. 267–261
14. Pip Jones, Introducing Social Theory, Polity Press, Cambridge, 2008, p. 93.
15. Political Theory (PDF) (Course pack), Sikkim: Eiilm University, p. 27, archived from the original (PDF) on 17 May 2014.
16. Michel Foucault, Lectures at the College de France, 1977–78: Security, Territory, Population, 2007, pp. 1–17.
17. Foucault, Michel (1995). Discipline and punish : the birth of the prison (2nd ed.). New York: Vintage Books. ISBN 978-0679752554.
18. Deji 2011, p. 267
19. Galbraith, John Kenneth (1983). The Anatomy of Power.
20. Galbraith, John Kenneth (1983) [1983]. The Anatomy of Power (reprint ed.). Houghton Mifflin. p. 7. ISBN 978-0395344002. Archived from the original on 11 April 2023. Retrieved 11 April 2023. [...] there are also numerous combinations of the sources of power and the related instruments. Personality, property, and organization are combined in various strengths.
21. Sharp, Gene (2010). From dictatorship to democracy: A conceptual framework for liberation (PDF) (4th U.S. ed.). East Boston, MA: The Albert Einstein Institution. ISBN 978-1-880813-09-6. Archived from the original (PDF) on 28 August 2018. Retrieved 16 October 2014. (See book article.)
22. Arrow, Ruaridh (21 February 2011). "Gene Sharp: Author of the nonviolent revolution rulebook". BBC News. Archived from the original on 21 February 2011. Retrieved 20 July 2018.
23. Heiko Kleve: Vom Erweitern der Möglichkeiten. In: Bernhard Pörksen (ed.): Schlüsselwerke des Konstruktivismus. VS-Verlag, Wiesbaden/Germany 2011. pp. 506–519 [509].
24. Kraus, Björn (2014). "Introducing a Model for Analyzing the Possibilities of Power, Help and Control". Social Work & Society. 12 (1). Retrieved 12 August 2014.
25. Max Weber: Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft. Grundriss der verstehenden Soziologie. Mohr, Tübingen/Germany 1972. S.28
26. Kraus, Björn (2011). "Soziale Arbeit – Macht – Hilfe und Kontrolle. Die Entwicklung und Anwendung eines systemisch-konstruktivistischen Machtmodells" (PDF). In Kraus, Björn; Krieger, Wolfgang (eds.). Macht in der Sozialen Arbeit – Interaktionsverhältnisse zwischen Kontrolle, Partizipation und Freisetzung. Lage, Germany: Jacobs. pp. 95–118. Archived (PDF) from the original on 4 November 2013. Retrieved 10 May 2013.
27. See Björn Kraus: Erkennen und Entscheiden. Grundlagen und Konsequenzen eines erkenntnistheoretischen Konstruktivismus für die Soziale Arbeit. Beltz Juventa, Weinheim/Basel 2013.
28. Reimund Böse, Günter Schiepek: Systemische Theorie und Therapie: ein Handwörterbuch. Asanger, Heidelberg/Germany 1994.
29. Gregory Bateson: Ökologie des Geistes: anthropologische, psychologische, biologische und epistemologische Perspektiven. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main/Germany 1996.
30. Heinz von Foerster: Wissen und Gewissen. Versuch einer Brücke. Suhrkamp, Frankfurt am Main/Germany 1996.
31. "Unmarked Categories". Ebrary. Archived from the original on 3 February 2022. Retrieved 29 August 2023.
32. Cameron, Deborah (2014). "Straight talking: the sociolinguistics of heterosexuality". Langage et société. 148 (2): 75–93. doi:10.3917/ls.148.0075. Archived from the original on 17 November 2021. Retrieved 17 November 2021.
33. Kitzinger, Celia (July 2005). ""Speaking as a Heterosexual": (How) Does Sexuality Matter for Talk-in-Interaction?". Research on Language and Social Interaction. 38 (3): 221–265. doi:10.1207/s15327973rlsi3803_2. S2CID 144035258. Retrieved 17 November 2021.
34. Graeber, David (2004). Fragments of an anarchist anthropology (2nd pr. ed.). Chicago: Prickly Paradigm Press. p. 24. ISBN 978-0-9728196-4-0. The examples given (self-governing communities, radical labour unions, popular militias) reflect the Idea/Economics/Physical taxonomy
35. Gee, Tim (2011). Counter power : making change happen. Oxford: World Changing. ISBN 978-1780260327.
36. Newton, Mark (17 November 2011). "Counterpower: Making Change Happen (book review)". The Ecologist. Archived from the original on 7 February 2023. Retrieved 8 January 2016.
37. Chesters, Graeme (September 2003). "Ideas about power: Representation and counterpower". New Internationalist (360). Archived from the original on 22 April 2023. Retrieved 16 October 2014. Counterpower is the shadow realm of alternatives, a hall of mirrors held up to the dominant logic of capitalism – and it is growing.
38. Buber, Martin (1996) [1949]. Paths in Utopia (Reprint ed.). Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press. p. 104. ISBN 978-0815604211.
39. Gee, Tim (2011). "Introduction" (PDF). Counter Power Making Change Happen. Oxford: New Internationalist. ISBN 978-1-78026-032-7. Archived (PDF) from the original on 17 November 2015. Retrieved 16 October 2014.
40. For example: Lynch, Matthew (25 March 2014). "1.I Monotheism and Institutions: A Polarized Discussion: A Dangerous Alliance between Monotheism and Institutional Particularism?". Monotheism and Institutions in the Book of Chronicles: Temple, Priesthood, and Kingship in Post-Exilic Perspective: Studies of the Sofja Kovalevskaja Research Group on Early Jewish Monotheism. Forschungen zum Alten Testament 2.Reihe, volume 64. Vol. 1. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. pp. 12–14. ISBN 9783161521119. Retrieved 13 January 2025. [...] the close association between divine and institutional supremacy carried with it an 'ideological temptation' to which Israel usually succumbed, and which led to brute assertions of power. This temptation, which Walter Brueggemann labels 'mono-ideology,' insisted on 'the singularity, peculiarity, and privilege of Israel as a political entity in the world,' and led Israel to 'imagine itself as privileged, in every sphere of life, as Yahweh's unrivaled and inalienable partner.' When monotheistic theology became wedded to notions of election, the partnership became most susceptible to misuse. Writers advancing monotheism aligned absolutely divine and institutional power. [...] The idea that monotheism engendered absolutism finds early expresssion in David Hume's The Natural History of Religion [...]. [...] Contemporary variations on Hume's thesis abound.
41. Thornhill, Chris (31 October 2013) [2002]. Karl Jaspers: Politics and Metaphysics. Routledge Studies in Twentieth-Century Philosophy. London: Routledge. p. 162. ISBN 9781136454165. Retrieved 7 April 2024.
42. Cerbaro, Rodolfo Henrique. "Competition-trapping the Concept of Power". European Journal of Social Sciences, v. 21, n. 1, pp. 148–153, 2011 - "Power seems to be best understood as what counts as a means of determining a subject's position in a given competition, or, in other words, what we use to rank the competitors. This approach is widely applicable, because whenever we think of a competition, we use something to rank the competitors as either being superior or inferior in relation to each other [...]."
43. Collins, Lauren (26 May 2008). "Power Hour: Psychology test at the Time 100 party". New Yorker. Archived from the original on 26 June 2014. Retrieved 22 June 2008.
44. "Academics and Faculty: Adam Galinsky". Kellogg School of Management. Northwestern University. Archived from the original on 1 May 2012.
45. Henretty, Aubrey (7 May 2008). "How power shapes executive choice". Kellogg School of Management. Northwestern University. Archived from the original on 8 September 2008.
46. Deji, Olanike F. (2011). Gender and Rural Development: Introduction. LIT Verlag Münster. p. 272. ISBN 978-3-643-90103-3.
47. Handgraaf, Michel J. J.; Van Dijk, Eric; Vermunt, Riël C.; Wilke, Henk A. M.; De Dreu, Carsten K. W. (1 January 2008). "Less power or powerless? Egocentric empathy gaps and the irony of having little versus no power in social decision making". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 95 (5): 1136–1149. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.95.5.1136. PMID 18954198.
48. Bew, J. (2016). Realpolitik: A History. Oxford University Press.
49. Falbo, Toni; Peplau, Letitia A. (April 1980). "Power strategies in intimate relationships". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 38 (4): 618–628. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.38.4.618. Pdf. Archived 10 October 2017 at the Wayback Machine
50. Raven, Bertram H.; Schwarzwald, Joseph; Koslowsky, Meni (February 1998). "Conceptualizing and measuring a power/interaction model of interpersonal influence". Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 28 (4): 307–332. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1998.tb01708.x.
51. Bratko, Denis; Butkovic, Ana (February 2007). "Stability of genetic and environmental effects from adolescence to young adulthood: Results of Croatian longitudinal twin study of personality". Twin Research and Human Genetics. 10 (1): 151–157. doi:10.1375/twin.10.1.151. PMID 17539374. S2CID 22785107.
52. Carson, Paula P.; Carson, Kerry D.; Roe, C. William (July 1993). "Social power bases: A meta-analytic examination of interrelationships and outcomes". Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 23 (14): 1150–1169. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1993.tb01026.x.
53. Tepper, Bennett J.; Uhl-Bien, Mary; Kohut, Gary F.; Rogelberg, Steven G.; Lockhart, Daniel E.; Ensley, Michael D. (April 2006). "Subordinates' resistance and managers' evaluations of subordinates' performance". Journal of Management. 32 (2): 185–209. doi:10.1177/0149206305277801. S2CID 14637810. Archived from the original on 19 January 2021. Retrieved 24 September 2019.
54. Weinstein, Rebecca Jane (2001). "Threats to the Mediation Process". Mediation in the Workplace: A Guide for Training, Practice, and Administration. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Publishing Group. p. 29. ISBN 9781567203363. Archived from the original on 23 October 2023. Retrieved 12 July 2020. An imbalance of power may be obvious or subtle. An imbalance may stem from the dynamics of the personal relationship ....
55. Compare: Tannenbaum, Frank (1969). "The Balance of Power in Society". The Balance of Power in Society: And Other Essays. Arkville Press. London: Simon and Schuster. p. 9. ISBN 9780029324004. Archived from the original on 23 October 2023. Retrieved 12 July 2020. Competition, imbalance, and friction are not merely continuous phenomena in society, but in fact are evidences of vitality and 'normality.'
56. McCornack, Steven (15 July 2009). Reflect & Relate: An introduction to interpersonal communication. Boston/NY: Bedford/St. Martin's. p. 291. ISBN 978-0-312-48934-2.
57. Lehr, Fred (2020). Power Currency. Rand-Smith Publishing LLC. ISBN 9781950544240. Archived from the original on 23 October 2023. Retrieved 12 July 2020.
58. Clark, William Roberts; Golder, Matt; Nadenichek, Sona (2019). Foundations of Comparative Politics (1st ed.). California: CQ Press. pp. 174–194. ISBN 9781506360737.
59. Hassan, Mai; Mattingly, Daniel; Nugent, Elizabeth R. (2022). "Political Control". Annual Review of Political Science. 25: 155–174. doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-051120-013321. S2CID 241393914.
60. Reny, Marie-Eve (January 2021). "Autocracies and the Control of Societal Organizations". Cambridge University Press. 56 (1): 39–58.
61. Kuran, Timur (October 1991). "Now out of Never". World Politics. 27: 7–48. doi:10.2307/2010422. JSTOR 2010422. S2CID 154090678. Archived from the original on 17 April 2023. Retrieved 9 April 2023.
62. Carter, Erin Baggott; Carter, Brett L. (10 December 2020). "Propaganda and Protest in Autocracies". Journal of Conflict Resolution. 65 (5): 919–949. doi:10.1177/0022002720975090. S2CID 210169503.
63. Frantz, Erica (12 November 2020). Authoritarianism: What Everyone Needs to Know. Oxford University Press. pp. Ch. 5. ISBN 9780190880194.
64. Forsyth, D.R. (2010). Group Dynamics (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
65. Keltner, D., Gruenfeld, D.H., & Anderson, C. (2003). Power, approach, and inhibition. Psychological Review, 110, 265–284.
66. Keltner, D., Van Kleef, G. A., Chen, S., & Kraus, M. W. (2008). A reciprocal influence model of social power: Emerging principles and lines of inquiry. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 151–192.
67. 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.
68. Guinote, A. (2008). Power and affordances: When the situation has more power over powerful than powerless individuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95:2, 237–252.
69. Berdahl, J. L., & Martorana, P. (2006). Effects of power on emotion and expression during a controversial discussion. European Journal of Social Psychology: Special Issue on Social Power and Group Processes, 36, 497–509.
70. Anderson, C., & Galinsky, A.D. (2006). Power, optimism, and risk-taking. European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 511–536.
71. Smith, P.K., N.B. Jostmann, A.D. Galinsky, W.W. van Dijk. 2008. Lacking power impairs executive functions. Psychol. Sci. 19: 441–447.
72. Emler, N. & Cook, T. (2001). Moral integrity in leadership: Why it matters and why it may be difficult to achieve. In Roberts, B. & Hogan, R. (Eds.). Personality psychology in the workplace. Washington, DC: APA Press (pp. 277–298).
73. Clark, R.D., & Sechrest, L.B. (1976). The mandate phenomenon. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 1057–1061.
74. Fodor, E.M., & Riordan, J.M. (1995). Leader power motive and group conflict as influences on leader behavior and group member self-affect. Journal of Research in Personality, 29, 418–431.
75. Georgesen, J. C., & Harris, M. J. (1998). Why's my boss always holding me down? A meta-analysis of power effects on performance evaluation. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 184–195.
76. Galinsky, A. D., Magee, J. C., Inesi, M. E., & Gruenfeld, D. H. (2006). Power and perspectives not taken. Psychological Science, 17, 1068–1074.
77. Fiske, S.T. (1993a). Controlling other people: The impact of power on stereotyping. American Psychologist, 48, 621–628.
78. Kipnis. D. (1974). The powerholders. In J. T. Tedeschi (Ed.). Perspectives on social power (pp. 82–122). Chicago; Aldine.
79. Fiske, S. T., & Berdahl, J. L. (2007). Social power. In A. Kruglanski & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Social psychology: A handbook of basic principles (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford.
80. Pierro, A., Cicero, L., & Raven, B. H. (2008). Motivated compliance with bases of social power. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38, 1921–1944.
81. Krause D. E. (2006) Power and influence in the context of organizational innovation. In Schriesheim C. A., Neider L. L. (Eds.), Power and influence in organizations: new empirical and theoretical perspectives (A volume in research in management). Hartford, CT: Information Age. Pp. 21–58.
82. Pelletier, L. G., & Vallerand, R. J. (1996). Supervisors' beliefs and subordinates' intrinsic motivation: A behavioral confirmation analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 331–340.
83. Kounin, J., & Gump, P. (1958). The ripple effect in discipline. Elementary School Journal, 59, 158–162.
84. Michener, H. A., & Lawler, E. J. (1975). Endorsement of formal leaders: An integrative model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 216–223.
85. Michener, H. A., & Burt, M.R. (1975) Components of authority as determinants of compliance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 606–614.
86. Molm, L. D. (1994) Is Punishment Effective? Coercive Strategies in Social Exchange. Social Psychology Quarterly, 57, 75–94.
87. Lawler, E. J. (1975a). An experimental study of factors affecting the mobilization of revolutionary coalitions. Sociometry, 38, 163–179.
88. [null Kelman, H. (1958). Compliance, identification, and internalization: Three processes of attitude change. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 1, 51–60].
89. Kelman, H.C. Processes of opinion change. Public Opinion Quarterly, 25, 57–78.
90. Powell, Rebecca; Rightmyer, Elizabeth (27 April 2012). Literacy for All Students: An Instructional Framework for Closing the Gap. Taylor & Francis. ISBN 9781136879692. Archived from the original on 23 October 2023. Retrieved 12 February 2017.
91. Kincheloe, Joe; Steinberg, Shirley (4 January 2002). Students as Researchers: Creating Classrooms that Matter. Routledge. ISBN 9781135714710. Archived from the original on 23 October 2023. Retrieved 12 February 2017.
92. Liu, Eric (14 August 2014). "Transcript of "Why ordinary people need to understand power"". Retrieved 12 February 2017.
93. Kincheloe, Joe L. (19 June 2008). Knowledge and Critical Pedagogy: An Introduction. Springer Science & Business Media. ISBN 9781402082245. Archived from the original on 23 October 2023. Retrieved 12 February 2017.

Further reading

• Osnos, Evan, "Ruling-Class Rules: How to thrive in the power elite – while declaring it your enemy", The New Yorker, 29 January 2024, pp. 18–23. "In the nineteen-twenties... American elites, some of whom feared a Bolshevik revolution, consented to reform... Under Franklin D. Roosevelt... the U.S. raised taxes, took steps to protect unions, and established a minimum wage. The costs, [Peter] Turchin writes, 'were borne by the American ruling class.'... Between the nineteen-thirties and the nineteen-seventies, a period that scholars call the Great Compression, economic equality narrowed, except among Black Americans... But by the nineteen-eighties the Great Compression was over. As the rich grew richer than ever, they sought to turn their money into political power; spending on politics soared." (p. 22.) "[N]o democracy can function well if people are unwilling to lose power – if a generation of leaders... becomes so entrenched that it ages into gerontocracy; if one of two major parties denies the arithmetic of elections; if a cohort of the ruling class loses status that it once enjoyed and sets out to salvage it." (p. 23.)

External links

Wikiquote has quotations related to Power.

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Political power.

• Vatiero M. (2009), Understanding Power. A 'Law and Economics' Approach Archived 30 July 2020 at the Wayback Machine, VDM Verlag. ISBN 978-3639202656