Power structure Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_structure

Part of a series on
Sociology
History Outline Index
Key themes Society Globalization Human behavior Human environmental impact Identity Industrial revolutions 3 / 4 / 5 Popularity Social complexity Social environment Social equality Social equity Social power Social stratification Social structure Social cycle theory
Perspectives Conflict theory Critical theory Structural functionalism Positivism Social constructionism Social darwinism Symbolic interactionism
Branches Aging Architecture Art Astrosociology Body Criminology Consciousness Culture Death Demography Deviance Disaster Economic Education Emotion (Jealousy) Environmental Family Feminist Fiscal Food Gender Generations Health Historical Immigration Industrial Internet Jewry Knowledge Language Law Leisure Literature Marxist Mathematic Medical Military Music Peace, war, and social conflict Philosophy Political Public Punishment Race and ethnicity Religion Rural Science (History of science) Social movements Social psychology Sociocybernetics Sociology Space Sport Technology Terrorism Urban Utopian Victimology Visual
Methods Quantitative Qualitative Comparative Computational Ethnographic Conversation analysis Historical Interview Mathematical Network analysis Social experiment Survey
Major theorists 1700s: Comte · Sieyès 1800s: Martineau · Tocqueville · Marx · Spencer · Le Bon · Ward · Pareto · Tönnies · Veblen · Simmel · Durkheim · Addams · Mead · Weber · Du Bois · Mannheim · Elias 1900s: Fromm · Adorno · Gehlen · Aron · Merton · Nisbet · Mills · Bell · Schoeck · Goffman · Bauman · Foucault · Luhmann · Habermas · Baudrillard · Bourdieu · Giddens
Lists Bibliography Terminology Journals [[List of sociological associations|Organizations]] People Timeline By country
Society portal
v t e

In political science, power is the ability to influence or direct the actions, beliefs, or conduct of actors.^[1][2][3] 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).^[4]

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.^[3]

The term authority is often used for power that is perceived as legitimate or socially approved by the social structure.^[5]

Scholars have distinguished between soft power and hard power.^[6][7]

One can classify such power types along three different dimensions:^[8][9]

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 always 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.^[8] Moreover, extroverts use a greater variety of power tactics than do introverts.^[10] 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.^[11][12]

Because power operates both relationally and reciprocally, sociologists speak of the "balance of power" between parties to a relationship:^[13][14] 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.^{[15][need quotation to verify][16]}

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.^[17] Because some authoritarian leaders are not elected by a majority, their main threat is that posed by the masses.^[17] 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.^[18]

   • Autocrats repress actors they perceive as having irreconcilable interests, and cooperate with those they think have reconcilable ones.^[19]
   • Because of preference falsification- distinguishing between an individual's private preference and public preference- sometimes repression in itself is not enough.^[20]

2. Indoctrination: The state controls public education and uses propaganda to diffuse its views and values into society.^[18]

   • A one standard deviation increase in pro-regime propaganda reduces the odds of protest the following day by 15%.^[21]

3. Coercive distribution: The state distributes welfare and resources to keep people dependent while offering benefits to people they know they can manipulate.^[18]
4. Infiltration: The state assigns people to go into grassroot level to sway the public in favor of the authoritarian regime.^[18]

Although several regimes follow these general forms of control, different authoritarian sub-regime types rely on different political control tactics.^[22]

Power changes those in the position of power and those who are targets of that power.^[26]

Developed by D. Keltner and colleagues,^[27] 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.

• Power prompts people to take action
• Makes individuals more responsive to changes within a group and its environment^[28]
• Powerful people are more proactive, more likely to speak up, make the first move, and lead negotiation^[29]
• 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^[30]
• Powerful people tend to experience more positive emotions, such as happiness and satisfaction, and they smile more than low-power individuals^[31]
• Power is associated with optimism about the future because more powerful individuals focus their attention on more positive aspects of the environment^[32]
• 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^[33]

• Powerful people are prone to take risky, inappropriate, or unethical decisions and often overstep their boundaries^[34][35]
• They tend to generate negative emotional reactions in their subordinates, particularly when there is a conflict in the group^[36]
• When individuals gain power, their self-evaluation become more positive, while their evaluations of others become more negative^[37]
• Power tends to weaken one's social attentiveness, which leads to difficulty understanding other people's point of view^[38]
• Powerful people also spend less time collecting and processing information about their subordinates and often perceive them in a stereotypical fashion^[39]
• 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^[40]

In a now-classic study (1959),^[41] 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.^{[citation needed]}

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.^[42]

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.

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".^[43]

Coercive power is the application of negative influences. It includes the ability to defer or withhold other rewards. 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".^[44]

According to Laura K. Guerrero and Peter A. Andersen in Close Encounters: Communication in Relationships, power in relationships is multifaceted. It can be perceived, relational, resource-based, and dependent on interest and commitment levels. While power often stems from controlling valued, scarce resources or having less dependence in a relationship, it is also shaped by behavior, social skills, and how others interpret one’s actions. Power can be enabling when used with confidence and skill, but disabling when it leads to manipulation, communication breakdowns, or relational dissatisfaction.^[45]

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.^{[citation needed]}

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.^[46]

Eugen Tarnow considers what power hijackers have over air plane passengers and draws similarities with power in the military.^[47] 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 non-existent.

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 Jean-Baptise Moheau (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).^[48] 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.^[49]

Stewart Clegg proposes another three-dimensional model with his "circuits of power"^[50] 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.

John Kenneth Galbraith (1908–2006) in The Anatomy of Power (1983)^[51] 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).^[52]

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.^[53]

His work is thought to have been influential in the overthrow of Slobodan Milošević, in the 2011 Arab Spring, and other nonviolent revolutions.^[54]

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).^[55] Instead of focusing on the valuation and distribution of power, he asks first and foremost what the term can describe at all.^[56] Coming from Max Weber's definition of power,^[57] he realizes that the term power has to be split into "instructive power" and "destructive power".^{[58]: 105 [59]: 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.^[56] 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.^{[59]: 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,^[60][61][62] and to introduce the possibility of an "as well as-position".^[59]: 120

The idea of unmarked categories originated in feminism.^[63] 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.^[64]

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.^[64]

Although the unmarked category is typically not explicitly noticed and often goes overlooked, it is still necessarily visible.^[65]

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'.^[66] 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'.^[66] Tim Gee, in his 2011 book Counterpower: Making Change Happen,^[67] put forward the theory that those disempowered by governments' and elite groups' power can use counterpower to counter this.^[68] In Gee's model, counterpower is split into three categories: idea counterpower, economic counterpower, and physical counterpower.^[67]

Although the term has come to prominence through its use by participants in the global justice/anti-globalization movement of the 1990s onwards,^[69] 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'.^{[70][71]: 13}

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).^[72][73] It is probably because harsh tactics generate hostility, depression, fear, and anger, while soft tactics are often reciprocated with cooperation.^[74] 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.^[75]

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.^[76]

Coercive influence can be tolerated when the group is successful,^[77] the leader is trusted, and the use of coercive tactics is justified by group norms.^[78] Furthermore, coercive methods are more effective when applied frequently and consistently to punish prohibited actions.^[79]

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.^[80] 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.^{[citation needed]}

Herbert Kelman^[81][82] 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 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.^[83][84] 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.^[85] 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.^[86]

• Authority bias
• Discourse of power
• Power structure
• Power vacuum
• Separation of powers
• Speaking truth to power
• Social control

• 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.)

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