Enter your search text in the box above

Select a result to preview

10. Power

Power is the network of social boundaries that shapes what is possible.[1]

It is a spirit all around us influencing what we can or cannot do. Power produces just as it constrains, and few can escape these effects. While some have more capacity to direct the abilities of Power (for better or worse), Power can also possess people unknowingly. By lying dormant in what we take for granted, or being infused into a system that long outlasts its creator, the impact of Power is reproduced even when it seems to have faded.

power defines what's possible

In working toward a more just society, we are tasked with identifying why some individuals do not share the same freedoms as others. Though Power is central to unequal social relations, its ubiquity often brings complications that distract from tangible action. If Power is not simply a matter of who does what to someone else, how can there be justice? If we do not know the who or see the what, how can change occur? If Power is everywhere, isn't it nowhere? These concerns may be valid to an extent, but if it is everywhere, we might just have a lot of work to do.

Uncovering the true nature of Power is certainly far more abstract than eliminating the oppressor or redistributing material resources. The value in doing so, however, is found in the new avenues that open to recognize and direct all of Power's mechanisms. Each manifestation of Power is simultaneously a strategy, a threat, and a new hope.

Power shapes freedom. Power literacy is liberatory.

Accumulative

Let us begin with the interpretation of Power that conquers today's public imagination. A businessman gains power as he rises through the ranks in the company. An empire amasses power as its territory expands. Super Mario even powers up when he obtains a mushroom.

Power is rationalized as a resource that accumulates like capital at the expense of those without it. The more money or the higher a status someone has, the stronger they are. But are properties like wealth, status, or ability themselves Power? Does collecting, building, or growing those properties make someone more powerful? Not necessarily.

These resources represent a potential for Power's mechanisms. They, the Power Capacitors, are means to an end that determine what type of action can be taken.

capacitors change to tools

Accumulation implies countability and comparability, but this is not necessarily the case for these resources. Someone can have more money or a higher job title, but who has more Power between an unassuming billionaire and an armed vigilante? Which is more influential between a well-coordinated propaganda network and one deeply resonant work of art? The exchange rate of Capacitors, if there could even be one, is entirely context-dependent. They hold no inherent value or meaning until they are relationally defined.

Although the numeric properties of Capacitors provide imperfect interpretations, that does not mean they are irrelevant. A 12% increase for $3,000 is less significant than it is for $30,000. In other words, accumulation still provides some indication to the scale of Power that can be expressed, we just don't know to what extent it is more or less intense than a Capacitor of a different type.

Active

As individuals accumulate different Capacitors, their potential to limit the freedoms of others increases. That case would depict a very straightforward domination, where A gets B to do something they wouldn't otherwise do.[2] Labor exploitation. Imprisonment. Slavery. Capacitors, whether on the national stage or in local communities, can be weaponized to contract what is possible for others.

Meanwhile, the opposite is also true. That same potential can be used as tools to expand the freedoms of others. Collective governance. Enshrined protections. Opportunity. In both cases, these mechanisms of power represent the perpetual cycle of boundary negotiation.

power shifts the boundaries

Unfortunately, visibility should not necessarily be an assumed part of determining freedom.

Consider how one might use their status to set the agenda.[3] A decision-making board could hide problems of interest from appearing in their debates, which implicitly deems those topics non-issues. Voices may be excluded from the conversations entirely. Elsewhere, consider the invisible coercion of psychological manipulation: Figures of particular authority or credibility can shape the preferences of people who place their trust in them.[4] This creates a willing cooperation, even if the resulting actions or beliefs are against the material interest of the recipients.

Reactive

While our focus thus far has mostly been on actions explicitly between actors, Power also resides in that which more passively shapes each individual's Realm of freedom. After all, no one is born in a vacuum; we are constantly in conversation with and adapting to the realities of the world around us. So why are we the way that we are, and where do our perceptions of what is good, normal, or rational come from? Often, it is sourced from a combination of what is passed down when we come together as families, as communities, and as nations:

  1. Cultures. We implicitly learn by trying to fit in with those around us. The practices and expressions that assign meaning to the world shapes the acceptable behaviors and thoughts for groups.[5]

  2. Institutions. Laws, programs, and other tangible structures formalize group values and organize society. Their functions teach subjects[6] how to conform to society's dominant Realm.

Both of these Power Reactors legitimize, or potentially mitigate, the impact of Negotiators directed toward society.

cultures and institutions maintain boundaries

For a given collective, a dominant Realm is unlikely to completely align with each individual Realm therein. That means the mere continuation of Reactors as they stand could still lead to unfavorable results for some even without the goal of domination. In other words, not only can Power be invisible, it can also be unintentional.

A bureaucrat is concretely the one who signs forms denying someone of their benefits, but that doesn't mean they personally want that person to starve. A young couple rents out a second home not to squeeze out other potential buyers, but because they want to build wealth for the their own future. With growing national dependence on a smaller share of profit-driven megacorporations, simply participating in society oppresses others because society's structures are oppressive.

All people are governed by social boundaries that they were not always consciously involved in the development of. So what mechanisms of Power are wired into our policies and practices? What systems or values promote the freedom of some over that of others? Power Reactors appear unshakable - too complex, interwoven, or embedded in daily activities. However, everything that has been socially constructed can be socially changed.

Next Steps

Power is complex; it is defined by contradictions. Just as it subjugates, it subtly guides. Just as it is driven through legislation, it is driven through conversation. Just as it is acquired by an economic elite, it is built by people living on the street. The more we can understand power, the better equipped we are to harness it for positive social change.

Well, hopefully this is a good start. Yikes! If you're just as confused as I still am, let's just explain it all away with Nanomachines, son. Where do we go from here? Well...

  1. Clarissa Hayward. De-facing Power. (2000) ↩︎

  2. Robert Dahl. Who Governs? (1961) ↩︎

  3. Bachrach & Baratz. Two Faces of Power. (1962) ↩︎

  4. Steven Lukes. Power: A Radical View. (1974) ↩︎

  5. Pierre Bourdieu. Outline of a Theory of Practice. (1972) ↩︎

  6. Michel Foucault. Discipline and Punish. (1975) ↩︎