Definition:

The capacity to bring about change.

Users:

Anyone participating in or intervening in a conflict where there are stronger and weaker parties.

Description:

Power is often defined as the capacity to influence others' behavior. It is, however, important to recognize that change can be within rather than without, or that it may be a combination of the two. This recognition is important in concerns about empowerment; beyond this, it opens up additional strategies to consider in combating injustice and seeking social change.

Sources of Power

If power were one-dimensional, we could agree with some degree of certainty who has more and who has less and thus, who will be the victor in a contest of wills. However, we are often surprised in this regard when a seemingly less-powerful party holds off or defeats a more-powerful party. Because of this, it is important to look beyond size, wealth, or political or military might as a source of power.

Obtaining power is never without cost. When increasing or obtaining political power, identifying and developing alternative sources of power may mitigate some of its undesirable impacts. Gene Sharp, a leading scholar on nonviolent direct action, provides a list of sources of power. These include authority, human resources, skills and knowledge, intangible factors, i.e. psychological and ideological factors, material resources, and sanctions or reprisals which the leader is both willing and able to use against constituents and/or an adversary.

Types of Power

Kenneth Boulding, a preeminent peace researcher and economist, has provided us with a useful metaphor for understanding different types of power: the stick, the carrot, and the hug. Coercive power (the stick) is the form most often referred to as power. Coercive power is based on superior strength, often in the form of physical strength or superior arms. While the stick is its metaphor, force can be achieved through less overtly violent means, as, for example, when the necessities of life are withheld or when someone is embarrassed into submission. Coercion is often accomplished without the actual infliction of force. The mere threat of its use can be sufficient to obtain compliance.

The carrot represents a much gentler type of power, one that relies on exchanges and rewards. Person A does the bidding of Person B because of something Person B will do in return. Workers perform their tasks in exchange for the pay they are given.

It is the final element, the hug, which brings us to the least-explored form of power. The first element the hug brings to mind is love, but collaborative power can also be based on qualities such as loyalty, legitimacy, or a conviction that teamwork is more productive than hierarchy. It may also involve the use of persuasion, the persuader drawing on not only the logic of her own case, but also the values of the other. In the real world, it is rare that any of these three forms of power is exercised on its own. Typically, exercise of power involves a combination of two or three of them.

Examples:

Iraq lost the first Gulf War mostly because the massive alliance arrayed against it had vastly superior firepower. That situation remained after the war was over. Nonetheless, Iraq successfully evaded U.N. inspection directives for over a decade. Where was its source of power? To be able to answer such questions, one must look at a combination of types of power.

Applications:

Anyone seeking to change or influence a situation must understand their own, and their opponents' sources of power, and make an assessment of what strategy (or combination of strategies) is likely to work best. While it is commonly assumed that having superior power is desirable, power imbalances can lead to the failure of mediation or negotiation. Thus, it is important for disputants to have a good understanding of relative power and also empowerment, i.e. how to share power between parties for the benefit of both.

Links to Related Articles: