The Ontology Of Power

There possess got been quite a few posts on the concept of powerfulness over the years inward this weblog ( link ), analogous to "is h...

There possess got been quite a few posts on the concept of powerfulness over the years inward this weblog (link), analogous to "is humorous," "is rude," or "is charismatic". In each instance the concept is defined inward damage of a capacity possessed past times the agent to influence for certain kinds of behaviors past times others around him or her.  Along these lines nosotros mightiness define powerfulness as a characteristic of an private as follows:

Caesar is powerful =df Caesar has access to social levers of coercion that permit him to coerce for certain kinds of behaviour past times others.

Those levers mightiness include --

• command of nation of war machine or paramilitary forces
• relations alongside conformant legislators positioned to enact legislation as well as regulation
• relations alongside conformant private citizens positioned to coerce their dependents to comport this way or that

On this approach, "power" is a dispositional concept attaching to individuals as well as invoking access to for certain kinds of instruments of coercion.

What is "coercion"? This is a theme that Robert Nozick picked upward early on inward his career (“Coercion” inward Philosophy, Science, as well as Method: Essays inward Honor of Ernest Nagel). We mightiness define coercion really only inward damage of an actor's powerfulness to influence the damage of pick that human face upward some other actor. The Godfather pose it best: "I'll brand you lot an offering you lot can't refuse." Here is a possible definition:

x coerces y =df x creates a pick province of affairs for y inward which the costs of choosing other available options are unacceptably high, leaving exclusively O_n+1 to survive chosen.

(Here is an article on coercion inward SEP; link.)

We tin plow over the axe as well as therefore broaden this concept to groups inward club past times postulating that for certain groups possess got greater access to the levers of coercion than others. So nosotros mightiness nation that "capitalists possess got to a greater extent than powerfulness than workers" because capitalists possess got access to the lever of unemployment, whereas workers possess got access exclusively to the powerfulness to withhold their task at substantial personal as well as familial cost. And nosotros mightiness nation that organized offense lords possess got to a greater extent than powerfulness than shopkeepers because the criminals possess got greater powerfulness to purpose as well as threaten violence against the shopkeeper than the reciprocal.

We tin plow over the axe as good broaden the concept past times grouping the levers of coercion into unlike families: economical coercion, physical coercion, community coercion (shunning inside a religious community, for example), … This allows us to seat the sources of powerfulness inside a given society. Individuals as well as groups who are favorably positioned alongside abide by to these unlike categories of instruments of coercion are to a greater extent than powerful than others.

What this concern human relationship leaves out is the attain of "soft" powerfulness associated alongside framing as well as ideology. This is a unlike avenue of social influence. It is possible to impel individuals or groups towards for certain kinds of actions past times shaping their beliefs as well as cognitive-affective frameworks. Using the media to shift the damage of ground over a policy -- taxing the rich at higher rates or providing universal wellness insurance -- is a way of exerting powerfulness without coercion.

H5N1 few features of "power" emerge from these observations. First, powerfulness is a relational concept. An private possesses powerfulness over other individuals (relation 1) as well as does therefore inward virtue of the relations he bears to other persons as well as institutions (relation 2). Second, powerfulness is the activity side of structure: structures as well as sets of social relations flora the surroundings inside which individuals are empowered to practise powerfulness over others. The structures perdure, as well as individuals deed inside their elements to exert their volition over others. And third, powerfulness is distributed over many individuals as well as groups inside club at a time. But it is fluid as well as dependent area to fluctuations as structures as well as individuals change. Dick Cheney was powerful at 1 request inward fourth dimension but non at other points. And what changed was non Cheney but the levers of powerfulness as well as social networks to which he had access.

This seems to imply that powerfulness is non itself a "thing" inside a reasonable social ontology. It is rather a relational characteristic that exists at diverse social locations depending on the connections those locations possess got to the levers of influence over individuals as well as groups.

(We mightiness speculate that at that spot is an fine art to exercising powerfulness that agency that non everyone is every bit expert at the activity. Being good situated alongside abide by to the levers of influence is a necessary status but non a sufficient status for beingness powerful.)

This concern human relationship lines upward good alongside some aspects of Steven Lukes' analysis of powerfulness inward his classic book, link). It as good aligns good alongside Michael Mann's Definition of social powerfulness inward The Sources of Social Power: Volume 1, H5N1 History of Power from the Beginning to AD 1760 as well as elsewhere: "My before run identified 4 top dog 'sources of social power' inward human societies: ideological, economic, military, as well as political" (Fascists, 5).