4th Module - More on Power

From Peacebuilding

One way to oppose Gene Sharp’s theory of power and consent is to highlight its naivety. Consent is seen as individualistic and voluntaristic, and his theory leaves out much of the complexity of political life. Social structures such as capitalism, patriarchy and bureaucracy are too complex to fit into the ruler-subject picture.

Thus, for the purposes of social analysis, a structural approach seems more appropriate for understanding the complex dynamics of a society. Nevertheless, if the purpose of a theory is to provide some insights that can be used by activists and prepare a group for action, then a simple and easy-to-apply theory serves well. That’s why Sharp’s theory is so successful among nonviolent activists around the world. This module is concerned with offering a critical approach to Sharp’s theory of power, and with providing different perspectives on power.

Offline:

• Boulding, Kenneth E., Three Faces of Power, Newbury Park: Sage Publications, 1989.

• Follet, Mary P., Power, in E. M., Fox and L., Urwick, (eds.), Dynamic Administration: The Collected Papers of Mary Parker Follet, London: Pitman, 1971 (1941).
• Weber, Max, Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology, New York: Bedminster Press, 1968.

Online:

• Martin, Brian, Gene Sharp’s Theory of Power, Journal of Peace Research, vol. 26, no. 2, 1989, pp. 213-222, http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/pubs/89jpr.html.

Martin attacks Sharp’s theory of power from the viewpoint of structural approaches to the analysis of society. He argues that Sharp’s theory leaves out much of the complexity of political, social and economic life. Yet, if its purpose is to serve as a conceptual tool for social activists, Sharp’s theory works very well.

• Conflict Research Consortium Staff, Book Summary of Three Faces of Power by Kenneth E. Boulding, at http://www.beyondintractability.org/booksummary/10062/.

Boulding argues that to see power as our capacity to get other people to do things that contribute to what we want is a limited conception of it. He proposes a broader concept that distinguishes between three main categories: threat power, economic power and integrative power – the stick, the carrot and the hug. These lead to another classification: the power to destroy, the power to produce and exchange and the power to integrate. Integrative power is the power to create relationships of love, friendship, respect and the like. Boulding argues that integrative power is “the most dominant and significant form of power, in the sense that neither threat power nor economic power can achieve very much in the absence of legitimacy”. This article summarises the basic ideas of his book.

• Author Unknown, Power, Domination, Legitimation and Authority, from University of Regina, Department of Sociology and Social Studies, http://uregina.ca/~gingrich/o12f99.htm.

“Classes, status groups and parties are considered by Weber to be associated with power and attempting to achieve one’s will, even in the face of opposition from others. Weber argues that status honour is a more important source of group social action than is class or relation to markets. Status groups can do this in various ways […]” (from the introduction).

• Allen, Amy R., Feminist Perspectives on Power, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2005 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/feminist-power/.

“[…] Nevertheless, it is possible to identify three main ways in which feminists have conceptualized power: as a resource to be (re)distributed, as domination and as empowerment, both individual and collective. After a brief discussion of theoretical debates amongst social and political theorists over how to define power, this entry will survey each of these feminist conceptions; it will concentrate, as does the literature, on feminist conceptions of domination.” (from the introduction).

Activities you can use when working on this section include:

• Defining Power. This activity encourages participants to think about different sources of power. It uses a story with animals as characters to have an impact on participants’ attention, and then uses questions to stimulate investigation and discussion.

• Sculpting Relationship. Three volunteers form a sculpture where A lies on the floor, B stands with a foot on A’s stomach and C is standing over a chair towering over A and B. Participants are encouraged to reflect on power dynamics.

• Countering Sources of Power. In this activity participants are asked to investigate and discuss political power and its sources in their situations. The issues emerging might be disturbing for some of the participants, and conflicting views are likely to arise. Centring the discussion on participants’ situations can generate a lot of energy for the workshop and encourage true disclosure.