A deflationary definition of power
A deflationary definition of power
What you can and can't achieve
Welcome back to my series on power relations! In my first post, I delved into the nature of authority. Today, I will explore the concept of power.
The notion of power is essential in both empirical and normative investigations. Empirical questions, such as whether a country is controlled by a power elite, whether employers hold power over employees, or how power dynamics are structured within political groups, require a clear conceptual framework for the concept of power. This framework allows us to evaluate such issues empirically.
Normative inquiries regarding power, such as whether power and freedom can coexist, whether power equality should be pursued, and whether justice can be achieved in a society shaped by power dynamics, also rely on a clear understanding of the concept of power.
To embark on empirical and normative inquiries into power, it is crucial to perform a conceptual analysis to understand the essence of power and its fundamental components. Two different questions arise in this context. The first question is conceptual: What is power? The second one is empirical: How can power be assessed?
As we cannot answer the second question without having a good understanding of the concept of power, let us start with the first question. The discussion of assessing power relations must wait for another installment.
Defining power
Having power in the most general sense may seem to imply the ability to achieve something. Someone who achieves something can be considered powerful, to some extent, and someone who achieves more than others can be seen as more powerful.
Another way to articulate this idea is to say that power is control. The more control you possess, the more power you have. Accomplishing something makes you feel powerful. On the other hand, if you continually fail despite your efforts, or if you anticipate failure, you lose control and feel powerless.
One could challenge the notion that power solely belongs to those who achieve something, as true power lies with those who achieve what they desire or want. This voluntative aspect seems to be an essential component of the concept of power.
However, this view is both true and false at the same time. For instance, consider a shareholder who wishes for a stock price to rise in the near future, and the price of that stock rises rapidly. In this case, the shareholder has achieved what he wanted. But it does not necessarily mean that the shareholder has power or control over the stock price.
Simply achieving what one wants does not always equate to power, as a person who adjusts their desires to realistically achievable things may be rational but not necessarily powerful.
Therefore, analyzing the concept of power should not be limited to actual desires and achievements. It must also consider what someone could achieve if he had certain desires, regardless of whether he currently has them or not.
Asserting that someone has power does not necessarily mean that he typically achieves what he wants. Rather, it means that the powerful person could achieve what he desires, regardless of his current wants or desires.
This is why volitions do not play a crucial role in the analysis of power. The more someone can achieve, the greater their power, regardless of their desires.
Another objection could arise by observing that one can achieve a multitude of trivial objectives. For instance, one could make one’s right index finger bend or move a teapot on one’s kitchen table two centimeters to the left. If power is equated with what one can do, then perhaps there is an excess of power in the world, more than what is typically assumed.
However, it would be premature to deny that there are situations where considering such trivial cases of power may be beneficial. When a child feels overwhelmed by its own powerlessness, highlighting the many things it can do and control could be helpful.
Furthermore, whether an action is considered trivial or not depends on the context. For example, let's imagine that Hannes Longfinger has a gun pointed at someone's head and his finger is on the trigger.
In this situation, simply bending his index finger could have severe consequences for his victim. Hannes holds a significant amount of power and can make a life or death decision.
It is highly unlikely that we can identify certain situations that lead to significant exercises of power while others do not. Therefore, it may not be beneficial to differentiate between significant and trivial exercises of power when defining power.
This leads to a simple definition of power: Someone has power if and only if he can achieve something. Denoting anything one can do or achieve as "H," the general definition of power can be expressed as an equation:
(1)
A has the power to do H in context C iff A can do H in context C.
The sentence "A can do H" expresses a possibility and is a modal statement that should be analyzed as a relative modality, according to Angelika Kratzer.1 This means that the modality expressed by the modal adverb "can" is interpreted against a conversational background.
As we discussed earlier in the context of authority, sentences expressing relative modalities can be analyzed in a model of the form:
(2)
M = <X, W, f, V>
where X is a set of persons, W is a set of possible worlds, V is an evaluation for each atomic sentence, and f is a function that assigns to each possible world w a set of propositions {pⱼ}, representing the conversational background relevant in the context of an utterance in w.
Let us assume that the scope of action available to a person, x, in a given situation is relevant to the conversation regarding their power. The set of propositions that are the value of f, consists then of all propositions according to which x performs the actions available to him/her given the circumstances in the situation.
The scope of action, in this sense, can be expressed as:
(3)
f(x,w) = {pⱼ: x performs actions within the limits of x’s scope in w}
Since each proposition pⱼ is a set of possible worlds, the intersection of these sets will give us a set of worlds in which x performs all the actions available to him/her:
(4)
∩f(x,w) = ∩{pⱼ: x performs actions within the limits of x’s scope in w}
= the set of worlds in which x performs what is in x’s limits of scope
The truth conditions of sentences of the form "A can do H" can then be formulated as follows:
(5)
[[Can(Ha)]] in M, w = 1 if and only if there is a world w' ∈ ∩f(a,w) such that w' ∈ [[(Ha)]].
= “Can(Ha)” is true in a world w iff there is a world w’ which belongs to the worlds that comprise the scope of action of a in w and a does H in w’.
Looking at power in this way places the responsibility of explaining power on the function f, which determines the scope of action available to a person in a particular situation. While my definition of power offers a framework for modeling power, it does not provide information on what f actually looks like or how we can assess an actor's power.
It is worth noting that while this analysis provides a definition of power, it is not an all-encompassing theory of power. While a definition guides the development of a theory, the real challenge is to construct the theory itself rather than merely defining power.
However, a definition of power is still useful, as it provides a framework for the development of a theory of power. It allows us to model power, identify factors that might affect power, and avoid shortcuts in analyzing power relations.
Many of the "theories of power" currently in the intellectual marketplace offer only a limited view of power. Theories of political power, economic power, structural power, institutional power, and interpretive power are interesting in their own right, but they offer only partial insights into the phenomenon of power.
My definition of power also has a critical aspect. We can evaluate claims about power relations by examining whether these claims are consistent with our judgments about what someone can and cannot do in a given situation.
For example, if someone claims that women are structurally oppressed in our society and have less power than men, this claim can only be true if it can be shown that women have fundamentally fewer options for action than men. It is not enough to demonstrate that there are more men than women in managerial positions in certain fields or that there is a gender pay gap.
Instead, it must be demonstrated that women have fewer opportunities to attain leadership positions or negotiate higher salaries. I do not claim that this cannot be done, but I want to emphasize that a definition of power enables us to better assess claims and justifications for the existence of power imbalances.
Defining power may seem simple, but assessing power in a given situation is much more complex. What determines the scope of action available to a particular person or group in a given situation? I cannot answer this question here, and I doubt that there is a simple answer, but I will discuss some possible misunderstandings and explore some implications of my deflationist definition of power.
Abilities and skills
I have proposed that the power of an individual or a group in a specific context is equivalent to their capacity to act within that context. However, this approach may be perceived as reducing power to a mere set of skills and capabilities, which may seem overly simplistic and incomplete. Although an individual's abilities and skills can contribute to their power, there are - of course - many other factors at play, including social status, cultural norms, institutional structures, relationships between individuals and groups, and much more.
This misunderstanding arises when assuming that "A can do H" simply means that A is able to perform H or has the necessary skills to do so. However, the modal auxiliary "can" has various interpretations, including epistemic, deontic, dispositional, and entitlement.
Regarding power, "can" has what we can refer to as a scope-of-action reading. For instance:
(6)
Putin has the power to end the war between Russia and Ukraine.
- is quivalent to:
Putin can end the war between Russia and Ukraine.
- is equivalent to:
Given the scope of action available to Putin, it is possible for him to end the war between Russia and Ukraine.
When evaluating someone's scope of action, it's essential to consider a wide range of factors, including his abilities and skills, social structures, cultural norms, physical laws, dynamics of relationships and interactions between individuals and groups, and many others.
This deflationist view of power, as we may call it, shifts the burden of a theory of power from its definition to its assessment, which is a more reasonable approach. Attempting to define power based on factors that influence an actor's ability to act in a given situation would be hasty. Such an approach would, at best, result in a partial definition of power, and at worst, lead to overlooking important aspects of power due to an overly narrow perspective.
Ubiquity of power
Unless you are comatose or deceased, you always have some agency. You are never completely powerless. Therefore, power is ubiquitous.
The more we can accomplish, thanks to personal growth, technological advancements, favorable environmental conditions, and political liberties, the more power becomes accessible to us.
At every moment of our lives, we face countless options and choices. Even if we choose not to act on them, our potential for action and power remains significant.
This is not to imply that there are no discrepancies in power among individuals or groups, quite the contrary. Nonetheless, it demonstrates that each of us possesses more power than we might recognize.
Neutrality of power
Power often carries a negative connotation. It is often associated with oppression, inequality, abuse, and manipulation. Although these associations have a basis, they do not necessarily define the nature of power.
One may argue that the expansion of opportunities for action has its positive sides too. Those who possess knowledge and technology that can cure certain diseases have more power, and this benefits many. When one has the power to increase the well-being and happiness of others, it is a positive manifestation of power.
The misconception that power is inherently negative because people tend to exploit it may lead us to believe that it would be better to contain and restrict it.
However, this could come at the expense of our well-being. Power is not a zero-sum game. Limiting the power of one person or group does not automatically transfer that power to others. In many cases, it would be more advantageous to increase power in a targeted way, rather than limiting it.
If we expand our overall scope for action, we all become capable of achieving more. Power is not a finite resource, and it is not always a matter of how the pie is divided fairly. We can expand the cake as a whole, so that everyone gets a larger share.
Increased opportunity leads to more power, which can lead to both good and bad outcomes. Power as such is neutral, and it is up to us to use it wisely.
Degrees of power
Power is not a singular entity, but instead exists in varying degrees. The more one can accomplish in a given situation, the more power one possesses in that moment. This suggests that power is, in principle, measurable and comparable.
However, it is difficult to determine how powerful someone is in a given situation. How many units of power does one gain upon graduating from college, climbing the corporate ladder, or winning the lottery? How many units are lost due to aging or illness? These questions are difficult, if not impossible, to answer.
This is because the scope of action in any given situation is influenced by a vast array of factors that cannot be easily reduced to a formula.
When we compare power, we do so with the assumption of ceteris paribus - that all other things are equal. For instance, if Susi and Marie meet at a fair and Susi has one Euro more in her pocket than Marie, then Susi has slightly more power. She has more options available to her. She could maybe do two laps on the carousel instead of just one.
However, in reality, everything is never equal. Susi and Marie differ in many ways - in their skills, intelligence, social networks, appearance, health, and attire, among other factors. All of these differences affect their respective abilities to act in any given situation.
We may argue that Susi and Marie have different economic power, but economic power is only one aspect of the power available to them when they attend the fair. Therefore, we cannot draw any definitive conclusions about the power dynamic between Susi and Marie based solely on the difference in their pocket money.
Reach of power
Power is not a timeless attribute; rather, it is dynamic and mutable, capable of being augmented or diminished over time. At any given moment, an individual or group may have the capacity to attain certain objectives, while at other times, they may not.
Power, therefore, cannot be considered an inherent trait of a person or group in general, but rather a feature that they possess at a specific moment or over a certain period of time.
Furthermore, power not only concerns what can be done now but also how actions today can influence the future. When we say that a person or group A has power at time t1 concerning a matter E at time t2, we imply that A can bring about E at t2 through their actions at t1. Let’s call this the temporal reach of power.
This temporal aspect of power raises several intricate issues that relate to the relationship between t1 and t2. It is not apparent, for instance, whether A must be capable of ensuring that E occurs at t2 at all times between t1 and t2 to claim power over E at t1.
We are constantly confronted with considerations of the reach of power, as in the climate debate. Can what we do today affect the lives of future generations? Is it in our power to stop global warming? These are difficult questions, requiring valid theories and models, as well as an accurate assessment of our current situation.
What is clear is that we have the power to influence the future. However, our judgments about how what we can do will play out in the future become weaker the further the effects of our actions lie in the future.
It is unclear how long the period between t1 and t2 can be to apply the concept of power meaningfully. For example, can we say that a 10-year-old holds power over a particular issue in the distant future if it is conceivable that they can achieve goals linked to that issue in adulthood? Should he or she care about grades?
The spatial range of power is another issue. In the past, it might have been possible to escape the sphere of influence of a principality and its courts simply by getting a few hundred kilometers away from them. With the availability of telephones, cars, developed roads, airplanes, and international cooperation, this is no longer so easy. Our scope for action has greatly increased.
We could call the temporal and spatial dimensions of power a sphere of influence that becomes increasingly opaque with distance. The sphere of influence of any particular person, group, or humanity as a whole depends on how what can be done here and now will work out in a then and there. While knowledge and technology extend the range of our power, we cannot specify precise boundaries of power in time and space.
Intransparency of power
Not all the consequences of our actions are clear to us. Often, we are unaware of the effects that our actions might have. Additionally, our assessment of our own abilities is not always accurate since we might not know all the circumstances surrounding a particular situation. As a result, a significant part of the power that we possess is opaque to us.
For example, while we could start a business or invite friends over for dinner, there is no guarantee of success or attendance. Similarly, questions about colonizing Mars, curing cancer, winning a war, or doing a handstand are complex and dependent on many factors, making the outcome uncertain.
Since power is dependent on various factors that we cannot fully appreciate, it is often diffuse and elusive. While knowledge can help to make power more transparent, a complete theory of power is impossible. Instead, our understanding of power benefits from knowledge gained in other areas.
Forms and dimensions of power
Saying that having power means being able to do things does not preclude an examination of specific achievements in a particular field, nor does it prohibit comparisons.
Perhaps the most intriguing type of power is social power, which refers to the ability to affect the behavior of others. We humans are social creatures, and the ability to influence behavior, especially during interactions, occupies us from morning till night.
Power can have both negative and positive effects in this context as well. When we consider propaganda, manipulation, bribery, violence, and other such phenomena, we usually focus on the negative aspects of social power.
Conversely, when we examine the lighter side of social power, we see that it can manifest in therapy, assistance, empathy, love, and cooperation.
I refer to these phenomena as the various forms of power, which I will delve into in a future post.
There are various domains of power, including political, diplomatic, elite, interpretive, economic, negotiating, and many more.
These dimensions of power differ from the forms of power in that they are not focused on specific forms of interaction but on the interplay between different resources and their impact on the potential for action in a particular area.
A significant portion of the discourse surrounding power centers around these matters, and I do not intend to duplicate existing work in this area. My definition of power does not preclude such analyses and only makes a minor contribution to them.
Opportunity costs
Paradoxically, one way to diminish your power is by engaging in an activity. When you commit to something, you lose the opportunity to pursue other alternatives that could have been more beneficial. In economics, this is known as an opportunity cost.
The concept of opportunity costs emphasizes the importance of making wise choices about our actions. We must invest our power in activities that provide us with the most benefit and avoid wasting it on frivolous pursuits.
To this end, one effective strategy is to engage in activities that will increase our power. We can enhance our skills, learn new things, prioritize our health through diet and exercise, cultivate new relationships, or invest in our future. By doing so, we can expand the realm of our possibilities and ultimately increase our power.
However, we must also be mindful of the opportunity costs associated with these activities. If we solely focus on expanding our possibilities and fail to take advantage of them, our efforts will have been in vain. Reading is an excellent example of an activity that both expands and utilizes our abilities, making it a highly recommended pursuit.
What I want to reiterate, once more, is that I did not assert that the scope of action is the foundation of power. Rather, I stated that it is power. Consequently, any declaration of an individual's power is equivalent to a declaration of their capabilities and potential achievements.
As such, the term power does not indicate a specific area of phenomena, but rather encompasses the diverse range of actions we, as agents, can take in particular circumstances. In principle, we could consider abandoning the concept of power altogether. However, in practice, the notion of power makes it easier to have meaningful discussions about what we can accomplish or achieve. It facilitates a more efficient and streamlined discussion of these phenomena.
Ultimately, therefore, the term power serves as a linguistic shortcut.
Kratzer, Angelika (1978): Semantik der Rede. Kontexttheorie, Modalwörter, Konditionalsätze, Königstein, Ts.; Kratzer, Angelika (1979): “Conditional Necessity and Possibility”, in: Bäuerle, Rainer; Urs Egli & Arnim von Stechow (Hg.): Semantics from different Points of View, Berlin et al., 117-147; Kratzer, Angelika (1981): “The Notional Category of Modality”, in: Eikmeyer, Hans-Jürgen & Hannes Rieser (Hg.): Words, Worlds, and Contexts. New Approaches of Word Semantics, Berlin/ New York, 38-74; Kratzer, Angelika (1991): „Modality“, in: von Stechow, Arnim & Rainer Wunderlich (Hg.): Semantics, Berlin/New York, 639-650