“Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power.” This quote by Abraham Lincoln offers insight into how the concept of power is extremely significant. Power is visible in our society on many levels- political, social, emotional and physical are just a few types. As a result of channelizing our collective energies, it is power that leads to the creation of principles such as coordination, systems, specialization of function, hierarchy of authority and integration. Power is defined as the capacity to do something. In specific terms, it is having the ability to influence the behaviour of others or the course of events. Although power as a concept is primitively approached as something which is evil and unjust, exercising power can also have humanistic objectives that empower society. The idea of power is derived from the interdependence between two entities- it is the extent to which one entity can influence and direct the other. The concept of power usually has political connotations. However, power has been defined in a variety of ways over the years and put into different categories. This text explores the definition of power according to four theorists, namely, Max Weber, Karl Marx, Michel Foucault and Thomas Hobbes.
Generally speaking, power is not limited to the political aspect. Power can be exercised to various ways other than politically imposing laws on an individual. For instance, power is often exercised culturally through norms. Social norms often dictate a formal structure in a society. For example, many cultures around the world have traditions that adhere to a certain gender preference making a man more powerful than a woman- female genital mutilation, sex selection, child marriage, dowry-deaths, honour killings and widowhood rituals are harmful cultural practices supported by various social norms and beliefs. In the late 1980s, Joseph Nye coined the term soft power which is essentially the ability to attract and co-opt rather than coerce, case in point hard power. Although the term is mostly used in the international relations context, the definition makes it open for interpretation. Soft power is ability to shape and influence one’s actions through appealing to them. For instance, cultural values are a way of exercising soft power- appealing to someone’s emotions to influence their mindset and actions is something rather evident in our society. Hard power is the very opposite of soft power- it is the use of coercion to exercise power. The use of military and economic means to influence one’s behaviour is defined as hard power. Whilst the information above discusses the two different categorizations of power in the broadest terms, what is power?
Max Weber defines power as “the probability within a social relationship of being able to secure one’s own ends even against opposition.” His idea of power means the ability to influence people’s wishes and thoughts even if it opposes their own self-interest. Moreover, he categorizes power into two- authoritative power and coercive power. Authoritative power is considered legitimate because it is with consent that this power is being exercised. For instance, electing a representative for one’s province is authoritative power- the representative is been given consent to exercise power over the people. Coercive power refers to the idea of compliance through force. In simpler terms, coercive power is when power is exercised by using force in order to execute events against one’s wishes. Unlike Weber’s theory which is very focused on power as a social construct, Karl Marx focuses on the economy whilst dealing the concept of power. He believes that the structure of society is heavily dependent on the economy and hence, power is derived through economy. Because power is reliant on on the economy and wealth, there are only few people who possess power that has the ability to influence the course of events. He further introduces the concept of the proletariat and the bourgeois which emphasize the power dynamics between the ruling class and the working class.
Michel Foucault, a French postmodernist, has a very different view of power than the ones mentioned above. According to him, power does not function through structure, rather it operates through discourses. His idea of power challenges the notion that power is wielded by people or groups. Although highly criticized due to the ambiguity, Foucault’s believes that “power comes from everywhere.” As opposed to Foucault, Thomas Hobbes has a rather specific definition of power. In the book Leviathan, whilst exploring the idea of power, Thomas Hobbes writes that “the power of a man is his present means to obtain some future apparent good.” To put it simply, Hobbes defines power as one’s means to achieve something they desire. He further classifies power into two- natural power and instrumental power. Natural power is referred to one’s internal qualities such as intelligence, physical strength and prudence and is used to “obtain some future apparent good”. Contrastingly, instrumental power has the sole purpose of acquiring more power in order to gain more wealth and reputation.
