Definition of Power

[Dglgmut]

Official power, unofficial power, power structures... it's all very convoluted. I think a definition of power is needed that cuts through the BS. Here's my attempt.

 

Let's look at one of the simplest forms of power: A has a gun to B's head. This is basically the purest form of coercion. B will do anything that A wants unless B decides it would be better to die. So right away we see that power is limited by the object's values, because B can still choose to die and there's nothing A can do about that. So power does not create motivation, it creates expectations. Having power over a person entails the ability to change their expectations. The created expectation here is that if B doesn't do what A wants, B will die.

 

But is power only the ability to change one's expectations? You can secretly change the time on someone's clock and make them think they are running late for a meeting, effecting their behavior. Is that power? I can't think of any reason that it's not. This means that you can have power over someone without them even knowing it. You could also have power over someone without you knowing it, if you changed their expectations unintentionally.

 

This is a starting point. I want to dissect power in organizations as well as societies in general using this definition or an updated version--I don't know if there's anything obviously wrong about it, but I feel it's in the ballpark.

[Joel]

Foucault talked a lot about how power in modern societies is very, very rarely so blunt, and often seems quite humane. This can make is much more insidious and harder to fight.

For decades medical science believed being homosexual was a biological disorder, the presence of the feminine in men, of the masculine in women. Psychologists adopted similar positions. Treatments included drugs, hypnosis, electroshock, invasive surgeries and lobotomies. But that was the science, and how could someone argue against the science?

It took the communists in the Mattachine Society who came up with a theory and practice of homosexual liberation in a heteronormative society to challenge the authority of science. The idea of Pride, of raising our consciousness as a community and as loving people, was an assault against homophobia from the flanks. The science itself changed when we demanded medical authorities cease treating us like diseased pariahs.

If it were not for queer rebellion, a rebellion from a place of emotion and identity, of demanding our lives and loves be left the fuck alone, medical scientists would still be tripping over themselves for a cure, in the same way a cure is researched for conditions like bipolarity or cancer.

I'm gonna be blunt.

I find white cishet men tend to have a very simplistic view of power because "A gun to my head" tends to be the only way they experience it. Power relations maintained by cultural expectations, like Sarkeesian's look at women as rewards for men in video games, and power maintained by the experts in the sciences, like that experienced by queer people, are just not something white cishet men experience.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

16 hours ago, Dglgmut said:

I think a definition of power is needed that cuts through the BS.

D,

I start here.

Power is the capacity and willingness to force people to do shit, and/or endure shit, they don't want to.

That's at the root of all power structures, whether good ones or bad ones.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Joel,

Welcome to OL.

4 hours ago, Joel said:

I'm gonna be blunt.

Me too.

4 hours ago, Joel said:

I find white cishet men tend to have a very simplistic view of power...

Blah blah blah.

That's all you find because that's all you look for.

And if you are a fanboy (or fan-whatever gender) of Anita Sarkeesian, we talked about her here on OL back when she was relevant.

The GamerGate Mess--It's Philosophical

But go on and drag her out if you wish. From the GamerGate culture of yesteryear, I'll drag Milo Yiannopoulos back out and we'll see where that goes.

 

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

5 hours ago, Joel said:

I find white cishet men tend to have a very simplistic view of power because "A gun to my head" tends to be the only way they experience it.

God knows I've been biting my tongue, but it's bigger than me.

Remember Roger Rabbit going mmmphhhhffff mmphhhhffff mmphhhhffff while he was hiding because someone sang, "Shave and a hair cut..." and then stopped?

Finally Roger pops out, strikes a pose, and goes,

"Two biiiiittts!"

 

I'm like that.

So let's look at one "white cishet man" who has a simplistic view of power being a gun to the head because he doesn't really understand power.

Wanna see him?

"Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun"

Know who said that?

Click on the link if you want the name.

But here's a hint, his picture:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Ahhhhhh...

That was better than, "Two bits!"

 

Michael

[Dglgmut]

Before I reply I want to further clarify the what and why of this definition.

 

For the first example let's look at the power structure of a hypothetical voluntarist society, where property rights are the foundation for the law. Why would someone inclined to rob another of their wallet not do so in a world without police? The expectation is that the man can retaliate and any standers-by will either allow the retaliation or contribute to the retaliation. That is the expectation, but does this common knowledge have power? In a world with police we would say that the would-be-mugger is prevented from committing the crime because of the power of the state. The state creates the expectation that one will be caught and punished, and puts that in writing: the law. In the voluntarist society nobody can change the law, and it is tempting to say that the law is the source of power here. But it's not. The source of power is whoever creates the expectation. The group of people who created the laws in this land must have had power, but they are no longer in the position to change the law anymore. Who creates the expectations now? The people. The formal expectation of the law can only be changed if people start behaving differently. Perhaps they stop tolerating retaliation in some cases, changing the expectations of both parties involved in the crimes. Alternatively people could organize--this is a way of combining their individual ability to change expectations.

 

Another example: a tyrant king. Everyone in the kingdom hates this king. Everyone suspects everyone else hates the king. A guard or someone close to the king may consider killing him, but they know that they will be executed for regicide and treason. Everyone would be happy that the king is dead, but the man would be executed nevertheless, because nobody is above the law and order trumps justice. If the king were killed and the killer executed, who's power would have truly been the cause? The killer would have expected to be killed, and therefore nobody is exercising power here. The new king could pardon the killer, in which case expectations would be greatly changed. To pardon the killer would be to exercise power, while to have him killed would be an abnegation of power.

 

With this definition of power we can see that power can be used for good, and this makes the concept of power more complicated. This means offering someone a pile of cash could be considered power. But there is always the choice to turn down the money, right? Just as there is the choice to refuse to comply under threat of violence. Power cannot equal force, because by definition force has no alternative.

 

The reason we need a better definition of power, I suspect, is that there is power in places in society that do not fit the traditional definitions. The media has power, the universities have power, the movie studios have power, etc. Any institution that can change people's expectations has power. Convincing people the ice caps are going to melt unless they put solar panels on their roof is power, just like manipulating an old lady into giving up her banking information over the phone is power.

 

You can threaten to assassinate a world leader unless he does X, but you don't have power, because you are not in the position to change his expectations. He doesn't believe you can do it. But if he's religious perhaps his priest or imam might have some power over him.

[Dglgmut]

9 hours ago, Joel said:

Foucault talked a lot about how power in modern societies is very, very rarely so blunt, and often seems quite humane. This can make is much more insidious and harder to fight.

For decades medical science believed being homosexual was a biological disorder, the presence of the feminine in men, of the masculine in women. Psychologists adopted similar positions. Treatments included drugs, hypnosis, electroshock, invasive surgeries and lobotomies. But that was the science, and how could someone argue against the science?

I agree with this being a good example. Scientists have power because they are, or are associated with, people who delivered real, reliable knowledge. In a way they've earned that position, but it is power.

Quote

I find white cishet men tend to have a very simplistic view of power because "A gun to my head" tends to be the only way they experience it. Power relations maintained by cultural expectations, like Sarkeesian's look at women as rewards for men in video games, and power maintained by the experts in the sciences, like that experienced by queer people, are just not something white cishet men experience.

I don't think your reasoning is correct that cis men only know power as the threat of violence. I think it's that those men tend to be more analytical and a fuzzy definition, like the one Sarkeesian would use, is not useful. Cultural expectations are not power, the ability to change those expectations is. In this sense, everyone has a little bit of power. But if one person starts acting contrary to cultural norms, that is not enough to change anyone's expectations other than it convinces them that it's possible for someone to act differently. Sarkeesian, and people like her, have power and serve power. Her expectations have been changed a lot, and she enjoys changing other people's expectations.

 

Technically reality itself has power over us. It can change our expectations in the event that we are factually wrong, and it certainly influences our behavior. But it's important not to confuse the power of nature with the power of men. Sarkeesian, and everyone else on the left, do this constantly. The vast majority of our expectations concerning the actions of human beings are rooted in human nature. Nature has demanded certain behaviors from us, and from that we've learned to expect certain behaviors, and from that we've learned to conform.

[Dglgmut]

One more thing: Power, in this context, is influence over a person's volitional actions. I say expectations specifically because that is the information that guides our choices. So it is not exactly power over someone's mind, but power over someone's mind in-so-much as that determines their actions. Convincing someone of a factoid, true or false, may not play any part whatsoever in the choices they make, and therefore is not power.

 

With this definition it's easy to say that power is ubiquitous, since people can change our expectations in all sorts of ways. So when talking about power as a factor of social order, the concept is really disproportionate power. In the voluntarist society power exists, but disproportionate power does not. (That example was intentionally simplified and obviously leaves out private security companies and other organizations that are theorized to be necessary.)

[Brant Gaede]

Power is harnessed energy, but no one has yet explained what energy is at its most basic level.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

8 hours ago, Dglgmut said:

Power cannot equal force, because by definition force has no alternative.

D,

I have no idea what this means. I do know one thing is missing in all your formulations: human nature.

Without a grounding in human nature, look how vague your statement is. What definition of force? Who's power. Force wielded by whom? How much force? In what context? Why does force need an alternative to exist?

Is the sport, boxing, included? 

How about forcing a young child not to run out into a busy highway? Is that force or power?

And speaking of young children, is an adult leading a young child into a sex act through love and kindness power only? After all, there are many cases where it looks consensual. However, there there is always a point where a child doesn't want it. And the adult will get what the adult will get. So force eventually does kick in even among the most benign situations where it looks like the child is giving consent. And, boy, does it fuck up a kid's mind later. (Apropos, I am clear about what force and power I want to use on pedophiles.  )

I could go on and on.

In O-Land and l-land, people like to discuss large social "improvements" without taking this stuff into account. I've seen them bicker about it later, but not when formulating the broad strokes. This is the utopia approach. Get an idea, call it a principle or right, then as a utopia formulator, tell everyone on earth, past, present and future how to live. But if that is what someone wants to propose for mankind, he or she better have a good understanding of the individual they want to rule over through their ideas. Because humanity is nothing but a bunch of individuals.

So I say start with the individual, learn about the individual, then work through family and go out from there. Never forget human nature along the way. Besides, that's the only way to effect change.

Hell, even Marx and Engels knew that. They fucked up understanding human nature, but they dealt with it at the start. For example, they described labor in terms of value to the individual performing a craft as opposed to working in a factory. Then they did family (see, for example, the book: The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State.) By doing all this, they gave their ideas enough persuasive power to result in massive failed societies and piles of corpses of innocents. They wanted large-scale change and they got it. 

People in our subcommunity mostly posture and elaborate mental constructs at the fringe. They are pikers by comparison.

(As an aside, I and others here on OL actually did something--we helped elect President Trump. I think we did more in terms of reality than most all of the society reformulations I have seen in our subcommunity. We helped effect large-scale change--out in reality--and we did it without paving the way for authoritarians and piles of corpses. It hasn't settled yet, but it will, at least for a generation or two.)

Keep going, though. I like seeing you work through the idea.

Try a bit of Nietzsche, too, if you want to go deeper into power.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

3 hours ago, Dglgmut said:

Power, in this context, is influence over a person's volitional actions.

D,

You mean like selling someone something?

Or asking someone out on a date by offering them what they might like?

That is power?

 

Michael

[Peter]

4 hours ago, Dglgmut said:

One more thing: Power, in this context, is influence over a person's volitional actions.

Some shallow thoughts? I have been thinking about the difference between “power” and “influence.”

I think power is a broad term, and as an example consider the power an American policeman has as he uses retaliatory force to battle crime and keep the peace. An insignificant way a policemen might exercise this is when he is directing traffic. If he points at you and your car to detour you are legally required to do so. If it is an emergency or if he has a warrant he can “force” his way into someone’s house. No matter the level at the city, county, state, or nationally wide, we the people agree to this. Usually.

The best example of “extreme influence” that I can come up is the beloved rock star performing at a concert. Those people swooning and swaying in the front rows probably belong to the star’s fan club and they get first choice of seats when there is a concert. Of course there are other types of extreme influence like movie stars, authors, politicians, and celebrities like Meghan and Harry. If someone famous knocked on your do and asked to use your phone, bathroom, or to just sit a while I think most Americans would. I would let in Taylor Swift, John Wayne, The Beatles, The Bee Gees, and Harrison Ford. I guess I would let in any of the Supreme Court and of course President Trump. “Can I use your bathroom?”  Now that is a bit weird to think about. Peter           

[william.scherk]

Musings ...

I have power, in the sense of work, volition, force of being, constructive power. I can will myself to do things, build things, make things, seek things, gather things, choose things, join things, go places. 

I have power over myself, most of the time, if not absolute power. My size and stature gives me a certain built-in physical power. I can augment my (personal) power when I combine forces with another person, or with many other persons. My powers are individuated yet implicated. I can commit to 'seeing things through' and I can abort plans and projects. I'd like to think I command my own powers.

I've met people who seem to have great personal powers, of intellect, of observation, of diligence, of analysis. I've met people who have advanced powers of persuasion, masters of the craft. I've met power in numbers. I've felt powerful attachments and attractions.

I have experienced powerful language, powerful arguments, powerful myths, powerful explanations. I've been -- at various times in my life -- subject to personal 'power dynamics' and have navigated hierarchies of institutional and business power.

The power to command works 'offshore' the island of the individual and is perhaps vested in differentials. How might two perfectly-matched persons establish command power?

Do you have power in your household? Do you share it? Do you have a power in the neighbourhood and community? Do you count yourself as part of a "powerful group" however measured?

My sole mention of Foucault will be: why does an almost-citation of Foucault fill me with Janet/Seymour apprehensions? 

Power of arms, power of obedience, power of law. Law-givers, law-makers, law-enforcers. 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, william.scherk said:

My sole mention of Foucault will be: why does an almost-citation of Foucault fill me with Janet/Seymour apprehensions? 

William,

LOL...

That's her power over you.

(And you're not the only one... me too...)

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, Peter said:

I would let in Taylor Swift, John Wayne, The Beatles, The Bee Gees, and Harrison Ford. I guess I would let in any of the Supreme Court and of course President Trump. “Can I use your bathroom?”  Now that is a bit weird to think about.

Peter,

LOL...

You remind me of me at at times.

Whatever it is you are into here, send me a sample.

 

Michael

[Dglgmut]

4 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

You mean like selling someone something?

Or asking someone out on a date by offering them what they might like?

That is power?

 

Selling someone could be an exercise of power. Do you change their expectations? Did you lie? If you were able to change their expectations, they must have trusted you. Trust is definitely a form of power over a person. The idea that power necessarily has to be a bad thing is not helpful. This ties in with what Joel said about cis men, but his reasoning was terrible. The real reason is that people don't want a word that can mean both good and bad. It has nothing to do with cis men never experiencing microaggressions or anything like that. It's just that they are thinking about the end of the line; they don't want their concepts touching like foods on a plate (and they shouldn't, unless it's necessary). A nuanced definition is almost reflexively rejected. Is threatening to kill someone different than offering to save someone? If I tell you to do X or I'll kill your healthy mother, or do X and I'll save your dying mother... what's the difference? Do I have power in one and not in the other? Who do I have power over?

 

So, like I said, by this definition power is quite ubiquitous, but there is an incredible range in the quantity, rather than the quality. I have previously rejected the idea that money is power, because you can always turn down money. But I am rethinking that now, it seems that money has never seemed significant enough compared to threatening someone's life, which is a difference in quantity... If you needed money to save a dying loved one, then it might be harder to deny that someone has power over you.

[Jules Troy]

Hahahaha Foucault always reminds me of loopy Janet! It’s Pavlovian! Run!

[Dglgmut]

5 hours ago, Peter said:

Some shallow thoughts? I have been thinking about the difference between “power” and “influence.”

I was trying to differentiate between the two but there's no point. They're the same thing. We can say that power is just extreme influence. We are speaking about power in a social context, meaning power over someone's mind, which can never be absolute. Therefore it is always going to be mere influence. You can't use force on someone's mind. The problem becomes quantifying influence. If one person can influence many people... power may become the more appropriate word.

Quote

consider the power an American policeman has as he uses retaliatory force to battle crime and keep the peace.

I think it's important to keep physical power and social power conceptually distinct. Retaliatory force certainly does influence someone's behavior, especially in this example, but I would not use the word power. In the bigger picture power is more clearly influence. When you start to look at power structures in their entirety, you see influence cascading from the top down...

[Peter]

1 hour ago, Dglgmut said:

I was trying to differentiate between the two but there's no point. They're the same thing.

No they are not.

Dingle wrote, “We can say that power is just extreme influence.”

No exactly. Power is imposed. It is not voluntary . . . . except in the sense of accepting your rights, obligations, and duties under a constitutional government. You grant the government the right to retaliatory force. You obey the laws.

Influence (and iconic stardom) is accepted voluntarily. “Scoobie doobie doo.” Frank Sinatra? Is that YOU? Come on in!

A funny aside. I have mentioned before. My wife and I went to see Diana Ross in Lancaster? PA. I was awestruck. She walked right past our end of row seats around the tenth row. I whispered to my wife “She has a beautiful back.” My wife thought I was talking about Diana Ross’s butt, and I had to explain myself on the ride back home.  Seriously. Her BACK was beautiful, and her butt was . . . . perfect.            

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

2 hours ago, Dglgmut said:

The real reason is that people don't want a word that can mean both good and bad.

D,

Sorry, this is bullshit.

Everybody knows that nuclear power can light up a city or blow it up and they use the same term for both without batting an eyelash.

People (and I mean the whole blob you like to reference, rather than who your are really talking about  ) have no problem with words that mean something that can be both good and bad.

It's called a cognitive abstraction.

As opposed to a normative abstraction, which has to mean good or bad.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

2 hours ago, Jules Troy said:

Hahahaha Foucault always reminds me of loopy Janet! It’s Pavlovian! Run!

Jules,

Why, oh why, did this thread have to happen?

I don't think I'm going to be able to sleep well tonight...

Michael

[Dglgmut]

9 hours ago, Peter said:

Power is imposed. It is not voluntary . . . .

What does this mean? Compared to this:

Quote

Influence (and iconic stardom) is accepted voluntarily.

What is there to accept or reject? How do you accept something involuntarily?

Quote

except in the sense of accepting your rights, obligations, and duties under a constitutional government. You grant the government the right to retaliatory force.

You're trying to make reality fit into what should be. The government expropriates money from you, and if you don't pay they can exercise "retaliatory force"? That's not the appropriate term.

 

I need to emphasize what I said about conflating physical power with social power. You can threaten someone with an unloaded gun, that is social power (extreme influence over their actions). Having the physical ability to pull someone out of their car, that is physical power and is only important to recognize because it must be removed from the equation when talking about social power.

 

The point of thinking about social power is to understand how coordinated actions are possible, even when most of the people involved do not desire the intended outcome. How does an extreme minority effectively control the actions of the majority? If you define power only as threatening immediate physical violence you are never going to understand how rights are eroded. If you only define power as threatening immediate physical violence you are not going to know at what stage our society is right now, or which we're direction we're heading. Power needs a nuanced definition because when you start to identify the traditional concept of power, it's too late.

 

You need a definition of power that allows you to identify the sources of power right now, which are the schools and the media right now above all else. They are controlling coordinated activity right now, which would be a non-issue if they weren't lying. This is also why power cannot be thought of as necessarily evil. It just won't be a functional definition. Trust/faith is one way to gain power, fear is the other. Either way power can be used for good or evil. You can threaten a kid to get off the road or you'll smack him (similar to one of Michael's examples). The sources of public information have power right now, but they never threaten violence, right? What about "racism" or the "alt-right" or "incels." These are all threats, they're just indirect. They are actually two threats: a threat to leftists ("we have to do something or these people are going to take over") and a threat to the right ("don't associate yourself with these people or the mob will get you").

[Jules Troy]

8 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Jules,

Why, oh why, did this thread have to happen?

I don't think I'm going to be able to sleep well tonight...

Michael

Well I did like her more than Barren Darren...

[Peter]

12 hours ago, Dglgmut said:

I was trying to differentiate between the two but there's no point. They're the same thing.

There is a difference between voluntary and involuntary.  You are not objective. Peter 

Notes. 10 Ways Of How To Communicate With Aliens 03/02/2016 Kim Jones. Whether life exists in some super intelligent form in the vast universe or not is a question that everyone loves to debate about. While there are many so called eye witnesses who claim to have seen or being abducted by aliens, no one has ever come up with some concrete mode to communicate with the extraterrestrial visitors, should the need to communicate with them ever arise. The ways to communicate with aliens can be broadly classified under mathematical languages, pictorial messages, algorithmic messages, and multi modal messages. Here is a quick introduction of these various ways to communicate with aliens . . . . mathematical language, pictorial messages . . . .

A = A.   1 + 1 = 2.   

A is A: Aristotle's Law of Identity. Everything that exists has a specific nature. Each entity exists as something in particular and it has characteristics that are a part of what it is. "This leaf is red, solid, dry, rough, and flammable." "This book is white, and has 312 pages." "This coin is round, dense, smooth, and has a picture on it." In all three of these cases we are referring to an entity with a specific identity; the particular type of identity, or the trait discussed, is not important. Their identities include all of their features, not just those mentioned.  Identity is the concept that refers to this aspect of existence; the aspect of existing as something in particular, with specific characteristics. An entity without an identity cannot exist because it would be nothing. To exist is to exist as something, and that means to exist with a particular identity.  To have an identity means to have a single identity; an object cannot have two identities. A tree cannot be a telephone, and a dog cannot be a cat. Each entity exists as something specific, its identity is particular, and it cannot exist as something else. An entity can have more than one characteristic, but any characteristic it has is a part of its identity. A car can be both blue and red, but not at the same time or not in the same respect. Whatever portion is blue cannot be red at the same time, in the same way. Half the car can be red, and the other half blue. But the whole car can't be both red and blue. These two traits, blue and red, each have single, particular identities. The concept of identity is important because it makes explicit that reality has a definite nature. Since reality has an identity, it is knowable. Since it exists in a particular way, it has no contradictions.

Contradiction. A contradiction arises when two ideas each make the other impossible. Contradictions don't exist in reality because reality simply is as it is and does not contradict itself. Only our evaluations of reality can contradict each other. If you think you have found a contradiction, then check your premises. Either you're mistaken about it being a contradiction or one of the contradicting concepts has been improperly formed.  If the content of your knowledge contains contradictions, then some of your knowledge is in error. Because in order to be successful in reality one must know reality, success requires correct knowledge. It is therefore important to continually search for and root out contradictions in your knowledge in order to make sure that your knowledge corresponds to reality. The two primary methods for doing this are logic, the art of non-contradictory identification, and integration.

[Dglgmut]

28 minutes ago, Peter said:

There is a difference between voluntary and involuntary.

That has nothing to do with what I said. I asked how influence and social power differ in terms of one being voluntary and the other being involuntary.