A Typology of Power
Entry posted by Vladimir
290 views
Of Polls and Politics
How often do we see polls, threads and radio shows asking that ultimate of Bobian questions: who is the most powerful [wo]man on the planet? What follows is a rush of gut-instinctual and political nominations, with little thought going into what the question actually means. Thus in order to provide an answer we must first investigate the question: what is power and where does it derive from?
Our focus will necessarily be on the latter half of that question, but we cannot move onto that without first establishing what we mean when we discuss 'power'.
Power in the political context can only be seen as the ability to make others do what you want them to do, whether they know they are doing it or not. However, in examining where power exists we must be careful not to fall into the correlation/causation trap, seeing power where only coincidence exists. Thus if I want X to do Y and she does, it does not necessarily mean that I exercised any power in the interim (not that this will stop many from claiming otherwise). Power can only be seen to exist where it is exorcised through deliberate actions.
Given this definition we can begin to anticipate that not all power is the same -- it is not all utilised in the same way, doesn't always have the same outcomes, and doesn't always have the same fundamental characteristics. On closer examination we can recognise that there are three main types of power: influential, direct, and structural.
Influential Power
This type of power is all around us here on the forum and, to a lesser extent (given that it has to operate within the confines of structural power) on our respective alliance forums. Indeed, it is the primary objective of most posts to wield: that is to say, to convince and/or manipulate others. Influential Power is the power to convince those that you have no direct contact with to take (or not to take) an action. This need not be of the nature 'I think people should do X' followed by them doing so, but may instead follow from a convincing argument that leads to concrete opinion change and/or actions. Thus if I create a thread arguing that Alliance Z is evil, and this causes a vast change of global opinion towards them, I have exorcised Influential Power.
As one might imagine, this is the least concrete type of power, and an individual cannot claim to hold it at a constant rate. Indeed, while certain individuals can certainly lay claim to hold it at a higher base level than others (when Emperor Revenge says something it will always influence more people than if an unknown said the same thing), it is more often tied to a specific idea or statement.
Being the least concrete power, it is also the most misrepresented along the correlation/causation line. Generally speaking individuals will only listen to what they already believe, and so it is easy for someone to say something, to see it widely agreed with, and then to claim Influential Power as a result; but without changing any minds on the matter nothing was achieved and no power was exorcised. If, however, that popular claim spurred individuals into concrete action, something was achieved and thus power was exorcised.
To give a simple example: if I make the claim that the sky is blue and everyone agrees and pats me on the back, no power has been exorcised. However, if this claim causes people to stop, think, and then head off to carry out in depth experiments on said colour, or to try and change it to a different colour as a result, I can be said to have influenced these actions, and thus Influential Power was exorcised. But it was a fleeting power, not necessarily linked to me but to the assertion, and so I may not carry it past this one instant in time -- though the prestige from this instance may increase my base level.
As is becoming increasingly clear, this is a very abstract type of power, and thus very difficult to pin down, and this if further emphasised by its often hidden nature. If an individual has influenced only a few people on a subject, perhaps inside an alliance, and then their view on this subject is spread by these few people to wider masses, then this can legitimately be traced back to the power of the original individual -- it need not come directly from their mouth. In this way one might see the spread of an idea while the the power behind it remains hidden -- additionally, a prime example of how Influential Power may vary from instance to instance, and may well be a 'one hit wonder' never to be repeated.
Direct Power
This is the power exorcised by personal (direct) contact out with a structural chain of command. Often those wielding this type of power will be seen as the true shapers of the world, as they are visibly seen to cause political movement (forming blocs, alliances, creating enemies, and so forth). As one might expect, this is a power typically held in greatest quantity by the world's diplomats, with their long contact lists, friendships, and ability to influence important people in important alliances, who will then use their own power to further the original objective -- much like influential power a hidden cascade effect often takes place with this type of power.
Structural Power
Last, but far from least, this type of power is wielded through the structures and institutions of Planet Bob -- that is to say, generally speaking, through alliances. It has often been an underestimated type of power, for it is not always at the forefront of political affairs, but rather behind the scenes organising the other types of power -- you won't find that many alliance leaders personally making the diplomatic rounds or arguing a case on the forum.
Structural Power derives its supreme importance from the fact that those with Direct and Influential Power are almost invariably part of a structure, and given this they are almost invariably structurally subordinate to another individual. The importance of this comes from the primacy of this type of power in our world -- no matter how much Direct of Influential Power you may have, you still have to follow the chain of command or you'll quickly find yourself in trouble. This is further emphasised by the fact that often the other types of power derive directly from the structure: diplomats holding Direct Power usually only do so as a result of the access and power they hold as a result of their internal structural position; if that is pulled, or worse, if their structure sabotages them, then their Direct Power will evaporate.
Use Value
Unfortunately the world is a lot more complex than this, and the three types of power inevitably overlap. As we already noted, Emperor Revenge would hold more Influential Power partly as a result of his Structural Power, but this Structural Power also implies a great degree of Direct Power with other alliance leaders and individuals. Moreover, while this was all written with international politics in mind, it is just as true at alliance level, where individuals exorcise Influential or Direct Power out with, and often in direct contradiction to, Structural Power.
But nevertheless, the typology described here is a useful conceptualisation that should aid in any examination of the power structure on Planet Bob at an individual level, if only in bringing about the realisation that power is not homogeneous.
1 Comment
Recommended Comments