I’ve grown fascinated with the concept of power; I want to know its ontology, why it’s so desired and coveted, why 16th century “colonialists” traversed vast oceans for the amassing of land, resources, and the potential of power, why complex state systems and economic systems like capitalism were installed to use and maintain power, and why today the media is often wielded in ways that sustain powerful entities. But what is it, what is power? At its simplest, the Oxford English Dictionary defines power as control or authority over others and as the capacity to direct or influence the behavior of others (Oxford Dictionary Online, 2022.) At the most microlevel power can be seen as an individual characteristic or property.

A human resources director may have power to update company policies regarding vaccinations while other individuals in the same company do not. A head of state may have the power to declare war on another sovereign state while other individuals in the government do not. Power can also be seen as property of a social system or structure rather than the individual. In the examples above, perhaps it is the specific position in a social structure – human resources director or head of state – that holds power and not the individual themselves. Power can be seen as either specific action or exercising of influence, or it can be seen as a dormant potential. Is one powerful when they act in a way that is powerful or simply by being in a position of power?

In early power studies, theorists attempted to capture power in an empirical fashion. Robert Dahl performed a famous study in which he attempted to operationalize power into a measurable variable by ranking members of the United States Senate based on their power over legislation. In the study, he cites the intuitive definition of power as “[individual] A has power over B to the extent that he can get B to do something that B would not otherwise do.” (Dahl, 1957) Despite his formation of a “compliance power calculus”, the theory ran into several practical difficulties, specifically in that, power could be estimated so long as there were an existing set of comparable subjects for the wielder of power to influence upon. While Dahl attempted to capture the empirical value of power at the agent level, his study fails to analyze to structural installations of power. Clarence Stone argued that power isn’t simply A getting B to do something that B wouldn’t normally do, but that there is also a preemptive power. Dahl’s power, or compliance power as he calls it, is limited in domain and scope. He argues that “all one must do to illustrate its limitations is show that a dominant group failed to gain compliance in a significant issue.” (Stone, 1988) Does that mean that they are no longer powerful or have power? Not at all, and that is due to that individual holding preemptive power. Preemption being considered in two dimensions – “the power advantage of holding a strategic position […] and the capacity to occupy a strategic position.” (Stone, 1988)

So, is being powerful when one acts in a way that is powerful or being in a position of power? In certain circumstances its one or the other, in other certain circumstances it’s both, and yet in others it’s neither. Power transcends multiple levels – the individual and the structure.

Power