The dimensions of power

I was asked at the Brantford speak if it is possible that we use power unintentionally? And of so is it still power?

From a simply technical point of view the answer is simple – if you are using an ability that triggers someone’s need and it impacts a choice they are making - then that is power.

There is a great deal of discussion about this in the modern sociological world of power. In fact it seems to be the most popular topic with sociologists who study power.
A leader in the study of that question, Dr. Steven Lukes, has recently re-released his book - Power: A Radical View, Second Edition. Palgrave Macmillan, 2005. It is best described in a review by Sociologist Daniel Béland of the University of Calgary, as follows:

Using the post-war debate over "power elite" (Mills) and "pluralism" (Dahl) as a starting point, the 1974 essay — reprinted without major modifications — explores the three dimensions of power. Associated with the work of Robert Dahl, the first dimension is related to "the study of concrete, observable behavior" (17, emphasis in original). From this angle, what matters is the analysis of observable conflicts between organized interests over concrete political issues. The second dimension of power is underlined as the result of political scientists Peter Bachrach and Morton Baratz's critique of Dahl's pluralism. This critique points to the forces that prevent potentially controversial issues from generating "observable conflicts." Consequently, in order to grasp this second dimension of power, "it is crucially important to identify potential issues which nondecision-making prevents from being actual" (23). Beyond the analysis of observable conflicts, political analysis is about studying hidden forces that constrain the agenda. Thus, according to Lukes, power has a third dimension, which is ideological in nature: "Is it not the supreme and most insidious exercise of power to prevent people, to whatever degree, from having grievances by shaping their perceptions, cognitions and preferences in such a way that they accept their role in the existing order of things, either because they can see or imagine no alternative to it, or because they see it as natural and unchangeable, or because they value it as divinely ordained and beneficial?"

I believe that there is no question that power is sometimes used so effectively that no one knows it is at work. This is commonly experienced everywhere from the classroom to the sports channel. However the real issue for my friend I think is whether or not this is actually power? Does there have to be a conflict? Does power have to be intentional?
I think the first question is how you define power. If power is about the results – like it is with most sociologists then whether or not you see a response determines whether or not there is power. I think all it shows is whether or not there is sufficient power to create a measurable phenomenon.
If however you define power by its method – the application of an ability to a need, then we see intention has nothing to do with it.
The study of power is ageless. However in a modern context we have had scientific rules to honor. Originally we saw power as a question of “power over” another and the idea of dominance. We study and measure the effects of power. Again all we were focused on was the “other” and their will using the subject only as a meter or measuring device. The implication was the need for the choice to be made against the will of another.
Then it was a question of “power to.” We asked if it was possible to define the questions so as to have impact on the answers. Again the target was conflict and the ability to control the outcome by controlling the question.
Finally Lukes asked if it was possible to have power that is not detected as power and hence define the reality within which the question is asked – not just the question itself.
But all of this study has an underlying assumption – the actor intends to influence the outcome. None of this study answers my friend’s question.

I see his point. He is a large man. He would get accused of bullying because he is big. He has a booming voice. He gets accused of bullying because he is loud. He is accused of using power when that is not his intention.

I think the second more important question is what is the role of intention within a power dynamic?

I have always made it clear that I believe that life is lived in a series of choices. Choice is the increment of living. We go from choice to choice, acting on those deliberate and often non-deliberate decisions. The whole purpose of power is to impact those choices. Certainly when choices are made without the consideration of the whole gambit of possibilities, then there is a “Lukes” type, or layer, of power which is at work and goes unrecognized and therefore unaddressed.

When we participate in that “system” of power I suppose we have no intention and the goal of the power dynamic propagates itself.

Using power without intending to use it is still power because it is essential to see it as a method of acting on the subject not as a characteristic of the actor.

I don’t know if I have an answer for you.
However I think the question of intention is still the most important question we can ask.

It seems that few of us live a deliberate life. We act on memory and habit and seldom question the nature of our lifestyle and its purposes. We are so good at power we don’t even have to try to use it. We just do.

The significant question isn’t whether or not it is still power if/when we are not intending to use it? The question is whether or not this is a true life if we are not deliberately living it?

When it comes to intention, power is just one of those things we do without intention.

Intention - that is a whole new ballgame. Power is about forming intention. It is about controlling intention. It is another dynamic that has to be recognized and overcome.

Choice never goes away - whether or not we make one.