Talk:Power (philosophy)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is supported by the Sociology WikiProject, which gives a central approach to sociology and related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article Power (philosophy), or visit the project page for more details on the projects. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. |
| High | This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. |
 |
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Philosophy, which collaborates on articles related to philosophy. To participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page for more details. | ||||||||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||||
| ??? | This article has not yet received an importance rating on the importance scale. | ||||||||
|
|||||||||
Contents |
[edit] Mandarin Word for Power
I am a Mandarin speaker and the Mandarin word quoted in this article, "能力", actually means "ability" in many circumstances and the word "权力" is almost exclusively used to describe the English word "Power" in a sociological sense. The character "权" means "right" as in "the right to do something" and it contains an implication of power in itself. "力", meaning "force" or "power" in itself, is used to emphasize that the "right that is forceful or powerful". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.98.145.69 (talk) 01:36, 27 January 2007 (UTC).
[edit] Types and sources of power
it seems to me that this section has no other effect then to confuse the user. there are many more concepts of power types and sources not mentioned here, and they all relate to a certain theory. Hence, I think it would be wise to remove this section and concetrate on extending the 'theories of power' section, where we could maybe ad subsections 'types of power' and 'sources of power' identified in each theory. --Boszko2 09:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I would like to see Hannah Arendt's definition of power on the page as well. She separates strength (the forcing of people to do something) and power (the persuasion of people to do something or people, voluntarily, working together to get something done). -Jared
[edit] Merge
In the German page, the "bases of power" have already been integrated to the article on power.
- I agree with the sugestion of merging the 2 articles about power. The ideas discussed are very similar.
- Thanks
[edit] Pace?
what is meant by pace in "(pace advocates of empowerment)"? --Reagle 01:57, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Baudrillard and seduction theory
not bad, but what about mentioning w:Baudrillard and seduction theory as an alternative to power theories?
- these theories ussualy refer to 'power of seduction', soit wouldn't make much sense to contrast these concepts in the way you propose - the point is that we (or some of us) are being less and less disciplined, so more seduction is needed to maintain existing power relations --Boszko2 09:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Quote
I can't see how the above quote belongs in this article. It seems to me they should create their own article if they want to advertise/promote their organization.
"the creation in 1990 of a permanent coalition of progressive organizations — the ... is a coalition of labor and community organizations with broad demographic representation of the state." Jim 16:01, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit] "Even if"?
In this first sentence,
- Sociologists usually define power as the ability to impose one's will on others, even if those others resist in some way.
isn't the "even if..." part redundant? If not, why is it needed? --Ryguasu 03:05, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)
- This is the ghost of Weber -- or at least a paraphrase of his definition of power. The "even if" is critical, to point out that power often consists in the ability to get people to do what you want voluntarily (or at least without overt resistance). BrendanH 10:38, Apr 20, 2004 (UTC)
-
- I have added a quote to make the point that Weber really lies behind the definition of power at the top of the article. I would like to incorporate a discussion of Weber's key role in the sociological analysis of power, but am far too rusty on the area.
-
- I will remark in passing that the paragraph on Foucault is defective, in that the concepts described are not clearly about power, in that there is no mention of the beneficiary of the phenomenon (i.e. who holds the power inherent in taken-for-granted ideas) nor how they bring it about. BrendanH 16:42, Apr 29, 2004 (UTC)
[edit] On Power Personified.
There is a delicious portrait of the very inner workings of power:
It is of Russian President Vladimir Putin and champion Olympic Greco-Roman wrestler Alexander Karelin.
Karelin towers over Putin in a protective posture while Putin shows a hovering glee.
The "pinnicle" of society "needs" the more "base" elements for its existence.
Find it at: [1]
--Scroll1 22:05, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
[edit] My take (rational choice kindof)
I wrote this before reading the article. Now that I read it, it seems it's mostly the view of rational choice. Dunno this is useful to anyone:
Power in a given environment, is the ability to influence said environment according to one's own will. In an environment with conscious actors, power over them can exist in two forms:
1) In the ability to change that environment, such that actors in that environment will react to these changes in the interest of the powerful person. For example, money gives power: If somebody wants a bridge to be built and can change the environment by having enough money given to people who can build the bridge, they will build the bridge according to his/her will.
2) In the ability to change how actors percieve that environment. For example, moral authority gives power. If a religious leader wants a bridge to be built, he might be able to state that his deity wants his people to build said bridge. If people consider following that deity an authority, and believe the religious leader represents the deity, then they will try to build the bridge in question. The only relevant part of observable reality that has changed, are the attitudes of people reacting to a percieved change in their reality. Having this kind of influence, is what makes an act communication.
One could argue, that, as all will is determined by the environment of the actor, nobody has real power. Actors and the non-conscious environment can however not fully predict the influence they have. Thus they determine the actor fully, but not according to their own will. To have complete power, not only would one actor have to determine all behaviour of the others, but also have full knowledge of how he does it, how they will react.
influence + knowledge of that influence = power.
- this equation is in fact the definition of power put forth by Dennis Wrong in his book Power and is the target of different criticisms. in my view the best of these critiques are found in Stewart Clegg's Circutis of Power. Also, you mention 'full power' - this is a notion that is disregarded by most contemporary theorists of power, mainly because of the broad consensus on the relatinal nature of power. --Boszko2 09:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] merge
The piece on bases of power simply sums up one perspective on the forms and sources of power - in fact, I think it does so somewhat unhelpfully, as it does not clearly distinguish between the two, and approaches them from what seems more a management-related than a sociological perspective. Galbraith's distinction between them and separation of each into Condign, Compensatory and Conditioned (forms) and Personality, Property, Organisation (sources) in his 'An Anatomy of Power' is probably more helpful.
__________________________________
ZERO-SUM POWER
Under feminism mention is made of “power over” versus “power to”. Isn’t “power to” referring to things while “power over” refers to people? Modern society’s - and therefore the average person’s - power over things is ever-increasing; power over people, which is here the subject under discussion (and also in the article on political power), must be a constant. Power must be a zero-sum game. This is obvious at election time where one side wins and other side dips out. (Or perhaps they share power, but whatever happens there is a certain amount of power going begging and that’s it; both sides can’t have full power.)
Since, at a given instant in a given territory, there is a certain fixed number of people, there is, in that territory, a fixed amount of power available to be allocated or grabbed.
Though these are statements of the bleeding obvious, no one seems to be stating them. The field marshal has certain powers over 100000 men. There can’t be two field marshals having the same powers over the same 100000. A second field marshal could only exercise the same powers if he has another 100000 men.
The captain has power over, say, 40 of the 100000. (Only one captain.) A sergeant-major also has power over the same 40. So the field marshal, the captain, and the sergeant-major has a bit of each soldier. That means power is partitioned within each soldier. There is only 100% of a soldier to be had and, unless he is a zombie, some of him must be left to him.
So, at some instant, or maybe on average: my boss has 40% of me, my wife has 30%, the kids have 15%, the dog has 3%, the passers-by in the street have 2%, the prime minister has 1%, the taxation department has 4% and what’s left is my power over myself. Or maybe I should not be regarded as an amorphous blob but should be partitioned first into realms - professional realm, domestic realm, recreational realm… and those power-holders would have different amounts of each realm.
Of course I have a piece of my wife, kids, etc including a bit of the boss and even a teensy bit of the prime minister. I don’t have as much of the boss as his bank manager does and my power over him will depend on the power I have over my co-workers when I urge them to go on strike.
“all parties to all relationships have some power” Do they? The prisoner has power over his torturer? The amount of power you can have must precisely depend on the number of people, the proportion of their lives you command and the ability of those people to do what you want. The measure of power cannot be in kilowatts. It must be in time, say minutes per day, per person multiplied by the number of persons. But the total amount is fixed and every individual's 100% is distributed. It can be traded, gifted, arrogated, or kept but whatever happens if someone gets more, someone else loses.
The theorists on this page try to classify power and argue over its intrinsic nature. Does anyone recognise power’s zero-sum nature and theorise its distribution?
- Pepper 150.203.227.130 02:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Correct citation for Galbraith?
The article cites An Anatomy of Power by Galbraith JK; the only citation I can find is for The anatomy of power / John Kenneth Galbraith; Publisher info Boston : Houghton Mifflin, 1983. I wonder if the cite is wrong in the article, or if this is the one intended?
[edit] Third Wave
The 'Third Wave' link on this page. It's disamgbiguation page doesnt seem to have the page that it refers to, or am I wrong? Nic007 10:28, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 04:22, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
